 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / May 2006hi
what happening about andrew stimpson who apparently cured himself of the virus is there any more news The most recent stuff I have found in a cursory search is found at www.avert.org/stimpson.htm By the way, you triple posted your question. > what happening about andrew stimpson who apparently cured himself of > the virus is there any more news  SignatureLarry D. Farrell, Ph.D. Professor of Microbiology Idaho State University > The most recent stuff I have found in a cursory > search is found at [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Idaho State University > *** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com *** >From that site: ~ On 13th November 2005, a story appeared in two British newspapers, ~ The Mail on Sunday 1 and The News of the World 2, that excited AIDS ~ experts and people living with HIV the world over. Andrew Stimpson, ~ a 25 year-old originally from Largs in Ayrshire, UK, announced that ~ he was the first person to have been cured of HIV infection. Long after I became interested in HIV/AIDS (and sceptical) and well after I was expressing doubts in these newsgroups, a friend of mine (a former work colleague) told me that his son had HIV. The son's wife had also had it. She went onto the AIDS drugs but died. The girl's parents blamed him for infecting and killing their daughter. He refused the drugs and remained seemingly OK. When he was tested again, much later, he came up negative. I was told that doctors wanted to study his case too, but that he refused to partake in any study - he didn't trust them. So does this mean that Stimpson was perhaps not the first one to cure himself, that the son of my friend perhaps was? What a coincidence, that one of only a small number of dissidents on the newsgroups, later discovers a friend's son to be perhaps the first to cure himself of HIV. I suspect it is more likely that neither is the first and that HIV disappearance is much more common than we are led to believe. The case of the survivor that I am talking about, and whose name I know, never made it into the news. I do still occasionally see that friend, and receive updates on his son's condition. Also from that page: ~ The Newsnight reporter concludes that, "having a test that finds an ~ antibody response may mean that while the patient has been exposed ~ to HIV, they're not necessarily HIV positive." I though that that is what defined HIV positivity. If not that, what then? I have a another question. Has anyone ever been cured of HIV while on AZT or other AIDS drugs? Best Regards, Sean McHugh _ hi sean im replying to ur questions if someone as been exposed as HIV positive but hasn't got the disease it is called a "false positive test result" it is on the website www.avert.org/stimpson.htm it as also got info on a "fasle negative test result". to ur other question i did anyone has yet. hope that has help river Hi River, > hi sean im replying to ur questions if someone as been exposed as > HIV positive but hasn't got the disease it is called a "false > positive test result" But the results of the HIV +/- test are supposed to determine if there is HIV infection, not the other way around as your comment would suggest there. That is the very problem I raised. > it is on the website www.avert.org/stimpson.htm it as also got > info on a "fasle negative test result". to ur other question i > did anyone has yet. hope that has help My question needs the context of the statement that I was challenging: http://www.avert.org/stimpson.htm ~ The Newsnight reporter concludes that, "having a test that finds ~ an antibody response may mean that while the patient has been ~ exposed to HIV, they're not necessarily HIV positive." As far as I know, HIV positive refers to the test result itself. If the antibody is present, in sufficient quantity, the result *is* HIV positive. http://tinyurl.com/mu3rw Or (PDF): www.nat.org.uk/document/77 ` Fact Sheet 1: ` HIV AND AIDS: BASIC INFORMATION ` If antibodies are found, the test result is referred to as positive. ` This means that a person is HIV-positive. If antibodies are not ` found, the test result is referred to as negative. So diplomatically attaching the word, "false" in front of it can't actually make it retrospectively an HIV negative or an HIV neutral. It was still an HIV positive by the particular definition used. So contrary to that Newsnight statement, if the test comes up positive on the test, that test and hence the test subject, has an HIV positive status (is HIV positive) by the definition, regardless of whether the patient has HIV or not. Now that required level of antibody detected can vary; there is no one standard definition. In other words, an HIV positive in one place/time can be an HIV negative in another. http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/vttests.htm ` Certain combinations of bands are defined as a positive test. It is ` enigmatic that the location and number of bands required for a ` positive Western blot varies around the world. They may even vary ` between laboratories within the same city. In Australia four bands ` are required, in Canada and much of the United States, three bands ` suffice. And in Africa two will do. It would seem that an already elastic definition can be made even more rubbery. If anyone simply appears to be getting over HIV (not allowed) by their later testing negative, previous antibody tests can be renamed to, "false HIV positive" and everyone is happy again. Best Regards, Sean McHugh - <snip> > So contrary to that Newsnight statement, if the test comes up > positive on the test, that test and hence the test subject, has an > HIV positive status (is HIV positive) by the definition, regardless > of whether the patient has HIV or not. That should read: So contrary to that Newsnight statement, if the test comes up positive, that test and hence the test subject, has an "HIV positive" status (is HIV positive) by the definition, regardless of whether the patient has HIV or not. <snip> Apologies. Best Regards, Sean McHugh - > Hi River, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > there is HIV infection, not the other way around as your comment > would suggest there. That is the very problem I raised. It is not a problem. The presence of antibodies to a virus indicate that the individual has been exposed to the virus. In the case of some viruses that consistently develop persistent infections like Herpes Simplex the presence of antibodies means that the person has a persistent infection. It is theoretically possible for a person to be exposed to HIV, to develop antibodies and to clear the virus from their body. It just doesn't appear to happen very often if at all. Testing positive for HIV antibodies menas with a high degree of certainty that you are infected with HIV Testing for HIV antigens or HIV RNA directly test for current infection. If you read "rethinker" webboards for a while you'll find that every now and then someone will propose an experiment to "disprove" the HIV/AIDS