It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: London Man Possibly Cured of HIV

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 10:05 PM
A London man Andrew Stimpson is undergoing further testing to see if in fact he has been cured of the HIV he was diagnosed with in 2002. He was offered further testing 14 months after his first positive result which came back clear and negative for the virus. In the past there have been reports and rumours of patients being cured of HIV but this case will be the first with conclusive evidence of a cure.
A London hospital will carry out tests to investigate how a British man who was diagnosed as HIV positive in 2002, recovered from the virus the following year.

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

But the evidence in this case, as reported by British newspapers, appears to be conclusive.

He became depressed and suicidal after he was told he was HIV positive, but he remained well and did not require medication.

Fourteen months later, doctors offered him another test, 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.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Amazing, all i can think of is maybe a false positive for the first test which has been known to happen with HIV testing. If he has had more than one positive result and then 14 months after the clear results then it certainly is something to look at.

“These tests were accurate and they were his, but what we don’t know at the moment is why that has happened, and we want him to come back in for more tests,” said a spokeswoman. “It is potentially a fantastic thing.”
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.
Stimpson, originally from Largs in Ayrshire, contracted the virus from his boyfriend, Juan Gomez, 44. He began taking vitamins and other dietary supplements to keep his body healthy in the hopes that this might fend off the development of full-blown Aids.
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.

Related News Links
Times Online

[edit on 13-11-2005 by Mayet]

posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 10:10 PM
Isn't the HIV test actually testing for HIV antibodies, so even if someone was able to fend off the virus and rid their systems of it, wouldn't these antibodies would still exist?

posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 10:12 PM
Good catch.

Many diseases are dose dependant - meaning that the level of exposure is quite critical in determining whether or not the disease takes hold. ...If the exposure dose was low, then his body may have fought it off.

If you want, I can explain how the body fights this kind of infection in molecular biological terms. Yes, it does involve prions.

posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 10:13 PM
Yes DJ that was exactly my thought. Theres not enough on this story yet to find out the answer to that one.

posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 10:16 PM
HIV bypasses the immune system, so I would assume there are no antibodies hangin about as evidence. ...I would be more concerned that it's simply latent, and not in evidence until triggered again, as happens with many diseases.

posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 10:50 PM
Your title is misleading. The article does not suggest that the man was cured of HIV. The article states:

A London hospital will carry out tests to investigate how a British man who was diagnosed as HIV positive in 2002, recovered from the virus the following year.

Somehow, I think this sentence sums up what is really going on here:

He sought compensation, but has apparently been told there is no case to answer, because there was no fault with the testing procedure.

The VA once diagnosed me with emphysema, a condition which I no longer have. Now, did I shake the disease, was there divine intervention, or did the VA screw up. I lean toward the latter, while granting the possibility of the second.

[edit on 2005/11/12 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 10:59 PM
One aspect to consider is that perhaps the amount of HIV present in his body is below the detection threshold for the test the person is using. I seem to recall that Majic Johnson was reported to have levels of HIV that were below most test threasholds but he still had the disease

posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 11:02 PM
Ok, I have read that some people immune system can fight aids and keep it from devoloping into blown strengh.

Doesn't that means that the people is immune to HIV?

Now is very few people that fall in this cathegory.

Also is been some progress on a vaccine using a protein called CCR5.

Interesting information.

posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 11:12 PM
I read exposure to the plague way back when caused 10 percent of Europeans to be resistant to HIV.

Or maybe the test was wrong and the company that made the test is crawfishing?

posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 11:23 PM

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Your title is misleading. The article does not suggest that the man was cured of HIV.

to quote

Doctors baffled as HIV man ‘cures’ himself
Sophie Kirkham
A MAN who tested positive for HIV, the virus that causes Aids, has subsequently shown up negative for the disease in a case that has mystified doctors.
It was claimed last night that Andrew Stimpson, 25, may have shaken off the virus with his own immune system after contracting HIV in 2002.

1. Restoration of health; recovery from disease.
2. A method or course of medical treatment used to restore health.
3. An agent, such as a drug, that restores health; a remedy.
v. cured, cur·ing, cures
1. To restore to health.
2. To effect a recovery from: cure a cold.
3. To remove or remedy (something harmful or disturbing): cure an evil.
v. intr.
1. To effect a cure or recovery: a medicine that cures.

so how is my title in any way shape or form misleading

[edit on 13-11-2005 by Mayet]

posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 11:46 PM
It is misleading because the source article does not use the term "cure," but rather "recovery." You have to read the related links to find that term used. Also to use the term "cure," it is implied that there was a deliberate medical intervention, which there was not.

Stimpson is not the only person to start taking megadoses of vitamins in an attempt to stave off AIDS. Quite a number of HIV positive individuals have defied the odds by remaining healthy for years. What is unique here is that someone who tested positive for HIV numerous times has now tested negative at least twice.

