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."
How sure? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How sure? (Score:4, Insightful)
Science subject (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Science subject (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Science subject (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Science subject (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Science subject (Score:5, Funny)
sorry, sorry...
Re:Science subject (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How sure? (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Re:How sure? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
--
Evan
Re:How sure? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
Re:How sure? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
onepoint
Re:How sure? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, like all of those young girls in South Africa who were raped by men with AIDS [truthorfiction.com]. Those little irresponsible bitches -- ruining it for the rest of us!
Perhaps, just for a second, you should step off of your high horse. Maybe some day you'll appreciate someone not looking down their nose at you when you're in a very bad position. It's always someone else's mess until someone you love is affected. It's clear that you've never seen someone close to you wither away and die from this horrible disease. Perhaps when it does happen, you should mention to that person that you're not going to waste any tears for them, since it was (most likely) a result of their irresponsible behavior.
Re:How sure? (Score:5, Insightful)
Both AIDS and rape are problems to be addressed by everyone, not just rapists/victims or HIV+ people. Often times, the responsibility supercedes those who are to blame.
Drug development costs (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How sure? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How sure? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How sure? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How sure? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How sure? (Score:5, Funny)
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:Wait (Score:5, Funny)
Hey man, didn't you read the GP!? He wants a normal life. Can't you understand that watching 10-12 hours of TV a week, working some shitty job, and breeding is more important than curing a disease which will destroy millions of lives?
Re:Wait (Score:5, Funny)
Given that he contracted the HIV from his "44-year-old HIV-positive partner, Juan Gomez", I'd say breeding is not that high on his list of priorities.
Re:Wait (Score:4, Funny)
It doesn't mean they don't try breeding every night, it's just that he does not get pregnant...
Re:Wait (Score:5, Insightful)
I would (up to a point), but I want the freedom to choose to do so.
Re:Wait (Score:5, Funny)
Fine, you have the freedom to do so. You just don't have the freedom to not do so. :)
Re:Wait (Score:5, Insightful)
The President, the VP, Attorney General Gonzalez and a cooperative bunch at the Pentagon and the various intelligence services have decided to kidnap people and imprison them around the world, with various flavors of continual torture and mind breaking, because they believe national security trumps "human rights" and established law.
What's the moral difference between that, and grabbing "Patient Omega" in the name of finding an immunity factor for a disease killing millions? To up the stakes "24" style, what if HIV mutates and finds an easier vector? How about then?
As a libertarian, small "l", I believe that patient Omega here has the right to refuse to cooperate. However, we've collectively flushed human rights away for the sake of "security", in exchange for which we've got a lot of dreamed-up terrorist plots from men under the knife. In the case of Omega, we could actually stop a superepidemic.
Kidnapping is moral for the sake of fear, but not for saving millions or billions of lives? This is not an idle question in philosophy class. This is real and it is now. We've decided collectively that abduction and torture for an individual's lifetime is okay if we're afraid. Given that, what's the problem with putting Omega under the microscope, even against his will?
Under disaster conditions in Louisiana, people are being blocked by the armed forces and some private killers hired by the U.S. from returning to their homes. Force? Yup. No one cares.
Bush has straightforwardly declared he wants martial law and dictator powers if avian flu hits the U.S. Soldiers will grab people and lock them away, people will be shot if a soldier believes they warrant death. How is it okay to remove EVERYONE'S human rights if a bird flu epidemic hits, but not okay to drag one guy in for testing if the epidemic is HIV? Remember, HIV has killed millions. It's just not a quick as avian flu. HIV hits people doing naughty things, in the view of moralists, so it's not a priority?
"Ethics" is about more than fetuses and stem cells. Ethics is what we decide to care about, and we have to decide every day. Who gets shot, who gets their knees broken, who loses their freedom if we decide it should be so?
Re:How sure? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's always a possibility the first, or second test was erroneous.
Re:How sure? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Regards,
--
*Art
Re:How sure? (Score:3, Informative)
HIV is a precursor to AIDS
Re:How sure? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4432564.stm [bbc.co.uk]
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)
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)
Re:Root kit (Score:5, Funny)
No need to ask (Score:5, Informative)
Refused? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Refused? (Score:5, Informative)
He didn't trust original clinic (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Refused? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Refused? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a pretty amazing opportunity if you think about it.
Patent... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Patent...MOD UP!!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
But if we speak about funny ideas - the man seems to be willing to contribute to the research - so maybe he should state that all the results will be widely available (OpenSource license or something like that???)
Most likely explanation (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Most likely explanation (Score:3, Insightful)
The simplest solution is not always the correct one. In this case, since the potential benefits are so great, it seems worth looking into the possibility that he beat the disease.
Re:Most likely explanation (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Most likely explanation (Score:5, Informative)
Good grief. It doesn't *indicate* anything, or "suggest" in the manner the grandparent post used the word. It's a guideline or a rule of thumb that says, "choose the simpler possibility."
It's not surprising (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Other cases of HIV immunity (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Other cases of HIV immunity (Score:4, Informative)
CCR5 mutation (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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.