theory. Simply get a lot of people who have been diagnosed HIV positive and then get them to do a number of anonymous HIV tests from different labs to see how inconsistent the diagnoses are. The common claim is that labs use risk factor information such as sexual preference to make the diganosis. They theorise that if they take anonymous tests they'll get more negative results. The reality is that you never hear the results oif these "experiments". The reason is that the vast majority of people that have at some stage been confirmed HIV positive will continue to test HIV positive in the future. The number of exceptions are very, very small but not nonexistent. Some exceptions are undoubtably due to false positives, some are due to procedural or clerical errors, some could be true seroreversion. Chris Noble hi sean read the website www.avert.org/stimpson.htm it should explain it a bit better than i can i hope that will help u sean best regards river > hi sean read the website www.avert.org/stimpson.htm it should explain > it a bit better than i can i hope that will help u sean best regards > river I not only read it, I quoted it to present the problem I had with it. Please read my last post to you. On second thoughts, please don't bother. Regards, Sean McHugh The HIV (antibody) test is much more complex in its interpretation than people are saying Originally this thread was about could people get rid of HIV? This reminds me of a scientific paper I read some time ago about mice. When they were exposed to poppers in an equilivalent body mass amount as humans may be in the gay partying scene, they became HIV positive -and their immune system became poorly. When the drugs were withdrawn, the experimenters were amazed to find the mice tested HIV negative. This suggests that there is a relationship between the antibody and the toxin... very intriguing. I hope more research has been done on this. The antibody detected with the HIV test adheres to a carbohydrate structure found on molecules that are in a number of things, including fungi and mycobacteria. The latter was established by Myron Essex of Harvard, on the US government's AIDS task force. It is therefore not specific to a virus. And - if one checks the CDC website, one can find that there are several authorised ways to diagnose AIDS in the HIV negative.. with every good wish, Janine Roberts > > hi sean read the website www.avert.org/stimpson.htm it should explain > > it a bit better than i can i hope that will help u sean best regards [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Sean McHugh > *** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com *** > The HIV (antibody) test is much more complex in its interpretation than > people are saying [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > suggests that there is a relationship between the antibody and the > toxin... very intriguing. I hope more research has been done on this. I don't suppose you can remember the name of this paper or the authors? Do you expect us to just believe you? Chris Noble > The HIV (antibody) test is much more complex in its interpretation than > people are saying [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > fungi and mycobacteria. The latter was established by Myron Essex of > Harvard, on the US government's AIDS task force. Pure Virusmyth bullshit, if you care to provide a reference to either of the above two statements we would be more than able to show you that what you've stated above is utterly false and does not agree with the the contents of the documents that Virusmyth (or any of the other so called rethinking websites) claims they come from. Gary Stein Poppers cause the immune system to malfunction and are also have caused cancer in mice - I think this is what you mean. The explosion of HIV infections in the gay community in the 1980's is probably related but is not the cause. There are many pseudo academic papers that seek to mock the link and these are bought and paid for by the manufacturers. Poppers suppress the immune system: PERIOD. They are very dangerous. Currently poppers are sold as "cleaning products" by their US manufacturer thereby side stepping FDA scrutiny. Poppers and Viagra will kill you, as inhaling the product causes a dramatic drop in blood pressure. Most countries in the world outlaw them - in Denmark, where I come from, the Government banned them in a matter of weeks following two deaths. A carcogen (byproduct in the blood stream) and an immune system suppressor! Enjoy! > > The HIV (antibody) test is much more complex in its interpretation than > > people are saying [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Gary Stein > Poppers cause the immune system to malfunction and are also have caused > cancer in mice - I think this is what you mean. Who are you talking to here the original poster or my reply? > The explosion of HIV infections in the gay community in the 1980's is > probably related but is not the cause. There are many pseudo academic > papers that seek to mock the link and these are bought and paid for by > the manufacturers. The poppers sold in the 1980's were nitrate based the same product currently prescribed to hundreds of thousands of hart patients, why don't we see immune system problems and AIDS in those users? > Poppers suppress the immune system: PERIOD. They are very dangerous. > > Currently poppers are sold as "cleaning products" by their US > manufacturer thereby side stepping FDA scrutiny. Yes the products currently on the market in the US as "cleaning products" are not nitrate based they are some type of solvent and yes they are not meant for human use however I repeat these are not the same as what was sold in the 1980's. > Poppers and Viagra will kill you, as inhaling the product causes a > dramatic drop in blood pressure. Most countries in the world outlaw > them - in Denmark, where I come from, the Government banned them in a > matter of weeks following two deaths. I do not know what was on the market in Denmark but it does sound like you might have been able to buy nitrate based poppers and yes they can cause a drop in blood pressure. > A carcogen (byproduct in the blood stream) and an immune system > suppressor! Enjoy! Yes the solvent based head cleaner products can indeed be linked to cancer but yet again they are not what was used in the 1980's and the products of the 80's is what all the rethinking AIDs websites complain about as being the cause of AIDS which has been shown by many studies to be false. These studies were undertaken by many scientists all over the world and no link was ever found between nitrate based poppers and HIV or AIDS. Gary Stein >> > The HIV (antibody) test is much more complex in its interpretation than >> > people are saying [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> >> Gary Stein thank you larry for your response i have also check out that website address. will there be any further studys to find out what happened with mr stimpson. thank you once again river |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.