Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I have told myself to take a break from KMC, but I stumbled upon articles which I couldn't keep to myself. HIV/AIDS is a worry which not only runs through my mind often, but the minds of so many other people.


In Britain, there is a man who tested positive for HIV in 2002, but a year later tested negative. What this means is that he beat HIV. He cured himself. Is this possible ?


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article589783.ece

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,20281,17233282-5001021,00.html

http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/11/13/2253240.shtml?tid=99&tid=14


What do you guys think ?


I have also read stories of a few people in other parts of the world who have beaten HIV through a series of herbal intake.


http://www.aidscureherbal.com/



I then found another interesting article, about a possible vaccine for the HIV virus.

http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/20041129/human-test-novel-vaccine-stops-hiv



Again, what do you guys think ? We all know there are plenty of people living with HIV, who still live healthy lives, and keep the virus under control.


But do you beleive that there are actually people out there who have been cured of the virus ???

Possible lab error.

Originally posted by Secretus
Possible lab error.

For years at a time?

I'm actually not sure what to say. I'm leary of idea that a virus just went away. But, I also hope it's true. Good for this guy and hopefully it will shed a little more light on the epidemic.

Originally posted by Secretus
Possible lab error.

Yeah, was probably a false positive for the first test..

Or it could be a false negative 2nd time around..

I'm most likely to agree that it was a error on the labs part. HOWEVER....

If it IS true, we should grab the guy as soon as possible. Take as many samples and check him out for as long as necessary to find out HOW he cured himself and then develop a way to synthesise it.

Originally posted by grey fox
I'm most likely to agree that it was a error on the labs part. HOWEVER....

If it IS true, we should grab the guy as soon as possible. Take as many samples and check him out for as long as necessary to find out HOW he cured himself and then develop a way to synthesise it.

They are, the story said he's been asked to go back for further testing/study.

We' re more than two years later now, and Andrew Stimpson faded back into obscurity.

Originally posted by Storm
We' re more than two years later now, and Andrew Stimpson faded back into obscurity.

So, did he fade back into obscurity with AIDs or without AIDs?

This thread was posted ages and ages ago.

Nothing ever seemed to come of it.

Wait, you guys are confusing me. The thread is old or the story is old? Because the thread appears to have been started today.

The story.

So, all these years later, we don't know if he still has it or not, right?

Someone does presumably, but I have never seen the story resurface.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I have told myself to take a break from KMC, but I stumbled upon articles which I couldn't keep to myself. HIV/AIDS is a worry which not only runs through my mind often, but the minds of so many other people.


In Britain, there is a man who tested positive for HIV in 2002, but a year later tested negative. What this means is that he beat HIV. He cured himself. Is this possible ?


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article589783.ece

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,20281,17233282-5001021,00.html

http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/11/13/2253240.shtml?tid=99&tid=14


What do you guys think ?


I have also read stories of a few people in other parts of the world who have beaten HIV through a series of herbal intake.


http://www.aidscureherbal.com/



I then found another interesting article, about a possible vaccine for the HIV virus.

http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/20041129/human-test-novel-vaccine-stops-hiv



Again, what do you guys think ? We all know there are plenty of people living with HIV, who still live healthy lives, and keep the virus under control.


But do you beleive that there are actually people out there who have been cured of the virus ???



If this is really, truly fact, then this man and the people that cured him better make 65million vaccines to cure those people.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I have also read stories of a few people in other parts of the world who have beaten HIV through a series of herbal intake.


http://www.aidscureherbal.com/

These are fake, imo.

Much like Iran, who declared that their ancient Islamic medicine can cure aids.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
In Britain, there is a man who tested positive for HIV in 2002, but a year later tested negative. What this means is that he beat HIV. He cured himself. Is this possible ? I expected actual evidence, not this! It starts out with you not realising the possibilty of a faulty test, then after the shock of that, one realises the year is 2002. Surely something as great as this would've made the news, or covered up and ranted on by conspiracy nuts.

Also, you make gay jokes in a thread about Jesus, but not in a thread about HIV? That, like Chewbacca, does NOT make sense.

Okay, how the hell could it be a possible lab error ?


HIV tests work by discovering the presence of HIV antibodies within the bloodstream. The test can only come positive if there is a response within the body to the virus.


Unless the doctors were really that stupid that they confused an ordinary blood cell with an HIV antibody.


