Why is Magic Johnson still alive?

To understand HIV and AIDS and how it effects people you also need to understand the CCR5 Delta 32 gene.
www.pbs.org...
www.pbs.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu...

If magic has a single copy of the CCR5 Delta 32 gene he many live a very long time if he is also taking AIDs drugs.

reply to post by Toadmund


First understand that he never had Aids. He has HIV the virus before the full blown disease. There is a difference........

i think magic has cash so he probably has the cure. why? he can afford it. if u have money in this world of course it can get you alot of stuff. He looks very healthy. With a virus like that how can you look so good? He must be doing something right. THEY SAID THAT A MAN IN AFRICA HAS THE CURE SO HE MIGHT HAVE FLEW OVER SEAS TO GET IT. THEY ARENT LETTING THE AFRICAN MAN OVER HERE. THE US IS STRAIGHT UP DIRTY. THEY ARE ALL ABOUT MONEY. BUT WHO ISNT? THEY GIVE YOU MEDICINE FOR THE FLU YOU HAVE TO TAKE MORE MEDICINE FOR THAT THE US IS GREEDY YOU CANT BUY YOUR WAY TO HEAVEN EVEN WITH BILLONS. GOD SURE AN'T LETTING YOU IN.

reply to post by Denied


Magic Johnson was never "infected". The so-called HIV test is not only non-specific, it has NEVER been validated. What does that mean? In order to validate a test (especially an indirect test like ELISA or Western Blot) the infectious agent (HIV in this case) should be isolated in every case. Well guess what! HIV has NEVER been isolated from a single living (or dead) human being. Isn't that odd? In Africa they know this and ceated the so-called Bangui definition which dispensed with any test - after all the "test" costs money they don't have. What's the good of an invalid test? It sells the so-called ARV's - neucleoside analogues and protease inhibitors. These drugs have been called ineffective. Ineffective against what? HIV? First demonstrate the so-called infectee has HIV by viral isolation. Of course that's never been done - even Robert Gallo said it's extremely difficult - that's a lie of course - he knows it's impossible because it DOESN'T exist.
As for Magic Johnson, if you want Mr. Johnson to get sick, see to it that he dutifully takes his ARVs - the most common form of death is from liver failure from the protease inhibitors - but if he were using AZT in anywhere near the potentcy originally prescribed, he would be DEAD.

I do not think that Magic has HIV at all, he just looks too good and how is it that after 16 plus years he has not contracted the AIDS virus? I think his test results were wrong, or he was doing this for publicity....now I am going to investigate if the famous Boxer Tommy ? is still alive and punching......

To be honest, its kind of a mystery. Look at other people who contracted the disease at the same time, they also had enough money to buy medicine.
Freddie Mercury got it in 1987 and lived till 1991. Thats 4 years, pretty long for that time.
Eazy E was diagnosed in 1995 and live for 10 days.
So it doesn't really make sense.
Unless, the disease somehow left his body?

reply to post by pepsi78

It seems probable that Magic may possess CCR5-delta32. It seems that evolution has provided a very small % of the human race with this variant copy of CCR5 (which is a receptror on the cell surface necessary for the retrovirus to gain access to the cell). If this should be the case, Magic is probably heterozygous for the allele, thereby explaining why his disease has shown such slow progression.

Here's an interesting article from the other day which could be a reason why Magic has been able to apparently get rid of the virus.

Extraordinary Immune Cells

This plus his cocktail could be why he has shown very little effect from the virus.

Magic johnson is still alive cause of the meds, and i'm sure he takes care of himself even though he looks like a big mac now, but you have to remember he was diagnosed in 91 by this time they already came out with new types of meds that didn't have all the serious side effects like the first meds meanly azt, i've been poz since 87[i always heard rumors that the first hiv meds killed you faster that the actual disease thats why i never took them] and and didnt start taking meds until 2000 on advice from my doctor] and i'm still healthy as a horse. i beleive since didnt take the hiv meds in the late 80's is the reason i really didnt get sick. anyway i'm rambling on

I hate that there are so many menacing virus out there and no cures for them.
Magic is lucky, rich, healthy and fit so good for him. I only hope that his work helps those less fortunate than himself and comforts those suffering from such a nasty disease. It is all sad really.

