The Man Who Cured Himself Of AIDS?
Dean
The Independent reports on a man who first tested positive for HIV, then tested negative, and thus might hold 'the secret' to curing HIV disease. Those tests are so highly accurate, what else could it mean?
I wonder if he's at all related to the crystal meth user who didn't respond to HAART, indicating a newer, more lethal strain of HIV? Or no, wait, wrong story. I meant, maybe he's just benefitting from the fact that HIV is growing weaker over time? Maybe he's even related to one of the millions of Africans infected with HIV.... who aren't?
This would all be the same equal-opportunity infectious virus that wasn't equal-opportunity after all, and still isn't, right?
I predict that for their next trick, they will finally produce a vaccine, decades after promised, which they will say may not work all that well, giving "conservative" estimates based on equivocal lab results but "at least it's better than nothing." Then, after its release, they will pronounce that the results in the field are much better than expected and that the massive plague that ravaged North America, Europe, and Africa, savagely cutting down tens of millions of people whose bodies we can't even find, will be pronounced vanquished. Hundreds of billions of dollars well spent!
Somewhere in the background, I hear Peter Duesberg chuckling. (Speaking of which, I may be getting to meet that brilliant man himself soon. I'll probably have more news on the Maggiore front at that time as well.)
Now, how many other such false positives do you think there are?
In Africa, where millions are supposedly dying from the raging epidemic, they mostly don't even bother using those tests. Or haven't until quite recently.
I'm certainly feeling humbled.
By the way, got the name of anyone at CDC who'll answer my simple questions? Or are they too busy saving lives to return emails or answer phone calls?
What precisely is the rate of false-positives on those tests anyway? And what exactly are they measuring on those PCR tests anyway? Inquiring minds want to know!
I've Google'd before for false-positive rates on the different tests, so I know it's out there. Every test has *some* false positive rate, so taking two different tests means a smaller number (but still a number) will have a false positive on both.
Until 1994, the definition of AIDS in Africa relied on no HIV tests whatsoever, but rather a definition that looked suspiciously no different from malaria, cholera, and malnutrition. After 1994, they relied on something called the 1994 WHO expanded definition, which was exactly the same definition as before, but added that you should do an HIV test if you could. Including testing methods that are no longer allowed in the US or Europe because of their acknowledged inaccuracies.
So here in America, they finally acknowlege that the "equal-opportunity infector" isn't equal-opportunity after all. Except in Africa, where it is... but apparently isn't after all.
Me too. Then maybe someone there would answer my emails.
Meanwhile, it remains that according to CDC, HIV isn't an equal-opportunity infector after all, and that it appears that the numbers for Africa were exaggerated after all, doesn't it?
Who, me?
I've always agreed with you that I think the African AIDS numbers are unreliable, so I didn't feel the need to click again. I disagree with you about how unreliable they are, but I have never based a single argument I've made here on African data, and I'm not sure how it's relevant to what we're talking about right now. Hence no clicky.
So here is where we're at, as I see it:
1) The African AIDS crisis appears to have been wildly exaggerated.
2) The American AIDS crisis appears to have been exaggerated.
Would you agree?
The rate of false positives on a PCR test is potentially VERY high, as the test is extremely sensitive. I've read that the slightest lapse in protocol in collecting, handling or using the equipment can generate a false positive (often from residual left over from other tested samples), and some health authorities very strongly recommend that the test is only relevant or advisable if done in an academic research setting, which is less prone to error.
BUT - From reading the story, it seems that he didn't test positive on a PCR test (which detects a piece of the DNA of HIV and indicates presence of the virus); from the implication of the article, he tested positive on an ELISA HIV test that detects antibodies (it mentions the latency period for detection of HIV antibodies, whereas a PCR is considered accurate 24-48 hours or sooner after infection, and certainly when/if the individual is experiencing seroconversion symptoms).
I'm not sure what the rate of error is on the ELISA tests, but we know that some error exists.
This story seems like it could be overblown. Is it theoretically possible that he had HIV yet something about his body destroyed it or drove it into hiding? yeah. Is it very possible that he had a false positive ELISA and happened to catch a flu virus around the same time? Yes.
