Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Science News

Man Cures Himself of HIV? 909

IZ Reloaded writes "A 25 yr old British man could be the first person in the world to have cured himself of the deadly HIV virus. He was diagnosed HIV positive in 2002. After another test done the following year, he stunned doctors when his test results turned negative. He is now a wanted man after researchers and doctors want him to come back for further testing but he has so far refused. Experts think he could have something in his immune system that may help in producing vaccines against HIV."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Man Cures Himself of HIV?

Comments Filter:
  • How sure? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jrockway ( 229604 ) * <> on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:09AM (#14024503) Homepage Journal
    What if the test was wrong? Maybe he didn't have AIDS when first tested, or maybe the test didn't pick it up this time. And why is the guy afraid to be retested?
    • Re:How sure? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ValiantSoul ( 801152 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:14AM (#14024516)
      Maybe he doesn't want to for the rest of his life be studied by some scientists. I would love to help people but I sure as hell wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life in front of doctors if I was in his position, I would rather continue a "normal" life (you know, normal, /. reading computer geek)
      • Science subject (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Crizp ( 216129 ) <> on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:24AM (#14024553) Homepage
        Most likely, if he agreed to testing, they'd only need a blood sample now and then. Take a pint. Instant research material, fresh from the cooler, for ages.
      • by nacturation ( 646836 ) <nacturation&gmail,com> on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:51AM (#14024643) Journal
        No research necessary -- the answer is in plain sight: "A 25 yr old British man could be the first people...

        Clearly this man is more than one person, judging by the use of the word "people" when referring to an individual. Perhaps when the man was first tested it was his second person they tested. Upon subsequent tests, it's his first person. Case closed! Another fine caper solved by ScuttleMonkey.
      • Re:How sure? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by AuMatar ( 183847 )
        This is a disease thats killing hundreds of thousands a year. The very least he can do is have some blood taken and get some physicals. I'm not at all certain he should get the choice not to.

        I would, however, be very leery of the original test. The aids test does give false positives, I would expect him to be one.
        • Re:How sure? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by aussie_a ( 778472 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @07:21AM (#14024901) Journal
          I'm not at all certain he should get the choice not to.

          Oh I agree. The second the sick become cured they should have their liberties and freedom to make choices about what they do with their body be taken away. Perhaps it should start with having to be tested indefinitely, and progress to having to donate their non-necessary organs.
          • Re:How sure? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by mattspammail ( 828219 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @07:50AM (#14024972)

            Yes, exacltly! Finally, someone gets it!

            Okay, so don't force him to submit for tests. But look at the bright side. Maybe karma will get him, even if HIV (turned AIDS) won't.

            Either way, at this point, he's ranking very high on the piece of shit-o-meter.

            • Re:How sure? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by syukton ( 256348 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @08:37AM (#14025098)
              Either way, at this point, he's ranking very high on the piece of shit-o-meter.

              Why? because he doesn't want to be a lab rat? Because he doesn't want some drug company patenting his genes? Because he doesn't want anybody turning a profit on his immune system?
              • Re:How sure? (Score:5, Insightful)

                by mattspammail ( 828219 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @09:20AM (#14025250)
                Perhaps I'm reading it incorrectly, but anyone who is cured might want to help humanity instead of first aiming their crosshairs at the company who tested him and looking to sue. Perhaps he'll change his tune soon, in which case, the world (most noticeably the gay community, of which he is a member) might truly be better off because of him. But at this point, he's a piece of shit. Holding on to the possible genetic KEY to stopping this disease is among the most selfish things I've ever heard. Why is he so afraid of helping out? Being in the history books as the person whose immune system helped solved HIV wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Instead, he's out there thinking he's Darva Conger.
                • Re:How sure? (Score:5, Insightful)

                  by JabberWokky ( 19442 ) <> on Monday November 14, 2005 @09:52AM (#14025407) Homepage Journal
                  To you, I simply say that other people are certainly within their rights to have radically different priorities. But I have a feeling you already know that.

                  It's really to everybody attacking you that I will point out that it's well within mattspammail's rights to feel the guy is "a piece of shit", and even to voice that opinion. He's judging the man on his actions... you know, the legitimate and proper way to judge someone? I don't think you'll find some trick of logic to convince him otherwise. It's a fairly strightforward judgement that somebody who turns their back on entire continents worth of infected people has made a terrible decision.