Magic is trully magic,to share his personal life with others and help educate people about HIV/AIDS.He's bigger and stronger than he"s ever been.He's proving that an infection is not a death sentence but stresses the safest sex is no sex.

There are some VERY smart people here!
Magic most certainly got the HIV virus and let me tell you why he is in-fact still alive and SO MANY others are pushing uP daisy's while he's simply just getting FATTER.

Before i do let me just say that what i'm about to tell you is by no means a joke and in my best intrests telling you how i know such things is better left un-said.

People in the know that were big fans of his that have nothing to do with the MEDICAL FIELD "as we are all taught to recognize it" simply told him what to do and "MOST IMPORTANTLY' NOT to do and simply just CURED him without ANY DRUGS and went out on a beyond HUGE limb to do so.

"YOU WILL NEVER HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT IT FROM MAGIC BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO HELPED HIM WOULD... WELL... YOU DO THE MATH AFTER YOU READ WHATS NEXT....

Now...this is about to get really GOOD!

H.I.V. is something that was created in a lab to lower the worlds population and quite simply start by getting rid of the blacks.... BUT...
Lets not forget the old saying... "YOU CAN'T MAKE AN OMLETTE WITHOUT CRACKING A FEW EGGS." CASUALTIES OF WAR.

There is DOCUMENTED PROOF OF THIS!

The drug AZT was supposed to be the miracle CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY agent and at the time it came out the MOST expensive drug ever made. AZT trials on animals went well but when it was given in human trials it killed EVERY SINGLE ONE of the people it was given to. OOPS!!!

BIG PHARMA BLEW A FRICK'IN BOAT LOAD ON IT!

Instead of getting rid of it they just went and shelved the # hoping to unload it somewhere down the road and SHUT MY MOUTH!!! GUESS WHAT???

Ohhh... I almost forgot to mention HOW it killed the CANCER patients that it was administered to... IT COMPLETELY DESTROYED THEIR IMMUNE SYSTEMS ! Now... what does A.I.D.S stand for???

It stands for AQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME people...
HOW CONVENIENT!

How do you make it look that these stupid worthless drug cocktails are doing there jobs "LOL"??? SIMPLE!!! Lower the dose of AZT thats actually in them and CHARGE MORE $$$$ for them! THATS HOW! COME OUT SMELLING LIKE A ROSE IN THE PROCESS!

Has anyone got any ?'s, because i got the answers!! Because this is just the TIPPY TIP of the proverbial iceberg people.

Ohhhhhhh... I'm gonna like it here

*BRING IT MY FRIENDS*

haven't you watched south park? the cure all along has been money! just puree" it and inject it in to your veins!

This was a response of VneZonyDostupa Genetics and Genomics Internal Medicine Rockstar Member

On this thread

MYTH 1: AIDS IS MAN-MADE
First, we should correct an error of notation in the original post. AIDS is a syndrome (hence the S in AIDS). It is simply the state of having acquired an immunodeficiency, and can be genetic, the result of an infection, or the result of environmental issues. That being said, the most common infectious cause of such a state is human immunodeficiency virus (the most common overall being malnutrition) [1]. What the original post was trying to suggest (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that the human immunodeficiency virus was man-made.

Having established that it is the virus we're interested in, showing that it isn't man-made is rather simple. Historically, the story goes that HIV was first seen in the 1970s. While this was certainly when it gained prominence, scientists have since found HIV in samples dating back to 1959, all from Africa, suggesting a region of origin [2]. If you have access to the journal "Nature", the article (which is a wonderful read) is in the February 5, 1998 issue. Now, having established that HIV at least as far back as 1959, let's examine the scientific community at that time. In 1953, Watson, Crick and Franklin discovered the structure of DNA, though any sort of manipulation was still beyond the reach of then-modern science [3]. Though they were able to show the structure, the actual nature of DNA, that is, the basic hereditary unit of all human cells, was still unknown. It wasn't for another five years, until the Meselsohn-Stahl experiments [4], that the scientific world would realize what, exactly, DNA does. Now, couple this with the fact that HIV uses RNA, a related molecule whose role wasn't discovered until 1959 [5], and we're in a pickle.

