Originally posted by Kate:
I'm confused. Isn't it well documented that quite a few people who were infected never went on to develop AIDS (and in some cases, the virus was no longer detectable in their system)?
What's the difference in this case?
It is confusing. Here we have the single case of a reputable Hospital who clearly state that the man had the HIV virus in his blood, but now only 14 months later,state that he is completely clear.
The fact that he felt unwell, plus the memory of his guilty action(s) would have prompted to go the Hospital in the first place, to tell his story, and be given the HIV virus test(s).
The hospitals reliability should be impeccable, yet I find it strange that inspite of all the Hospitals and clinics around the world, he is the only person to be officialy pronounced 'cured'.
And 'self cured' at that! The hospital can't take any credit for his 'cure' since they gave him no treatment. They just hope they hold "the goose that layed the golden egg".
Personally I would put it the whole case on the back burner, and await corroboration from similar cases. Which taking into the account of the total number of AIDs cases both past and present, there must only be a 100 million to 1 chance that another 'self curing' Aids human will be found.
Kate mentions documented infections of people who never went on to develop AID's. As a layman I would call it an astounding miracle, as a HIV virologist, I would poo poo the whole idea.
There is another minute category, I think.
Those unfortunates who have intimate contact, on a daily basis, with AIDs sufferers, to earn money. And yet never, or have not yet, developed 'full blown' AIDs, that story came out of Africa.
Also what happened to the documented case of the African woman, in a similar position to the above, who was discovered to be immune to AIDs?
Also what is the difference (blood/or physical) between 'full blown' AIDs and 'half blown'?
Not that I expect anyone here to comment upon that
Any Hospital students/friends comments welcome.