I really hope it is true, because honestly, so many people are dying needlessly just as a result of having sex. Protected or unprotected, gay or straight, monogamous or promiscuous, married or single.

I have heard stories about people in certain parts of the world who acquired HIV and no longer have it (or atleast the symptons were completely gone, and the virus has had no effect on the body-remember though, HIV virus can stay dormant for over a decade).

But then agian, I don't know, it's just my wishful thinking.

Just keep in mind...ofcourse we know what a horrible disease AIDS is, but there are a lot of people who look, feel, and are actually healthy, despite having the HIV virus. Life for those with HIV/AIDS is definately an improvement to what it was once decades ago.


I do not find the idea of HIV being eradicated in one's body completely far-fetched.

It's just the Irony of the Virus though: It's fragile as hell. It dies in the air within one minute. It dies in saliva, because of the enzymes which break it down, and it also cannot survive in urine or stomach acid.

However, once it reaches the bloodstream, it's a safehaven. The Virus may be weak, but it's intelligent as hell. The virus keeps changing in an effort to out do the Immune System, while at the same time, destroying it.

On top of that, it messes around with a cell's genetic code, implanting itself into the cell. That's the danger, because even if you destroy the active viruses, there are still plenty of dormant viral codes within the genetic structure of the cells it targetted.


Ugghh.....

Wishful thinking clouds your rationality. Oh, and you not expecting a lab error? Man, that's really dumb, you know that?

Do you know how HIV tests are taken ?


The only way there can be a Lab Error is if the doctor's looked at someone else's blood. Which they have not.


You can't have a "fake HIV antibody" in someone's blood. They either have the HIV antibody, or they don't.

The only error that can occur is if someone is tested negative, and then later found out to be positive, because the antibody wasn't created yet.

Well, with the many millions of worldwide tests, obviously there could be a mix-up in at least one.

"The only way there can be a Lab Error is if the doctor's looked at someone else's blood."

Well, there you go.

Originally posted by lord xyz
"The only way there can be a Lab Error is if the doctor's looked at someone else's blood."

Well, there you go.


Yes, except for one thing:


It was his blood. The doctors were shocked that his second and third bloodtests turned out negative, when his first was positive. If it wasn't his blood, they would have figured it out

But it also depends which HIV test he had: In the test called ELISA, which is a very sensitive test, requiring little blood, there are almost no false negative tests, but they are occasions where the test can be a false positive.


http://www.neahin.org/programs/reproductive/responding/hivtest.htm


But just look at this again:


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=adyj1_OzHGIg&refer=europe


He sued the Hospital, because he thought the test was false. He sued them for the false test, because of the stress it caused him. However, the Hospital double checked, and there was NO ERROR found.

The initial Positive Test was correct. Not false. And he later tested negative in 2003. That is why doctors were shocked.

And please read this:


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





Just read the sites, read his story...I know it sounds crazy, but just check it out. According to all sources, the Tests were CORRECT and they WERE HIS...he officially tested positive then negative.

How many times does it need to happen?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I have told myself to take a break from KMC, but I stumbled upon articles which I couldn't keep to myself. HIV/AIDS is a worry which not only runs through my mind often, but the minds of so many other people.


In Britain, there is a man who tested positive for HIV in 2002, but a year later tested negative. What this means is that he beat HIV. He cured himself. Is this possible ?


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article589783.ece

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,20281,17233282-5001021,00.html

http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/11/13/2253240.shtml?tid=99&tid=14


What do you guys think ?


I have also read stories of a few people in other parts of the world who have beaten HIV through a series of herbal intake.


http://www.aidscureherbal.com/



I then found another interesting article, about a possible vaccine for the HIV virus.

http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/20041129/human-test-novel-vaccine-stops-hiv



Again, what do you guys think ? We all know there are plenty of people living with HIV, who still live healthy lives, and keep the virus under control.


But do you beleive that there are actually people out there who have been cured of the virus ???

Bet you're glad to hear that, huh?

I wouldn't reduce this news to the "freedom to fu*k whoever will let me" mindset that keeps soccer moms from allowing their daughters to obtain the HPV vaccine.

And I'll address your PM in this too, Urizen.

The AVERT website report fills in a lot of the gaps that the original links leave open to question. But, despite the influx of info from the site, there's still no conclusive evidence to support the notion that this guy was "cured" of AIDs.