What is not known is just how this came about. Was he cured or did his immune system conquer the virus? When we recover from the flu, we don't say that we were cured. There is no cure. We got over it. Therefore, I believe that the use of the term "cure" leads people to expect something other than what the source article claims.

Either of these titles would be more faithful to the articles: "Man Mysteriously Recovers from HIV" or "Man Miraculously Cured of HIV." It is a small, but important distinction, I believe.

[edit on 2005/11/12 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 11:54 PM
Mod Edit: At the request of the poster

[edit on 11/13/05 by FredT]

posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 11:58 PM
I'm not chewing you out. I'm just pointing out that when I saw the title, my first thought was that I didn't even know anyone was working on a cure for HIV infection. When I read the article, I found that what really happened was that the man "got over" HIV infection without medical intervention. As I stated above, it is a small, but important distinction and I would think that accuracy would be more important than face.

posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 12:03 AM
Can the two of you please carry this on in a u2u????????

posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 05:52 AM
As an MD I saw a patient whose HIV test had just turned positive and who swore in a sincere way that made me believe him, that his last possible exposure (shared needle, he was a substance abuser who was alcoholic but hadn't shot up for nine years) had been nine years previously. He was absolutely certain he couldn't have had an HIV exposure for nine years, but he had just turned positive, which means he had been testing negative during his previous detox admissions for alcohol while nevertheless carrying the HIV virus all that time, if one believes his story.

posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 07:01 AM
maybe he was an occasional Peyote consumer?!?! I've heard they contain the cure for leaukemia, maybe they contain the HIV cure too.

posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 05:13 PM
Doctors urge caution over HIV 'cure' claim
Hospital officials say that 14 months later the virus has disappeared.
Mr Stimpson told British newspapers he felt special and blessed to have been cured, but doctors have been more cautious in their response.
He has been urged to come forward to help medics find an explanation for the results, but he has so far declined to do so.
Staff at the London hospital where the tests were carried out have denied there was any mix-up in the testing and Mr Stimpson said he only took daily supplements to stay as healthy as possible.
While Mr Stimpson says he is the first person to have been cured of the virus, there have been anecdotal reports from Africa of people fighting off the virus.

I am also left wondering on this case. Why is he refusing further testing. It is one strange case that is for sure.

As pointed out it is suspicious he asked for compensation and also now he is claiming by what appears in the article above, to be the first ever cured of HIV.

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:15 PM
In my opinion they either do not know much if anything about HIV ( somehow) or more likely we are dealing with yet another Big Pharma campaign to call old diseases ( patents for treatments having expired) by a new name wich they have a very expensive patented treatment for.

AIDS Test 'Is Not Proof Of Infection' So what is it then?

AIDS: Scientific or Viral Catastrophe? What are we really dealing with?

AIDS: 'No Gold Standard' For HIV Testing Why is the testing so totally unreliable?

Multivitamins Slow AIDS Effect in Study. A disease or just people dying or hunger and general poverty?

Top 100 AIDS Science Inconsistencies. Can we give anyone toxic drugs when there is so many flaws with the diagnosis? Is the principle not to first do no harm?

What really causes aids? Wich is in my opinion a perfectly valid question considering where i come from and how my argument have seen fit to act so far.

This should help you on your way and for any other health issues this site is very very usefull.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 05:09 PM
Stimpson has agreed to undergo further study:


A YOUNG British man thought to be the first person to have shaken off HIV, the virus that causes Aids, is to undergo further clinical tests in the hope of a breakthrough in treating the condition.
Andrew Stimpson, 25, said yesterday that he was willing to do all he could to help to tackle the condition, after it emerged that his body had apparently rid itself of the human immunodeficiency virus.

Mr Stimpson, a Scot living in London, was found to be HIV-positive in August 2002, but 14 months later a blood test suggested that he no longer carried the virus. A further three tests confirmed the finding.

Doctors believe that this first confirmed case of “spontaneous clearance” of HIV could offer important insights into the behaviour of the virus, and possible means of defeating it.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

[edit on 2005/11/14 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 05:35 PM
The only way for HIV to be understood is to study all the "odd cases" instead of assume that they were liars...

the MOD in medicine is to nail the culprit...
if a guy comes in and says he doesn't shoot up, doesn't have homosexual relations, and hasn't had a blood transfusion, but still has aids... then he is a closet homo...
they thought this way, until the first woman with aids appeared (i think it was 1987)

now they have situations that involve other odd "non measured" exposure points, and assume that the test must have been wrong...

from this article, it seems that both these assumptions are no longer the MOD...
when the see that some people get it from kissing, and some people can eat it for snacks (HIV) then they will understand that it is not a one size fits all or a black and white issue...

Texas conspiracy nut: I also heard that the black plague helped some be immune... dont go throwin away your condoms just yet though... it is still mutating...

top topics


log in