                  You can judge a person as being horrible due to their actions and still understand that it's their right to be so.


                • Re:How sure? (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by sjames ( 1099 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @11:41AM (#14026329) Homepage Journal

                  Perhaps I'm reading it incorrectly, but anyone who is cured might want to help humanity instead of first aiming their crosshairs at the company who tested him and looking to sue.

                  Given the odds of a botched test vs the odds of fighting off the AIDS virus, he can easily enough be forgiven for assuming the first test was screwed up and so needlessly left him in fear for the rest of his life for a period of over a year.

                  • Re:How sure? (Score:4, Interesting)

                    by canajin56 ( 660655 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @01:41PM (#14027525)
                    Good point, and it got me thinking...I tried looking up how accurate the HIV test is. All the websites I found initially claimed its between 99.99% - 100% accurate, with false positives being essentially impossible. Research papers, however, put it between 98.6%, and 99% accurate. So out of 100 people without HIV, at least 1 will yield a false positive. Note that these errors do not include lab errors and faulty tests, which can be countered by redoing the test, but the actual chance of somebody without the disease reading positive no matter how many tests are done. (In other words, its the accuracy of what you are testing for, rather than how you are testing for it)

                    The most interesting thing about HIV tests is that they actually check for AIDS instead! The most common test, the one claimed to be false-positive proof, works by counting your white blood cells. If you have HIV but not AIDS (Yet?) it will read negative. If you are feeling under the weather due to job stress and the flu, it will read positive. If you have lukemia, positive. If you have been exposed to radiation, positive. If you are taking certain herbal anti-fungal agents that supress the immune system, positive. In other words, it is all but useless.

              • Re:How sure? (Score:5, Insightful)

                by thuh Freak ( 725126 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @09:30AM (#14025295) Homepage
                Because HIV leads to AIDS. AIDS has killed millions of people (idk the figure), this person is (presumed to be) the first to actually be cured of it, and he chooses to deny modern medical science the opportunity of even attempting to help others. the are huge huge tracts of land of human beings dying with this disease, and he does nothing to even try and help. he is a shithead. there aren't enough cursewords for a selfish person like that. if i recognized him on the street, i'd piss in his eye.
                • Re:How sure? (Score:5, Interesting)

                  by onepoint ( 301486 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @10:34AM (#14025650) Homepage Journal
                  I look at this situation from 2 views, one personal experience and one on a business level. My father had the chance to become a test subject to a new device, a rather important one.

                  At the meeting which my father wanted me at, he asked " since it's me you are testing on, what is the cut of the action I will get for each one sold" Honest questions ask jokingly. The reply was: you got to be kidding, we don't do such a thing.

                  my father turned serious and said to them, "OK, I'm no longer interested". They replied, "but you'll be dead in a year", dad said " OK, so what, find someone else". We just got up and left... this was 10 years ago and dad is still alive, he's got some special rare blood that they pay ton of money for, but instead he finds children research places and gives it away as charity.

                  From a business stand point, the guy is sitting on a gold mine. I would offer myself up to the back end residual bidder and get the royalties.

                  From a human level, I would negotiate that the cure should be offered straight out as generic drug. everyone could win.

                  The guy has a right to do nothing legally. Now the question comes, does he have the moral rights to do nothing?


            • Re:How sure? (Score:5, Informative)

              by somersault ( 912633 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @10:44AM (#14025738) Homepage Journal
              From BBC News website ( []) "He has told the papers he would do anything he could to help find a cure." Sounds to me like he's not being as much of a piece of shit as people here led me to believe =p
          • by indifferent children ( 842621 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @09:00AM (#14025176)
            I'm sorry, but your immune system was released under the GPL, and you must release any modifications.
        • by Afrosheen ( 42464 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @12:54PM (#14027071)
          Come on dude, we all watched Spielberg's E.T. We know how things turn out when scientists get involved!
      • by mochan_s ( 536939 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @11:59AM (#14026538)

        Maybe he doesn't want to for the rest of his life be studied by some scientists. I would love to help people but I sure as hell wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life in front of doctors if I was in his position, I would rather continue a "normal" life (you know, normal, /. reading computer geek)

        Are you crazy!