I found the hooker information more interesting than anything reported about Stimpson. You asked me why I didn't think this was being reported on more heavily. Aside from all the "gay reasons" to find this story interesting, the main reason we don't hear more about a cure for AIDS is because there's no money in a cured disease. That's the bottom ine as far as any disease is concerned.

But, as for Stimpson, he might have been "cured" or he might have been ill-informed from the beginning. I honestly can't tell. Every conclusion reached ends up opening the door to new possibilities for an explanation.

Over the course of the last 10 years, I've heard of humans that are immune to HIV, humans that have cured themselves and humans of public interest that have been cured through back room, under-the-table methods.

Bottom line, I just hope a treatment is found that will free humans from teh burden of the disease. But more importantly, I hope someone involved reaches the conclusion that a cure is best for humanity, rather than for their own finacial interests.

Lulz.

I love the conclusion-jumping.

DUDE HE CURED HIMSELF NO POSSIBLE LABORATORY ERROR WHATSOEVER

Suicide is the best cure for AIDS.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
How many times does it need to happen?

Usually one initial HIV test including confirmation if positive, will be done.

After that, the Viral load test will be done I BELIEVE, 2-3 times per year to access/track the progression of the virus. The Viral load testing will also confirm you have the virus by monitoring the patients T-cells.

I think people need to take into consideration that there are different strains of the Virus. I'm really not sure of there classifications, but I am under the impression the HIV spread by homosexuals to be the worst strain to have.

Originally posted by Secretus
Usually one initial HIV test including confirmation if positive, will be done.

After that, the Viral load test will be done I BELIEVE, 2-3 times per year to access/track the progression of the virus. The Viral load testing will also confirm you have the virus by monitoring the patients T-cells.

I think people need to take into consideration that there are different strains of the Virus. I'm really not sure of there classifications, but I am under the impression the HIV spread by homosexuals to be the worst strain to have.

What I actually meant was, how many mix-ups do you need?

(1).

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
What I actually meant was, how many mix-ups do you need?

(1).
How many mix-ups does it take to screw up the results of an HIV test?

One, a-two, a--

Oh, wait.

Andrew Stimpson: The Man "Cured" of HIV

*shrug* a lot of conflicting reports

I don't know how true this is, all I know is that I have a friend that told me years ago that he contracted the virus. I even saw the sores on his skin begin to develop, but we lost touch, which was several years ago. Just recently however another friend of mine told me that the person that I said had AIDS virus was still alive, and that he was healthier than ever. Keep in mind that this was nearly 10 yrs ago when I last spoke to him, and he was not very wealthy. My ex girl friend just called me about one month ago saying that he (my friend was cured).
1. He was lying and never had it or...
2. He is one of the rare people that may carry a gene that permits him to be a carrier of the AIDS virus without dying from it.
Who knows?

He's actually a vampire and performed a total blood transfusion from one of his victims.

Duh.

For the Last Time, the original test was NOT a MIX UP


-If you actually read it, the original blood test was done twice.

-The Hospital rechecked the original blood sample, and confirmed that the original test was in fact, correct, making Andrew Stimpson's lawsuit null and void.

-Andrew Stimpson had the original blood samples sent to various clinics, all of which confirmed the original test was in fact, his own blood, and HIV positive.


He was then later tested 3 times, and all 3 tests came back negative.


Look, I know this is hard to swallow (no pun intended), but this guy was once HIV positive, and then turns out HIV negative .I don't know how its possible, but it happened. Unless you want to beleive that this is some sort of media/government conspiracy for the effort of somehow distracting us, it seems most likely that this is one rare case where someone actually beat the virus on his own.



In regards to Devil King's prior post, yes, you guys should also check out the story of the Prostitutes from Kenya.

It seemed that repeated exposure to the HIV virus, somehow made them immune, but a few of them became infected once they STOPPED having anonymous sex (ironically).


Also, according to Andrew Stimpson, himself, his boyfreind of Hispanic decent, is HIV positive. He had unprotected sex with him after his first diagnosis, seeing no point is using protection.

This means that Andrew Stimpson had repeatedly exposed himself to the HIV virus, through unprotected anal sex with his infected boyfreind, yet he himself had no infection. He himself somehow stayed HIV Negative, despite:


1) Having been found positive at first two blood tests


2) Having repeated UNPROTECTED anal sex with his HIV positive boyfreind for months after the first diagnosis.