Re:It's not surprising (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It's not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly, not every form of plague immunity would translate to HIV immunity, but because of the similarities between the two pathogens, some types do transfer.
Re:It's not surprising (Score:3)
But oddly enough, spelling isn't your people's strong point, is it?
he's not the first (Score:4, Interesting)
Article lacking in details (Score:5, Insightful)
Not anymore. (Score:4, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]
Editorial error (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA:
Re:Editorial error (Score:4, Insightful)
I knew it! (Score:5, Funny)
First? What about the African Prostitutes et.al.? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [aegis.com]
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)
Re:First? What about the African Prostitutes et.al (Score:5, Informative)
Addendum: Prostitutes lose HIV immunity [bbc.co.uk]
A group of prostitutes thought to be immune to HIV have now become infected, causing dismay to scientists hoping to develop an Aids vaccine.
Re:First? What about the African Prostitutes et.al (Score:3, Interesting)
"The most probable explanation for the finding of HIV-specific CTL, able to kill virus-infected cells, in apparently uninfected but repeatedly HIV-exposed women is that they have been immunized by exposure to HIV," notes Dr. Sarah Rowland-Jones of the Molecular Immunology Group at Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford.
That would seem to contradict your genetic theory.
Maybe... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Old news... already happened in africa... (Score:3, Interesting)
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...
Man Cures Self of Aids (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obligatory... (Score:5, Funny)
HIV is getting milder (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:HIV is getting milder (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:HIV is getting milder (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that babies are usually infected by their mothers. And then die well before reproductive age.
Re:HIV is getting milder (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Regards,
Everything old is new again (Score:3, Interesting)
It's sort of sad that it's taken this long to confirm.
Some explanations... (Score:3, Interesting)
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!
WTF?
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)
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)
Then look up "John Moore" in the "human patent" case to see what this poor sap is in for...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1870
"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."
JD Shapely, aids martyr ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Science and Fiction
Incredibly misleading summary (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Infect Him Again (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Infect Him Again (Score:5, Informative)
He was going in for repeat tests every two months, so his status is well documented.
Re-Infect Him, yet again (Score:5, Funny)
Well, damn, I'm impressed.
Perhaps we should hit him with a dose of Anthrax and see if his immune system can whip up a cure for that, too while we are at it...
Re:Re-Infect Him, yet again (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Infect Him Again (Score:3, Interesting)
If it is bog standard ELISA it does not actually detect HIV. It detects antibodies produced against it. So if you do not have any immune responce to HIV whatsoever you will return a negative result.
There are other tests of course which are based on amplifying DNA off the original virus RNA template. Most of these are alpha quality and they are not done as a part of the normal testing procedure.
So the obvious question here is - what tests did he undergo.
Re:Infect Him Again (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Infect Him Again (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Infect Him Again (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Infect Him Again (Score:3)
Experts think he could have something in his immune system that may help in producing vaccines against HIV
as far as i know a vaccine is actually a little piece of the infection itself and some antibodys to fight it (which sometimes are even derivated from the same virus), so the human body is infected with both so it's immune system can skip the invention of antibodies and just massively reproduce them to fight this little tiny infection that came along,
Re:Waht's next? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This guy wants compensation?! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sure, let's blame the victim... (Score:3, Insightful)
But you don't have the ability to end world hunger. This guy could potentially advance our knowledge of the AIDS virus. Instead of doing that, though, he cries to himself about the "emotional trauma" of his experience, sues someone, and totally ignores the fact that millions of people are affected by this disease. Moreover, those millions of people weren't infected because of a choice the
Re:Sure, let's blame the victim... (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, nobody as far as I have seen has claimed he actually sued someone, only that he "sought compensation", which may very well include nothing more than writing a letter to the appropriate authorities stating his case and asking for it to be considered.
Second, have you personally verified that that is even accurate reporting?
Third, do you know his reason was "emotional trauma" and not for instance real economic impacts caused by the original diagnosis (such as cashing in his pension and spending money left and right because he had good reason to believe he didn't need it - for what you know he could have given his entire pension to charity)? The article also mentions him becoming suicidal and depressed, which may very well have affected his work and had economic impacts.
You're making unsubstantiated claims about this guys motivations which you have no basis for.
My point wasn't addressing the inherent inequality in our reality, it was addressing this guy's selfish and stupid behavior. Nevermind the fact that he does nothing, it's that he does nothing and sues someone! He knows first hand the trauma of this disease, but he's so self centered that he can't look out at the world and see all the good he could do with a little self sacrifice.
Quote from the article: "He has told the papers he would do anything he could to help find a cure."
So how exactly is it you know that he is doing nothing? You are again assuming one part of the article is true without any corroborating evidence while ignoring another part of the article and assuming the worst.
I'm not saying you can't be right, merely that you are jumping to an awful lot of conclusions with essentially no evidence.
Re:Sex with virgin = AIDS cure (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone else noticing the irony...? (Score:4, Insightful)