        If I had the cure to HIV running in my veins, I'd first get legal advice on how to best financially exploit the situation.

    • Re:How sure? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Crizp ( 216129 ) <> on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:17AM (#14024530) Homepage
      As TFA said; he became depressed and suicidal when he got diagnosis. Then, he learns that it has gone away. I suspect that he's afraid that the next test he takes will be positive; probably not able to cope with that.

      It's always a possibility the first, or second test was erroneous.
      • Re:How sure? (Score:5, Informative)

        by arth1 ( 260657 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @10:32AM (#14025637) Homepage Journal
        Crizp (216129) wrote:
        As TFA said; he became depressed and suicidal when he got diagnosis. Then, he learns that it has gone away. I suspect that he's afraid that the next test he takes will be positive; probably not able to cope with that.

        Not in this case. From AFA:
        14 months later a blood test suggested that he no longer carried the virus. A further three tests confirmed the finding.

        Perhaps the guy just wants to lead a normal life now. He should be in his full right to choose so, and no one has the right to claim that he must do anything -- it's his life and his choices. He doesn't owe HIV infected people or "humanity" any damn thing.

        Someone here proposed harassing him. I find that totally reprehensible, and just recommending it is illegal most places. Post that recommendation again with your full name and address.

        What's next? What else should be forced upon individuals because it's clearly in the best interest of humanity? Where are the limits? Anyone who doesn't think there are any, and that the need of humanity goes before the need of individuals have justified Dr Mengele and his research too.

    • Re:How sure? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      HIV != AIDS just to let you know
      HIV is a precursor to AIDS
    • Re:How sure? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ilitirit ( 873234 )
      For interest's sake: []

      Some 14 months later he was offered another test by doctors, which came back negative.

      He sought compensation but has apparently been told there is no case to answer because there was no fault with the testing procedure.
    • Re:How sure? (Score:3, Informative)

      Certainly a false positive is a problem. A friend of mine had a positive test for HIV come back after donating blood, which surprised him because he does not engage in the sort of risky behavior that typically puts one at risk for HIV infection.

      From the article, it sounds like he only got two tests for HIV, so it's possible the first one was just a false positive. However, the description of him as suicidal and the fact that he waited so long before getting a second test seems to indicate that either he
    • Root kit (Score:5, Funny)

      by iMaple ( 769378 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @06:16AM (#14024713)
      or maybe the virus is just using the Sony rootkit
  • Refused? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Carthag ( 643047 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:10AM (#14024505) Homepage
    I don't know where you get this, I saw an interview with him last night on TV, and he said he wanted to help other people, and that he was cooperating with scientists to figure out what caused the virus to disappear.
  • Patent... (Score:5, Funny)

    by xyvimur ( 268026 ) <<koo3ahzi> <at> <>> on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:12AM (#14024511) Homepage
    Maybe he should patent himself, his DNA and other things ;)
  • by Zog The Undeniable ( 632031 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:15AM (#14024521)
    Occam's Razor suggests that the original tests were wrong. I know he had multiple tests, but they're not 100% accurate.

    There's something fishy about the way this story is being stage managed by the News Of The World (a notoriously downmarket and sensationalist paper). I predict an expose and retraction within the week.

  • It's not surprising (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ReformedExCon ( 897248 ) <> on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:18AM (#14024533)
    It's certainly unusual and unexpected in such a short period of time, but it ought not be surprising that some people may have immune systems that can fight the HIV virus. It's evolution in action.

    The Plague, which ravaged Europe and decimated its urban populations may be one reason the immunity (or strong resistance, if you prefer) to HIV was found first in a European. Those who survived the Plague, among those who were exposed to it, had a genetic trait that gave them immunity. This may be one reason why Europeans are generally less susceptible to the virus than other ethnicities whose populations were not exposed to a very widespread and violently virulent disease.