Just consider the possibility...how can he be HIV negative despite having repeated unprotected sex with his HIV positive boyfreind ?

The entire situation, at all angles, tells us that this guy actually beat HIV.




The most probably reason, many scientists in the reports have said, was that perhaps the strand of HIV he acquired was severely weak, and not strong enough to replicate and mutate at a rate which would require its survival.

Who knows....but please...before you make your decisions, please read the entirety of all reports. Then make up your mind.

Originally posted by CaptainStoic
I don't know how true this is, all I know is that I have a friend that told me years ago that he contracted the virus. I even saw the sores on his skin begin to develop, but we lost touch, which was several years ago. Just recently however another friend of mine told me that the person that I said had AIDS virus was still alive, and that he was healthier than ever. Keep in mind that this was nearly 10 yrs ago when I last spoke to him, and he was not very wealthy. My ex girl friend just called me about one month ago saying that he (my friend was cured).
1. He was lying and never had it or...
2. He is one of the rare people that may carry a gene that permits him to be a carrier of the AIDS virus without dying from it.
Who knows? 3. They lied that he was cured/healthier.

Originally posted by lord xyz
3. They lied that he was cured/healthier.


If he is alive, and well, and healthy, then chances are the tests about his negative status are true

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
For the Last Time, the original test was NOT a MIX UP


-If you actually read it, the original blood test was done twice.

-The Hospital rechecked the original blood sample, and confirmed that the original test was in fact, correct, making Andrew Stimpson's lawsuit null and void.

-Andrew Stimpson had the original blood samples sent to various clinics, all of which confirmed the original test was in fact, his own blood, and HIV positive.


He was then later tested 3 times, and all 3 tests came back negative.


Look, I know this is hard to swallow (no pun intended), but this guy was once HIV positive, and then turns out HIV negative .I don't know how its possible, but it happened. Unless you want to beleive that this is some sort of media/government conspiracy for the effort of somehow distracting us, it seems most likely that this is one rare case where someone actually beat the virus on his own.



In regards to Devil King's prior post, yes, you guys should also check out the story of the Prostitutes from Kenya.

It seemed that repeated exposure to the HIV virus, somehow made them immune, but a few of them became infected once they STOPPED having anonymous sex (ironically).


Also, according to Andrew Stimpson, himself, his boyfreind of Hispanic decent, is HIV positive. He had unprotected sex with him after his first diagnosis, seeing no point is using protection.

This means that Andrew Stimpson had repeatedly exposed himself to the HIV virus, through unprotected anal sex with his infected boyfreind, yet he himself had no infection. He himself somehow stayed HIV Negative, despite:


1) Having been found positive at first two blood tests


2) Having repeated UNPROTECTED anal sex with his HIV positive boyfreind for months after the first diagnosis.



Just consider the possibility...how can he be HIV negative despite having repeated unprotected sex with his HIV positive boyfreind ?

The entire situation, at all angles, tells us that this guy actually beat HIV.




The most probably reason, many scientists in the reports have said, was that perhaps the strand of HIV he acquired was severely weak, and not strong enough to replicate and mutate at a rate which would require its survival.

Who knows....but please...before you make your decisions, please read the entirety of all reports. Then make up your mind.
Stimpson's none-too-bright, is he? Or he's a bug-chaser. Which also makes him pretty dumb.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
For the Last Time, the original test was NOT a MIX UP


-If you actually read it, the original blood test was done twice.

-The Hospital rechecked the original blood sample, and confirmed that the original test was in fact, correct, making Andrew Stimpson's lawsuit null and void.

-Andrew Stimpson had the original blood samples sent to various clinics, all of which confirmed the original test was in fact, his own blood, and HIV positive.


He was then later tested 3 times, and all 3 tests came back negative.


Look, I know this is hard to swallow (no pun intended), but this guy was once HIV positive, and then turns out HIV negative.

That's false logic. Considering what we know about HIV, it is in fact at least as likely that the original tests were errors. That he spontaneously cured himself of HIV is not the most likely option left.

A series of original mistakes might be unlikely but it's still very possible and to jump to positive conclusions is unwise- especially as nothing ever came of this.

