this is a news story that bears careful watching since it offers a possiblity that some majic individuals can be "cured" of an HIV infection.

as reported by the BBC:

"Caution over HIV 'cure' claims


Andrew Stimpson said he was one of the luckiest people alive

Doctors say they want to investigate the case of a British man with HIV who apparently became clear of the virus.
Scotsman Andrew Stimpson, 25 was diagnosed HIV-positive in 2002 but was found to be negative in October 2003.

Mr Stimpson, from London, said he was "one of the luckiest people alive".

Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust confirmed the tests were accurate but were unable to confirm Mr Stimpson's cure because he had declined to undergo further tests.

A statement from the trust said: "This is a rare and complex case. When we became aware of Mr Stimpson's HIV negative test results we offered him further tests to help us investigate and find an explanation for the different results.

"So far Mr Stimpson has declined this offer."

A trust spokeswoman added: "We urge him, for the sake of himself and the HIV community, to come in and get tested.

"If he doesn't feel that he can come to Chelsea and Westminster then he should please go to another HIV specialist."

There have been anecdotal accounts before from Africa of people shaking off the HIV virus.

Mr Stimpson, who is originally from Largs in Ayrshire, said: "There are 34.9 million people with HIV globally and I am just one person who managed to control it, to survive from it and to get rid of it from my body.

"For me that is unbelievable - it is a miracle. I think I'm one of the luckiest people alive."

Mr Stimpson told the News of the World and Mail on Sunday that he became depressed and suicidal after being told he was HIV-positive but remained well and did not require medication.

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.

He has told the papers he would do anything he could to help find a cure.

Deborah Jack, chief executive of the National Aids Trust, said: "This appears to be a highly unusual case and without further tests it is impossible to draw any conclusions for people living with HIV.

"The virus is extremely complex and there are many unknowns about how it operates and how people's bodies react to it.

"Therefore, if this case were able to shed further light, it could be extremely valuable for research into treatments or a cure."

Aids expert Dr Patrick Dixon, from international Aids group Acet, said the case was "very, very unusual".

"I've come across many anecdotal reports of this kind of thing happening in Africa, some quite recently, but it's difficult to verify them," he told BBC News 24.

"You have to be rock-solid sure that both samples came from the same person, no mix-up in the laboratory, no mistakes in the testing, etc.

"This is the first well-documented case."

He said the case was important because "inside his immune system is perhaps a key that could allow us to develop some kind of vaccine"."

Quote |

what is the point of this post????

Quote |

well it is the first verified example of an individual who has gone from HIV-positive to HIV-negetive. if they can discover what about his particular immune system caused the change then that opens a line of research that might allow duplication of this result in other positive folks.

Quote |

if science and research could find a way to rid or cleanse someone of the virus that causes aids, that news would be a godsend.

I think, however, that the single case history you reference here could be a situation where the original test gave a false positive or there was a mix-up/screw-up at the lab where the original test was consucted. If the guy was not tested again as soon as he got his first positive result, waited a year to be tested again, and then got a negative result, he probably was never infected with the virus.

Quote |

At this point in time, this news story is not surprising the least bit. It's an isolated case that hasn't been fully investigated yet and may eventually be proven to be a case of an individual who was initially diagnosed as a positive with no subsequent follow up testing to confirm that initial diagnosis.

When someone declines to undergo further testing, especially someone who claims they were cured of AIDS "without medication", a red flag is raised.

__________________
Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. And, under a just God, cannot long retain it.

-- Abraham Lincoln

Quote |

I came across this while doing HIV-related research this weekend.

Yeah, I know -- fucking DULL weekend, but I do have a good reason for my recent HIV research, which I'll discuss later (no, it has nothing to do with me personally, I am HIV neg).

Anyway, the catch phrase in the above story is "well-documented."

I would certainly be the first to agree that the guy was never infected to begin with. Yet for SOME REASON those researching his case seem to believe that he WAS, despite the fact that the most logical first assumption would be an erroneous initial test result.

What pisses me off is that they do not say exactly WHY they feel so confident about this one case.

Either "they" are NOT confident and this IS, in fact, a simple mistake OR there is more to this story that is not being released. WHY information would be withheld is beyond me, unless it's a matter of news getting out once again before all the facts are in. This is not uncommon.

I do not know of any cases in Africa of individuals recovering from an HIV infection.

I DO, however, know for CERTAIN that it is EXTREMELY likely that certain prostitutes in Nairobi are more than likely IMMUNE to infection.

Perhaps this is the info out of Africa that is being confused with individuals who are alleged "cured" of the virus (unless the Africa story is one I have not yet heard documented).

The Nairobi prostitutes are 90% HIV poz. Of the remaining 10%, a small portion of women seem to NOT catch the virus despite the fact that the statistical odds for getting it are highly in their favor and correspond perfectly to the amount of sexual relations had by all the rest of the prostitutes.

Furthermore, it was shown that the FAMILIES of these women had a very, very low incidence of HIV infection, which suggests that possibly there is a genetic component here which provides a natural immunity to the virus.

THIS is good news indeed -- a vaccine COULD be formulated if the genetics could be isolated.

The bad news is that this is far more easier said than done, of course.

The Nairobi study is also about one or two years old, I believe. I have not heard any updates.

Science Channel did a half-hour on this, actually -- was on TV this weekend and I'm sure it will run again very soon.

Quote |

Secrets of the Dead on PBS ran a story a year or so ago that tied the survivors of the Plague to modern-day people who seem to be immune to AIDS.

People who survived the Plague are the ancestors of most of us who have western European ancestors.

It went into detail about genetic links and the fact that there are people today who have been exposed to HIV for years and not ever developed it themselves. It also said that this research is in the early stages. One of the outcomes is that a genetic marker could be sought out to determine a person's propensity to develop AIDS from exposure to HIV.

Anyhow, it sounds like a distant cousin to the research going on with the Nairobi women.

Quote |

another summary of this recent news item.
http://aidsmap.com/en/news/495234A8-...B32DA321DF.asp

Quote |

and the link to the original story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4432564.stm

Quote |

I should correct myself:

The Nairobi prostitutes have been studied for almost twelve years now, since 1994.

Source: yet ANOTHER Science Channel documentary I ran across just recently.

I thought this was new information -- and apparently, so did just about everyone else.

The shitty aspect of this is that if we've known about a potential natural immunity for almost twelve years... and have not yet isolated the genetic mutation responsible... well... doesn't seem too promising for the near future. But at least it is SOMETHING to keep studying.

Quote |

Since Scott Stimson has refused to be tested to confirm his "cure", on what basis shall we conclude he is HIV negative?

Here is what we know. Scott Stimpson was diagnosed to be HIV positive in August 2002. He was tested again in October 2003 and found to be HIV negative. In the time interval between his initial positive diagnosis of HIV in 2002 and his negative HIV diagnosis in October 2003, Scott Stimpson was not taking any medications. Since being tested again in October 2003, Scott Stimpson has refused further testing.

Scott Simpson's refusal to further testing is very puzzling for someone who claims to be cured of HIV. I suspect there is more to this alledged "miracle cure" than what we are being lead to believe.

Quote |