    Good news for this guy! Hopefully the answer to the disease is found in his bloodstream.
    • by jurt1235 ( 834677 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:40AM (#14024608) Homepage
      In some countries in Africa scientists also discovered that certain prostitutes did not have aids. Since the infection rate is extremely high, they interviewed does prostitutes and concluded that the only reason that they did not have aids was or extreme luck (win powerball lottery everytime), or immunity against the virus. They also thought they could use these women for their research. After the initial news I have not seen any other news about this anymore.
    • CCR5 mutation (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The reason some people are resistant to the plague, and HIV, is due to a mutation in the CCR5 gene []. This gene encodes an immune system cell surface protein that HIV uses to bind to the cell. People missing this gene generally can't get infected with HIV.

      This has been known for quite some time and is not news. This guy most likely has the CCR5 mutation. Lucky for him, but it ain't a cure for the other 90% of the population.
      • CXCR4 mutation? (Score:5, Informative)

        by De_Boswachter ( 905895 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @06:56AM (#14024827) Homepage
        CCR5 is a key receptor for HIV entry in cells (macrophage-like) relevant for viral dissemination. Indeed, the man could have some form of CCR5 variant. My guess is that they already checked for the delta32 version and that they're drawing a lot of blood from this guy and doing a lot of DNA sequencing.

        I've always wondered whether there would be a similar mutation on the CXCR4 receptor, which is another key receptor. This one's in cells (helper T-cell-like) that are relevant for the persistence of HIV in the body. Since, apparently, the virus was able to get into the bloodstream of this man, my two cents would be that CXCR4 rather than CCR5 could play arole in this phenomenon of self-healing.
    • by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @07:53AM (#14024984) Homepage Journal
      I say if there is someone alive now who survived the plague way back when then we should be studying him for his immortability rather than his HIV resistance.
  • he's not the first (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PermanentMarker ( 916408 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:18AM (#14024534) Homepage Journal
    There have been more reports of people who cured themselves alltough they are exremly rare. Anyway it is how evolution works, by random creations and statistics i gues in the end a few survive. How would they test this man i wonder? Would they clone his bone cells to to make white bloodcells? what's next in genetics analyse thos cells and combine with people who survived other diseases, and then give everyone a DNA upgrade ?
  • by antifoidulus ( 807088 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:19AM (#14024535) Homepage Journal
    For example, what kind of test did he use? Most of the HIV tests actually test for antibodies, not the HIV virus itself. It is completely possible, and does happen on occaision, that the body will produce antibodies that are similiar to HIV antibodies but there is no HIV in the body. The antibodies don't do anything, but they do confirm the presence of the virus. The body then could have later stopped producing the antibodies.
    • Not anymore. (Score:4, Informative)

      by DrYak ( 748999 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @10:06AM (#14025507) Homepage
      Most of the HIV tests actually test for antibodies

      Wrong. They did, but not anymore.

      Most *MODERN* test both antibodies produced by host (appears several weeks up to a few months post infection) AND viral antigens (protein p24 is a popular target, and is present in blood after 16days post infection.).

      Our hospital uses such combined test. Also, for increase accuracy, two different tests, from two different producers, each one testing both targets. So if all four results (test 1 Ag, test 1 Ab, test 2 Ag, test 2 Ab) are the same, chances are the answer is erronous are *VERY VERY VERY* low.

      Some test, add also a check for viral genes (gag protein is said to be rather stable across mutants, is detectable after 12 days post-infection). This test target is less popular because RNA (which the virus is made of) is less stable and more difficult to replicate through RT-PCR. This is another target that *may* have been controlled by the hospital.

      The articles say that the british hospital controlled the tests (because the patient tried to sue them) and conclude both were correct.
      So it is likely that the hostipal uses several tests on different targets (like our does), and because each time all results concorded, there's very low chance that the results are wrong.

      Link for info on HIV tests []
  • Editorial error (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:19AM (#14024536)
    From headline:

    He is now a wanted man after researchers and doctors want him to come back for further testing but he has so far refused.