Let's take these last two bits of information into consideration. If HIV were discovered to have existed in 1959 (or even 1970, if we're being generous), then that means scientists somehow managed to manipulate existing viruses (or novel proteins) with genetic material they had only discovered the nature of the year prior. Currently, we are still having difficulties manipulating viruses, and that's with fully-sequenced genomes, DNA sequenced to order, and libraries of previous genetic experiments to draw upon. How on earth would scientists in the 1950s have been able to perform such delicate work with DNA when they essentially only knew that it existed, and that it carried hereditary material? That's not even taking into account our limited knowledge of glycoproteins (the main reason HIV is so dangerous) in the 1950s. We also lacked the sequencers and enzyme-synthesis abilities necessary to grow personalized viruses in culture in the 1950s.

MYTH 2: HIV tests are not reliable
Again, we have an error, either of notation or omission, by the original poster. There are many types of HIV tests, some more precise than others. The type of test used depends entirely on the setting, as well as whether the patient has had a previous positive or negative result previously. We also need to establish two terms: sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity is defined as the number of true positives divided by the sum of true positives and false negatives, thus negative results in a highly sensitive test will efficiently rule OUT a disease. Specificity is defined as the number of true negatives divided by the sum of true negatives and false positives, thus a highly specific test will identify all truly negative results and positive results can role IN a disease.

With those definitions in mind, let's look at the two main types of HIV tests used in clinical practice: ELISA and Rapid Test. The Rapid Test is typically used in "minute clinics" and general practitioner settings. It can be performed orally, and measures the presence of anti-HIV antibodies. The drawback to this test is that it requires the person to have been infected for 3-4 months, as your body needs to have mounted some level of an immune response. This test is 99.5% sensitive (meaning few, if any, false negatives) and over 99.9& specific (meaning very few, if any, false positives). This data has been demonstrated both by clinical trials, as well as by the CDC and FDA [6]. Any positive result in a Rapid Test is follwed by a MANDATORY second test using a different method. This protocol MUST be followed by federal regulations to ensure a positive diagnosis. The second test, ELISA, is the most common "second test" used to confirm a Rapid Test. This test again relies on anti-HIV antibodies to be present, though alternative PCR methodologies can be employed if early-infection state is suspected in the patient. Blood is drawn and then cross-reacted with known samples of HIV, as well as diseases known to cause a false-positive (such as lupus and syphilis). If a positive result is produced, the sample is analyzed via Western blot to confirm the identify of the antibody, to ensure it is specifically anti-HIV [7].

As shown above, HIV testing is a multi-level and multi-platform process. It isn't one, single test, and it isn't something done haphazardly. To suggest that the testing is inaccurate or unreliable shows a clear misunderstanding of how a patient is tested following an initial positive result. In all clinical experiences where I have had a patient test positive by OraQuick Rapid Test, they have had no less than two further testing methods (typically ELISA and Western blot) before I felt comfortable telling them they have formally been diagnosed with HIV. This is not my personal standard, it is the federal standard that ALL physicians are required to follow before tendering such a diagnosis.

Source

[edit on 4/9/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

Continued in post below.

[edit on 5/11/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

Continued from post above.

MYTH 3: HIV has never been reliably identified
This myth is perhaps the most easily debunked. There are multitude of electron micrographs in the public domain showing HIV. Here are a few: [8], [9], [10]. Perhaps the most interesting of these three pictures (in my opinion, at least), is the third. It shows a mature HIV particle budding from a human lymphocyte, which is clearly distinguishable by the nature of the granules inside the cell plasma. This picture not only provides a glimpse into the microstructure of the virus, but it clearly demonstrates the virus's ability to infect and reproduce within lymphocytes. This reproduction is a common mechanism used among virsues, and often leads to the destruction of the host cell, which in this case is usually a CD4 Helper T-cell. This destruction is the reason AIDS is defined as a CD4-count below 200. The virus targets CD4 cells for destruction (as demonstrated in this picture, as well as in the studies accompanying those pictures), which eventually leads to a immunodeficient state, or AIDS.