I'll give you a qualified 'yes'. Here are the qualifications:
On the African AIDS crisis, I'd have to do a lot more research than I feel like doing (and have the term defined) to know whether I agree with 'wildly'. I agree that it's been exaggerated, I'm not sure anyone really knows by how much. I disagree that the definitions are complete BS, but I agree they're much more subjective, and allow much more latitude for misdiagnosis whether intentional or unintentional.
I absolutely agree that many of the doomsday predictions for the AIDS epidemic in the USA made in the 1980's have turned out to be rubbish, much good may it do my social life now. Unlike you, I don't blame that so much on the science as on the policy makers. I don't think the science of the disease in the 1980's could have told us, for example, that everyone who got HIV would eventually die of AIDS. That was just a guess and it seems now to be wrong, ditto the het explosion.
The medical trust seems so certain they didn't make a mistake that they must have had some precautions, such as running the same test more than once. You could still mix up the blood samples though.
As far back as 1990--fifteen years ago--Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein said that HIV was probably immune-suppressive, but that the African AIDS crisis was probably overblown, and that it was also probably overblown in America as well. He said that some people who were HIV+ would probably never get sick, that some others might get sick but would not die, and that HIV was probably difficult to spread among heterosexuals. He said that likely few beyond gay men and IV drug users would ever get the dread disease.
To this day he is reviled as an "AIDS denialist."
So, was he wrong?
ELISA tests give plenty of false positives.
Cool. So a question: do you believe that there is a huge problem with millions dying of AIDS in Africa?
I'd say I'd agree with most of those statements, with the exception of "few beyond gay men and IV drug users would ever get the dread disease". The US and countries in Africa are not the whole AIDS world. Has there been any widespread discrediting of data from Asian countries that I don't know about? Thailand particularly.
And just so you know, Googling on 'root-bernstein aids denialist' gets you - this site as the first two links. I looked at the first two pages of links and could not find an example of anyone calling Root-Bernstein an AIDS denialist. If he's reviled that way to this day, it's really quietly.
So there is no AIDS crisis in America. And there is no AIDS crisis in Africa.
In Asia there might be one.
Yes?
How did we get from my agreement that the problem is exaggerated to there being no problem at all?
But it's bad elsewhere because...?
On my way to bed, so I may seem unfair in my immediate response but:
Why do you believe it in the first place?
I'm on my way to bed now. So I won't be able to answer anything immediately. But I ask: it was overblown in America. It was overblown in Europe. It was overblown in Africa.
But it's bad elsewhere because...?
You seem to have misread my qualified agreement to, "The African AIDS crisis appears to have been exaggerated," as agreement to "There is no AIDS crisis in Africa. Nothing bad related to AIDS is happening there." To be perfectly clear, I agree with the first statement, using the usual sense of 'exaggerated' in which it is synonymous with 'overstated'. I do not agree with the second. If you were using 'exaggerated' in a little-known sense in which it means 'imaginary', I'll have to withdraw my previous agreement.
Why do you believe it in the first place?
Believe what precisely? I'm trying to avoid a *headdesk* moment here but I'm struggling.
The case of Andrew Stimpson, 25, who was diagnosed as HIV-positive in 2002 but found to be clear of the virus in 2003, has stunned the medical world. If doctors can establish why this happened, without treatment, it could benefit the 34.9 million virus carriers worldwide.
A couple of things:
1. The term "HIV-positive" is pure Orwellian double-speak.
Is anyone "influenza-positive"?
In college, did my roommate become "Herpes-positive"?
In 9th grade, did I miss 3 junior varsity basketball games, because I was "chicken Pox-positive"? (Actually, should be "varicella zoster virus, the virus that causes chicken pox")
The problem is that testing "positive" for HIV, DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE THE VIRUS. It means that you have anti-bodies to a bunch of stuff, including, possibly, maybe, sometimes HIV. It is totally imprecise, vague, overbroad. It's like extrapolating -- because I see a fire engine, there must have been a fire. Sorry, No! The fire engine could simply be going back to the station.
2. Mr Stimpson said he became depressed and suicidal after being told he was HIV-positive but remained well and did not require medication.
