Author Topic: The Andrew Stimpson case (a hijack removed) (Read 8389 times)

Matty the Damned · « **on:** August 12, 2007, 06:36:04 am »

Sorry Anotherman, but the case of Andrew Stimpson can only be described as a crock of shit.

Many old time forums members will remember the stink this case caused back in 2005. After much fussin' and generalised carryin' on, it was established that the odious Master Stimpson was not positive in the first place.

This, however, does not mean there won't be a cure.

MtD

Edited by Ann to change the thread's title. ONLY.

thunter34 · « **Reply #1 on:** August 12, 2007, 08:07:10 am »

There was actually a most interesting episode of ''Boston Legal'' based on the Stimpson case. Once "cleared" of the virus, he (the Stimpson character) got caught in a battle over the rights to his own blood and DNA. It seems the Stimpson character had signed away his rights to these things back when he initially sought publicly funded treatment. Now negative, he wanted to sell the rights to his goods to the pharma companies for major $$$, but was getting halted by a prior claim in the public interest.

An intriguing premise, I thought.

Couldn't help but be reminded of that storyline when I read in the link how Stimpson had sought compensation over his previous test results. There seems to be quite a bit of fishiness around that story, though I don't know how it all eventually shook down.

Andy Velez · « **Reply #2 on:** August 13, 2007, 02:29:32 pm »

Dear All,

I've deleted the entry by Anotherman. I think Matty and Hunter's responses are clear enough without leaving Another's entry here. He is HIV negative and I've warned him about the rules of the Forum regarding which sections are off limits to him.

Cheers,

JamieD · « **Reply #3 on:** August 14, 2007, 05:29:05 pm »

Quote from: matty.the.damned on August 12, 2007, 06:36:04 am

Sorry Anotherman, but the case of Andrew Stimpson can only be described as a crock of shit.

Many old time forums members will remember the stink this case caused back in 2005. After much fussin' and generalised carryin' on, it was established that the odious Master Stimpson was not positive in the first place.

This, however, does not mean there won't be a cure.

MtD

Could you post a reference for this please? I have looked and looked and I can see are suggestions that he might not have been HIV+ in the first place. I have not seen anything that explicitly states that, especially since Mr. Stimpson refused further testing.

Matty the Damned · « **Reply #4 on:** August 14, 2007, 08:53:45 pm »

JamieD is correct. Since Mr Stimpson refused further testing there has been no explicit statement of his seronegativity.

What Matty the Damned SHOULD have said was:

"it has been established to the satisfaction of reasonable people that the odious Master Stimpson was not positive in the first place."

MtD

JamieD · « **Reply #5 on:** August 15, 2007, 12:20:54 am »

Quote from: matty.the.damned on August 14, 2007, 08:53:45 pm

JamieD is correct. Since Mr Stimpson refused further testing there has been no explicit statement of his seronegativity.

What Matty the Damned SHOULD have said was:

"it has been established to the satisfaction of reasonable people that the odious Master Stimpson was not positive in the first place."

MtD

That's not a very scientific statement. Many "unreasonable" people have been correct when everyone else disagreed with them.
Didn't he have a "viral load"? In the UK they use only ELISA to diagnose HIV positivity. I do believe though that they had given him a viral load test and that he had a low viral load at the time. When the workers at the clinic told him that they could find no trace of HIV in his body what test were they using to demonstrate this?

Matty the Damned · « **Reply #6 on:** August 15, 2007, 12:33:24 am »

That's not a very scientific statement. Many "unreasonable" people have been correct when everyone else disagreed with them.

No, it's not. But then I'm not presenting a fucking paper to the fucking Royal Society am I? I'm responding to you in a thread in the I Just Tested Poz Forum. When I get a PhD for responding to you, I'll play closer attention to the scientific etiquette you seem to think you're owed.

Nevertheless a reading of the analysis of the Stimpson case by most experts in the field seem to agree that in a likelihood that strange little man was never HIV positive in the first place. False positive ELISA results and PCR tests are well known.

And no, I don't care to provide a fucking reference for that, either.

MtD

JamieD · « **Reply #7 on:** August 15, 2007, 12:46:36 am »

Rarrrr. Calm down, lady. All I am saying is that no one knows anything for sure. I don't care what experts are predicting. Predicitions and theorising are just that. One can theorising all they want, but without any actual evidence to back it up all it is is speculation.

Matty the Damned · « **Reply #8 on:** August 15, 2007, 04:37:47 am »

Rarrrr. Calm down, lady. All I am saying is that no one knows anything for sure. I don't care what experts are predicting. Predicitions and theorising are just that. One can theorising all they want, but without any actual evidence to back it up all it is is speculation.