    From TFA:

    He has told the papers he would do anything he could to help find a cure.
    • Re:Editorial error (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:29AM (#14024570)
      It's not an editorial error, it's an inconsistancy in the behaviour of the allegedly cured man. He says he wants to help the scientists, but he's not willing to go through the tests. It seems likely that he's an attention whore.
  • I knew it! (Score:5, Funny)

    by scooter.higher ( 874622 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:28AM (#14024567) Homepage Journal
    The Flying Spaghetti Monster proves once again that evolution does not happen by chance! This man must be a pirate, or a Pastafarian at a minimum!
  • by Xyleene ( 874520 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:29AM (#14024568)

    I'm sure I am not the only one that has seen documentries that include African prostitutes that have gathered a similar immunity to the virus. One of them was a Nova episode that aired on PBS last week (atleast I think it was last week). The women are exposed to the disease many times per day but seem unnafected by it. This sounds like a similar case for the following reasons:

    Article []

    The article states that 1) The prostitutes are completely void of the virus and 2) The trait is not genetic. Therefore I assume that the people contract the virus and their immune system then deals with it. In this man's case if the first test was done before his immune system kicked in and the second one after then this could explain the result.

    P.S. I am not a doctor or in the medical field so I leave myself open to corrections. (and not just for my english ;0)

  • Maybe... (Score:5, Informative)

    by HaveQuick ( 755912 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:31AM (#14024572)
    It is possible that this guy could have cured himself of HIV. There are a number of possibilities...

    1) He was infected with a weakened serotype of HIV.
    2) He has some unusual CCXR gene polymorphisms or some other gene defect leading to reduced ability of HIV to replicate, or the ability to clear the virus.

    It is possible the original test was wrong. However, in virtually all labs I know of, on a positive test there is a repeat and follow up test done. This normally a western blot. So, the odds of the result being wrong is exceedingly low.

    If this is for real... this guy is the luckiest son of a bitch alive.
  • by Hurricane78 ( 562437 ) <(deleted) (at) (> on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:35AM (#14024592)
    Already some years ago I read that some aficans born in those areas with high aids distribution were born with a natural mutation making them immune to aids. Several laboratorys tried to extract a medicament out of it.

    I wonder what happened to it...

    But to have a second mutation for immunity are great news... Now i hope it does not get sweeped unter the carpet from big companies earning money with selling syptopm-fighting medicaments that don't *really* help at all...
  • by AliasMoze ( 623272 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:37AM (#14024597)
    He's a witch!!!
  • it is not in the interest of any disease to kill its host. the disease wants your body to replicate it and spread it. a dead body for a disease is a dead end

    so what happens after the initial explosion of cases is that a disease evolves to limit mortality: the germs that get passed on are the ones that are able to somehow keep the host alive as long as possible to continue the spread. the point is to commandeer the body to replicate as many copies as possible and spread it for as long as possible, but not to sap the body's resources so much as to kill the host. the HIV you could get today can kill you, but not as fast and with not as much certainty as the HIV you could get in 1985

    killer pandemics happen because a virus or bacteria stumbled by mistake into the good fortune of easy spread amongst a population of animals, the mortality is just an unwanted side effect. this is true of the spanish flu of 1918 too: what once could kill you easily, well you yourself probably got that exact same strain sometime in your life, and it was probably a mild case of the flu or sniffles

    this attenuation is true of all diseases. but don't let it fill you with false confidence. the flu or HIV can still kill you, easily. just a little less easily
    • And you have proof of this?

      There is no reason for HIV to become "milder". It is a long term infection which provides its host ample time to reproduce and begin raising a child. It is spread only through close contact and, most likely, repeated contact (See the study comparing infection rates between Africans and S.E.Asians).

      To be honest, with the 5 to 20 year dormancy, HIV is rather well suited for a host with a reproductive cycle that starts at in the early to mid teens. It would be perfect for a creature
    • Interesting. If it is in the disease's best interest to keep the host alive for maximum proliferation, than with each evolutionary cycle, the virus will protect the host more and more.

      This means that, within time, virusses will evolve into the Means for Man to achieve Immortality in some kind of twisted mutual-benefit relationship. (mutualism)

      I should write Science Fiction books.

  • by Kawahee ( 901497 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:52AM (#14024649) Homepage Journal
    It's nothing 'new', there have been reports from Africa of this happening ever since the outbreak, but because of their developing nation status they haven't had the technology to confirm it, and nobody's bothered investigating.