MYTH 4: ANTIVIRAL THERAPY CAUSES AIDS, NOT HIV
This section, unfortunately, I have to use my drug reference manual as a reference. I'm unable to find a resource as thorough and accesible online. If you have any issue with the information provided, PLEASE reply or send a U2U, and I will do my best to find an online source for you, I promise!

Examining the nature of antiretroviral drugs (those specifically given for HIV) very clearly demonstrates that such an adverse effect is simply not possible. There are several classes of these drugs [11], and I'll do my best to explain each one succintly, as well as why it could not produce an immunodeficient state:
(1) Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs): nucleosides are DNa bases that lack the functional group necessary for elongation. The NRTIs are made specific to the sequence of the HIV genome, thus they can incorporate into the newly synthesized DNA, made while HIV is trying to integrate into C4 T-cells, and interrupt the elongation of that DNA. As the HIV genome sequence does not exist in human genomes in any form, cross-reaction between human DNA and the nucleosides is unlikely.
(2)Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs): rather than inserting into the viral DNA and preventing elongation, these drugs bind specifically to the viral reverse transcriptase enzyme and stop it's function. This enzyme does not exist in the human genome, nor does any homologous enzyme, so cross-reaction is impossible and cannot cause immunodeficiency.
(3)Protease Inhibitors (PIs): protease inhibitors target the viral machinery used to clip and shape proteins (specifically, glycoproteins) into the form used to create the viral capsid. Without protease, mature HIV cannot be formed, and spread of infection is not possible. The proteases are specific to HIV, and thus, cross-reaction with human proteases is not possible.
(4)Fusion Inhibitors (FIs): fusion inhibitors interfere with the proteins/receptors used by HIV to fuse to CD4 cells prior to entry into the cell. These receptors are specific to HIv and do not interefere with normal CD4 or CD8 function, thus no immunodeficiency is possible due to this drug class's action.
(5)Integrase inhibitors: integrase inibitors target the viral machinery (other than reverse transcriptase) that allows the viral cDNA to insert into the host cell's genomic DNA. Preventing this integration stalls the replication of the virus. As there is no machinery for such an integration in the native human cell, no cross-reaction is possible.

In addition to these, there are a few lesser-used classes that are rarely used alone, more often being supplmental to the classes above.

Now, as a final note about these drugs, I think it should be noted that HIV is now considered a chronic disease by medical professionals. It is viewed in the same way as diabetes: through careful management, you can live a long and (relatively) healthy life. The life expectancy for HIV patients has SKY-ROCKETED since the intoduction of combination anti-retroviral therapy. If these drugs were the cause of AIDS, wouldn't we see the opposite? Wouldn't HIV patients be seeing a constant DECREASE in life span as new drugs are produced and higher/tougher regimens are prescibed? The fact is, we don't see this effect, so suggesting these drugs cause AIDS is illogical and without merit.

Closing Remarks

I apologize for a post (or two) of such length, but as you can see, I've put quite a bit of time, effort, and research into this topic, partially from a person/professional interest, and partially because I am absolutely exhausted from repeating this information ad infinitum on these boards in piece-meal format. I have saved the entirety of these two posts, and will use them as constant references in future threads on the topic.

If anyone has ANY questions regarding the information in these posts, or if a reference is broken/missing, please post a reply or send a U2U. I will be more than happy to answer anything that is not a personal attack on myself or my profession. Any such attack will warrant an immediate ALERT as a violation of the ATS terms and conditions. I've done it before, and I'll do it again, I promise you.

Source

[edit on 4/9/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]




[edit on 5/11/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

Hmmm...
May i ask what your profession is exactly???

Originally posted by alpha68
Hmmm...
May i ask what your profession is exactly???

My profession ?

I'm just a curious guy.

The profession of the ATS member that posted is a medical student. I don't know here specialty.

Why ? If I may ask ?

Stupid. :bnghd:

[edit on 5/12/2010 by Sinter Klaas]