Matty the Damned apologises to you Jamie. He was nursing a monster headache this afternoon and shouldn't have snapped at you. Headaches make him more thin-skinned than he usually is. Fortunately the judicious use of painkillers has improved his mood immeasurably.

You're quite right about speculation, but nevertheless in this case it would seem that testing process went awry (which sometimes happens) led to the wretched Mr Stimpson receiving a false positive in the first place. The later antibody negative tests which were initially cited as indicating his "miracle" self cure probably reflect that.

As for Mr Stimpson failing to return for later confirmatory tests, well it's quite likely that given the firestorm of controversy that surrounded him back in 2005, he just wanted to return to obscurity. Most understandable.

Once again my apologies for being an ill tempered cow.

MtD

JamieD · « **Reply #9 on:** August 15, 2007, 12:01:52 pm »

I don't understand why you call him "odious" and "wretched" as if though it was his fault he tested false positive or false negative, or that it was his fault the media turned his case into a circus. If I were him, I would have done the same thing. Gone into hiding. This is such a nightmare, and if I found out it were wrong or that my body had cleared itself of the virus I would never want to hear the letters "HIV" uttered again.

Matty the Damned · « **Reply #10 on:** August 15, 2007, 04:36:37 pm »

I don't understand why you call him "odious" and "wretched" as if though it was his fault he tested false positive or false negative, or that it was his fault the media turned his case into a circus.

Well he is wretched and his carry on in the wake of his "supposed miracle cure" stained him odious in my mind. Whilst the results are not his fault, his quick wristed grasp for money in the aftermath (by trying to rent himself out as a research lab rat) and so on.

Nonetheless, if you wanna discuss this more, a new thread should be started. We've hi-jacked Lifer's thread long enough.

MtD

Ann · « **Reply #11 on:** August 16, 2007, 04:42:26 am »

Hello everyone!

This thread used to be a part of this thread but since that thread belongs to a person who is newly diagnosed, I thought I'd do him the courtesy of removing the hijack.

Ann

Cerrid · « **Reply #12 on:** August 16, 2007, 05:32:39 am »

I haven't heard of this case before, but it sounds very mysterious... disappearing antibodies and all. What would happen if he gets the bug again? Would he be able to "cure" himself for a second time?

Ann · « **Reply #13 on:** August 16, 2007, 05:46:13 am »

Cerrid,

From the information available, it won't be a case of Mr Stimpson getting infected "again", because he was never infected in the first place. It looks like what happened was that he had a false positive result that was never properly confirmed. So, on the surface, it looks like he "cleared" the virus on his own.

You have to remember that one of the reasons DNA PCR testing is NOT recommended or approved for diagnostic purposes is because it can return false positives. This is often what has happened when someone's VL test comes back with a low-number "blip". In reality, it's a "false positive" and the person is actually still undetectable (because of meds).

Ann

Cerrid · « **Reply #14 on:** August 16, 2007, 07:13:31 am »

Thank you, Ann! You're right, I forgot about the "über-sensitivity" of the PCR test.

Anyways, I hope Mr Stimpson stays negative in the future, too.

Andy101 · « **Reply #15 on:** August 16, 2007, 10:29:07 pm »

Sorry to drop in on this subject at such a lte stage,, but i remember Mr Stimpsons case ,, He was a Scotish bloke,, but i cant recall with any certainty and no one jas mentioned in this thread just how many "false" positives tests were comfirmed,, I do seem to recall that the case made such news at the thime because hew was alledgedly to have been diagnose for a few years!!! can any one clarify this

Cheers.

Andy,,

Andy101 · « **Reply #16 on:** August 16, 2007, 10:33:42 pm »

Found it,, as I thought,, it wasnt just a one off test,, and it claims that an ammount of the virus WAS found in his blood

http://www.avert.org/stimpson.htm

MMmmm very strange indeed.

Andy

JamieD · « **Reply #17 on:** August 17, 2007, 06:31:43 pm »

MtD,

I want to point something out to you, but you may not know of the case since you aren't from the US (although I wasn't at the time either).

Back in 2000 there was a case where an assistant to a US Congressman, Gary Condit, went missing. Mr. Condit was accused of foul play in this case and EVERYONE I knew at the time was absolutely sure that he had murdered her. The media destroyed his career as a Congressman by constantly alluding to the fact that they believed he was involved in her disappearance. At that time, all "reasonable" people knew that he was involved. He was, in fact, not involved.

Without solid proof of anything all we have is speculation, and speculation means nothing to me. You and Ann are talking about this like it is solid fact that he was in fact negative at first. He declined further testing and we therefore know nothing for sure. I hate speculation.

Forums Index

Welcome

Author Topic: The Andrew Stimpson case (a hijack removed) (Read 8389 times)