    It's sort of sad that it's taken this long to confirm.
  • Some explanations... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by John Leeming ( 160817 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:58AM (#14024665)
    First, his wanting compensation was his initial are told you have HIV, an incurable disease, and you plan what remains of your life. Then, the doctor says, "Ooops! We're wrong! You're going to live!"

    Immediate reaction: Sue the moron who screwed up your test. And anyone who says otherwise is a liar, because you know we all would do just that in any typical situation, right?

    However, in his likely initial investigation, with solicitor in tow, he finds out that, DAMN! He is cured after all!


    Now...stop and consider the situation.

    He's cured. He's alive. Barring suicide or accident, he's now the world's documented repository for The Cure for AIDS.

    He's facing a life sentence now, literally, of being drained of his blood on a regular basis, having it shipped all over the world, and essentially being better protected than George W. Bush visiting a gay cowboy coke bar.

    Unless and until they can isolate his factor, whether blood, genetic, mutational or whatever, he is going to be a prisoner of his condition...and Ghod help him if some pharmaceutical corporate patents his blood and makes him pay up or give up.

    Whether he wants to cooperate or not is going to be moot...sooner or later, he will be drafted/conscripted/incarcerated under some obscure public safety law and turned into State property in the UK/SCotland. If he were in the US, he'd be stamped "PROPERTY OF HALLIBURTON" and turned into a rich person's personal inoculation center.

    He may _want_ to cooperate and be sure everyone who needs to be is cured.

    Reality, on the other hand, is likely smashing him in the face and making him well aware of what the future holds for him.

    His only hope is that we find others like him, or find out it's a relatively simple procedure to duplicate what his body is doing and mass-produce it...and even then, it's highly doubtful that the medical companies will ever let him see a penny for it.

    Too cynical? Too bad.

  • Re: The real deal. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EddyPearson ( 901263 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @06:20AM (#14024726) Homepage
    In 2002 this guys was tested, now they found HIV Fighting T Cells in his blood stream (Expected for an HIV patient) but no sign of the virus (Again, normal in the early stages) then, when the tested him later there was no virus, and no T cells.

    So they claim a cure, However this could just as easily been a results as a localised infection (perhaps in a few skin cells) that had then died.

    If the guy really did kill off the HIV virus, then those anti-bodies will still be readily available (If you kill it once, your body will kill it again, no problem)
  • Tests Were Accurate (Score:5, Informative)

    by John Leeming ( 160817 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @08:00AM (#14025001)
    These tests are redundant to prevent misdiagnosis; I know, because I've got a "false positive" condition that comes up as AIDS too often. Rather than going to one source, look to others for more information.

    Then look up "John Moore" in the "human patent" case to see what this poor sap is in for...,,2087-18703 40,00.html#121 []

    "Stimpson was tested three times in August 2002 at the Victoria clinic for sexual health in central London and the results showed he was producing HIV antibodies to fight the disease."

    "In October 2003, after impressing doctors with his good health, Stimpson was offered a new test, which came back negative. Further tests in December 2003 and March last year also proved negative."

    "The tests were re-checked by the Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust when Stimpson threatened litigation believing there must be a mistake, but the results confirmed all the tests had been accurate."

  • by Gopal.V ( 532678 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @08:57AM (#14025163) Homepage Journal
    Virtual Light [] has a guy called JD Shapely, who was a gay prostitute who was the first to become immune to AIDS. And a vaccine was based on his blood cells.

    Science and Fiction ... sometimes meet in a book.
  • by adrianbaugh ( 696007 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @12:46PM (#14026979) Homepage Journal
    The summary is very misleading. The man has now said, in two national newspapers, that he will help research in any way he can.

    He did earlier refuse to help, but that was at the point where he was still considering suing the doctors because of the initial positive test - obviously you don't expect a second test to come up negative because AIDS generally doesn't just go away, so when it did he naturally thought the first test had been wrong and was pissed off with the doctors. However, later his health authority confirmed that there had been no mistake with either test and he changed his mind and now wishes to help by undergoing further tests.

    So ease off the guy, okay? It's the guy who didn't research the story properly before writing the summary that's the asshole here, not the cured-of-AIDS guy.

The amount of beauty required launch 1 ship = 1 Millihelen