Quantcast

Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
E-newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 18, 2014, 12:09:27 AM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 620110
  • Total Topics: 46722
  • Online Today: 203
  • Online Ever: 585
  • (January 07, 2014, 02:31:47 PM)
Users Online

Welcome


Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and others concerned about HIV/AIDS.  Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning:  Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

  • The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own physician.

  • All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

  • Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

  • We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge.

  • Product advertisement—including links; banners; editorial content; and clinical trial, study or survey participation—is strictly prohibited by forums members unless permission has been secured from POZ.

To change forums navigation language settings, click here (members only), Register now

Para cambiar sus preferencias de los foros en español, haz clic aquí (sólo miembros), Regístrate ahora

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the symbol in each box.

Author Topic: The Andrew Stimpson case (a hijack removed)  (Read 3154 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,160
The Andrew Stimpson case (a hijack removed)
« 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. ;)
« Last Edit: August 16, 2007, 04:40:10 AM by Ann »

Offline thunter34

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,250
  • His name is Carl.
Re: Just 19 years and tested poz two weeks ago.
« 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.
AIDS isn't for sissies.

Offline Andy Velez

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 23,845
Re: Just 19 years and tested poz two weeks ago.
« 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,
Andy Velez

Offline JamieD

  • Member
  • Posts: 259
Re: Just 19 years and tested poz two weeks ago.
« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2007, 05:29:05 PM »
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.

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,160
Re: Just 19 years and tested poz two weeks ago.
« 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

Offline JamieD

  • Member
  • Posts: 259
Re: Just 19 years and tested poz two weeks ago.
« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2007, 12:20:54 AM »
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?

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,160
Re: Just 19 years and tested poz two weeks ago.
« 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

Offline JamieD

  • Member
  • Posts: 259
Re: Just 19 years and tested poz two weeks ago.
« 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.

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,160
Re: Just 19 years and tested poz two weeks ago.
« 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

Offline JamieD

  • Member
  • Posts: 259
Re: Just 19 years and tested poz two weeks ago.
« 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.

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,160
Re: Just 19 years and tested poz two weeks ago.
« 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

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 27,947
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: The Andrew Stimpson case (a hijack removed)
« 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
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  



"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline Cerrid

  • Member
  • Posts: 499
  • only as good as your last haircut
Re: The Andrew Stimpson case (a hijack removed)
« 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?
"Boredom is always counterrevolutionary. Always." (Guy Debord)

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 27,947
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: The Andrew Stimpson case (a hijack removed)
« 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
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  



"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline Cerrid

  • Member
  • Posts: 499
  • only as good as your last haircut
Re: The Andrew Stimpson case (a hijack removed)
« 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.

"Boredom is always counterrevolutionary. Always." (Guy Debord)

Offline Andy101

  • Member
  • Posts: 33
  • Hello there,, How are ya ???
Re: The Andrew Stimpson case (a hijack removed)
« 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,,
still thinking about this one !!!

Offline Andy101

  • Member
  • Posts: 33
  • Hello there,, How are ya ???
Re: The Andrew Stimpson case (a hijack removed)
« 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
still thinking about this one !!!

Offline JamieD

  • Member
  • Posts: 259
Re: The Andrew Stimpson case (a hijack removed)
« 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.

 


Terms of Membership for these forums
 

© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved.   terms of use and your privacy
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.