Exactly. The psychological strain of receiving the "HIV-positive" diagnosis can be debillitating. Why exact such a toll with such an imprecise, bogus test?
3. "There was a massive relief but I was also deeply confused," said Mr Stimpson. "And the doctors seemed as confused as me. I thought the first positive tests must have been wrong." But an investigation by the trust claimed otherwise.
Exactly. The doctors are confused. They have no idea: (a) How bogus the test is and (b) how toxic the drugs are.
This guy got lucky. He rectified (a) and avoided(b).
Mr. Stimpson, may you and your partner enjoy a long life together -- but, please stay away from these hack AIDS doctors!
Barnes, Hank
"This would all be the same equal-opportunity infectious virus that wasn't equal-opportunity after all, and still isn't, right?"
I must mention that it is completely misleading to say that homosexuals as such are more susceptible to AIDS than are heterosexual. The fact is that it is homosexual (androsexual) men who are the most susceptible, while homosexual (gynosexual) women, at the opposite end of the sexual spectrum, are far less so. Heterosexual men and women are in the middle of the spectrum. Also, it is well-known that androsexual men tend to be the most promiscuous while gynosexual women tend to be the least promiscuous. There seems to be a tie-in between AIDS and promiscuity. This is not to say that AIDS is a punishment for promiscuity, promiscuity is its own punishment -- or, conversely, monogamy is its own reward. As the noble E. Merrill Root put it, the promiscuous man knows a quantity of women but he never knows the quality of a woman.
Would you call the above an accurate synopsis of the story you linked to? Either this is the worst piece of so-called journalism I've encountered in a long, long time or someone has put something in the UK water because they are delusional. This piece made me laugh so hard I have stitches in my side. Surely this is satire?
Either this is the worst piece of so-called journalism I've encountered in a long, long time or someone has put something in the UK water because they are delusional.
It's both. The AIDS contortionists have a made career out of scaring people about this dreaded disease and hyping the treatment, beyond all recognition. And, the journalists -- those tepid souls -- with few exceptions have joined the fun.
Stimpson is their worst nightmare. He demonstrates why one should: (a) be skeptical of the "HIV" tests (which do nothing of the sort) and (b) hold off taking any drugs, until and unless you develop a freakin' symptom!
Barnes, Hank
A few commenters above seem to be suffering from denialist derangement syndrome. It isn't that one ought not be skeptical nor not take drugs but to advocate and advise positions contrary to accepted medical protocol without accepting any legal responsibility because we find in extract xbz that chickens do not get this disease, ergo, Stimpson is their worst nightmare is just plain silly.
I agree with Dr. Bialy, that only high level serious scientists can answer these questions, on the other hand, others advocating such positions ought be held to a legal standard that requires they take out some liability insurance, the place where the rubber meets the road else complacency devolves to internet blatherings.
AIDs is still very serious stuff, Hank.
AIDS has never been serious stuff except in the fevered imaginations of the "AIDS research first" community. Why is that AIDS has received prominence among medical researchers and politicians when we know how to stop its transmission? AIDS is very highly correlated with promiscuity and drug use. You take those vectors away and AIDS becomes a non-issue. Of course, we can't stop people from being, well, people. So some will ignore the warnings and acquire AIDS (whatever the vehicle of infection may be, Dean). I would love to offer them a cure, but not before we have exhausted our research opportunities on heart disease and cancer. Most people do not choose to behave in manners that would have them "contract" heart disease or cancer (smoking related lung cancer excepted) while most (not all) AIDS patients have decided the risk of infection was less important than their immediate gratification.
Worst nightmare? Yes, perhaps, hyperbole.
But ever have a friend or family member die of AIDS? Ever found out after the fact, that the death may have been avoidable?
I understand that you may not be up to speed on the science (which is fine), but what if the Stimpsons of the world, ain't the exception, but the rule. For example, what if many "HIV positive" folks are NOT infected by any virus, but instead are bullied, scared, frightened into taking drugs that are touted to save them, but eventually kill them?
You ain't thinking big enough, here.
This has the footprints of an iatrogenic epidemic writ large.
Also, I'm curious why you focus on a bit of tangential hyperbole, rather than the fact that you now have evidence that the HIV test, may not test for HIV.
Hank Barnes
Your conclusions are sometimes beyond the science you claim to represent, IMO.
One Stimpson does not a negate all HIV tests nor is it known to be verified for accuracy.
And Mr. Stimpson has declined further testing. I do not think Stimpson is any one’s worst nightmare.
The core of my comment addressed offerings of opinion that HIV is harmless…..without accepting any legal responsibility for such a statement or disclaimers to the contrary.
So it seems there is a leap of faith and judgment that goes from I believe HIV is a harmless virus to announce to HIV positive testors, that you ought not take any retrovirals because the ‘extract xbz that chickens do not get this disease’ says so. It is in this area that lawyers not scientists are the most expert.
That’s all I was addressing.
Question: Would you accept a blood donation from a person that tested HIV positive or provide consent to have same given to a family member, spouse, child or grandchild ?
You're still not gettting it, with all due respect.
My conclusions aren't the issue.
But, at a minimum, I have carefully reviewed the underlying data. With respect to lay work, I've read Gallo's book, Montaigner's book, Mullis's book and Duesberg.
You should do the same. I doubt you have.
With respect to scientific work, I have an office of thousands of organized peer-reviewed papers from Science, Nature, PNAS, NEJM on this and related topics. (Mostly, I focus on cancer cases.)
Again, this doesn't mean, I'm right, but it does mean I'm well-versed in the literature. Not google searches, either, to ratify preconceived judgments. The actual papers.
One of the most mind-blowing aspects of this debate is why so many smart, well-intended people BELIEVE HIV is a deadly virus, without telling anyone WHY they have this belief.
Tell me the basis to support your belief that HIV is a deadly virus. Hopefully, this basis existed before you formed such belief. Most people simply believe it by osmosis or by constant repetition from the NY Times and superficial media.
Anyway, here's my Answer: It depends. If HIV is a passenger virus, then Yes. If HIV is pathogenic, then No. Tentatively, I conclude that HIV is more likely a passenger virus, rather than a pathogenic virus. But, it's still an open question, in my mind, since there's a lot of studies to test Duesberg's theory, that have not yet been done.
HB
So, I get brain rattle when HIV and Orwellian double speak enter the dialogue. Learned academics around these discussions are well beyond my entry level and I do respect them all.
Yet, I sense that informing an HIV positive individual not to take anti-virals on the basis of having read a whole lot of peer-reviewed material without having a well developed sense of clinical judgement is IMO not advisable particularly with no specific dog in the hunt with respect to responsibility for patient care by the academic or theoretical scientist.
You’re reply regarding HIV positive blood transfusions clearly demonstrates my point:
“Anyway, here's my Answer: It depends. If HIV is a passenger virus, then Yes. If HIV is pathogenic, then No. Tentatively, I conclude that HIV is more likely a passenger virus, rather than a pathogenic virus. But, it's still an open question, in my mind, since there's a lot of studies to test Duesberg's theory, that have not yet been done.
That is a singularly remarkable statement that has to my knowledge has never been made in these discussions particularly by those that support HIV doesn’t equals AIDS.
I wonder how many of the HIV/AIDS
denialistsinsurgents would agree.I can tell you that having read the whole thing, I am at a loss. Could someone inject two types of information:
1) Make some assertions of fact:
XXX percent of people diaganosed with AIDS are HIV positive.
XXX percent of people who are HIV positive have HIV virus in their bloodstream.
XXX percent of people diagnosed wht AIDS are HIV positive.
XXX percent of people diagnosed wht AIDS have HIV virus in their bloodstream.
XXX percent of gay men ...; XXX percent of Africans ...; XXX percent of Americans ...; etc.
Intravenous injection of blood containing HIV virus causes AIDS in XXX percent of subjects.
2) make some conclusions that you are asking me to believe: E.g.:
XXX% of AIDS research money would be better spent on cancer reasearch
AIDS research money is misdirected toward entrenched interests rather than effective exploration and cure.
AIDS research money is too small because it is perceived to be a gay rights issue when in fact it is an issue of global imporatnce.
AIDS research money is too large because it is a response catering to a very vocal number of gay rights activists.
In short:
What are you saying?
And what difference does it make to me?
John