All it would have taken for all the original results to be false would have been an abormal production of antibodies by Stimpson. Very rare indeed for it to match the HIV diagnosis, but certainly possible, and apparently rather more likely than a cure.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
If he is alive, and well, and healthy, then chances are the tests about his negative status are true Did you read the words "they lied" properly?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
For the Last Time, the original test was NOT a MIX UP


-If you actually read it, the original blood test was done twice.

-The Hospital rechecked the original blood sample, and confirmed that the original test was in fact, correct, making Andrew Stimpson's lawsuit null and void.

-Andrew Stimpson had the original blood samples sent to various clinics, all of which confirmed the original test was in fact, his own blood, and HIV positive.


He was then later tested 3 times, and all 3 tests came back negative.


Look, I know this is hard to swallow (no pun intended), but this guy was once HIV positive, and then turns out HIV negative .I don't know how its possible, but it happened. Unless you want to beleive that this is some sort of media/government conspiracy for the effort of somehow distracting us, it seems most likely that this is one rare case where someone actually beat the virus on his own.



In regards to Devil King's prior post, yes, you guys should also check out the story of the Prostitutes from Kenya.

It seemed that repeated exposure to the HIV virus, somehow made them immune, but a few of them became infected once they STOPPED having anonymous sex (ironically).


Also, according to Andrew Stimpson, himself, his boyfreind of Hispanic decent, is HIV positive. He had unprotected sex with him after his first diagnosis, seeing no point is using protection.

This means that Andrew Stimpson had repeatedly exposed himself to the HIV virus, through unprotected anal sex with his infected boyfreind, yet he himself had no infection. He himself somehow stayed HIV Negative, despite:


1) Having been found positive at first two blood tests


2) Having repeated UNPROTECTED anal sex with his HIV positive boyfreind for months after the first diagnosis.



Just consider the possibility...how can he be HIV negative despite having repeated unprotected sex with his HIV positive boyfreind ?

The entire situation, at all angles, tells us that this guy actually beat HIV.




The most probably reason, many scientists in the reports have said, was that perhaps the strand of HIV he acquired was severely weak, and not strong enough to replicate and mutate at a rate which would require its survival.

Who knows....but please...before you make your decisions, please read the entirety of all reports. Then make up your mind.

It stands to reason within any population some people will have a resistance to any disease. It's a kind of natural selection. Conversely this is probably a lab error. Passable thread 6.5-7/10

1) Adam Poe, you didn't read the entire article.


The original bloodtests were redone, in various clinics, since he was suing the hospital for the "false results", and they were all declared correct the first two times they were taken. Read the article again.




2) Like Devil King said earlier, the reason not much became of this is because there's not a whole lot of profit that can be gained from curing HIV/AIDS. Pharmacy companies aren't going to exactly jump all over this, because it would mean an end to the billions of dollars in profit they gain from their mixes of HIV medications.


3) Not much came from the Kenyan Prostitutes either, but they were proven to have been immune to the HIV virus. The theory is that they were immune because of repeated exposure.

However, some of them became infected once they stopped having sex. Scientists believe this is because they were no longer exposing themselves, and therefore thier immune system remained static, allowing the virus to mutate further.




***You guys are forgetting. HE had UNPROTECTED ANAL SEX with his HIV POSITIVE BOYFREIND. And he STILL REMAINED NEGATIVE.


The original tests being false or correct are almost IRRELEVANT, when you consider the fact that despite his boyfreind having HIV, and he having UNPROTECTED SEX with him, he STILL REMAINED CLEAN AND HEALTHY...

Are you guys asking why ? Open your eyes.





Don't forget that centuries ago, some people survived the Bubonic Plague (Black Death). This plague was far more contagous than HIV, and it killed people much faster. Yet some people became immune.


If that is the case, then how do you imagine this is impossible for HIV ?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Stimpson's none-too-bright, is he? Or he's a bug-chaser. Which also makes him pretty dumb.


Just because he is Gay does not mean he's dumb.


He figured he might as well have unprotected sex since he was "already HIV positive". So he had unprotected sex with his HIV positive boyfreind, and somehow STILL remained Negative.

I think that is the question we should consider....

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
1) Adam Poe, you didn't read the entire article.


The original bloodtests were redone, in various clinics, since he was suing the hospital for the "false results", and they were all declared correct the first two times they were taken. Read the article again.

You read the article again:



HIV tests detect an immune response, i.e. the production of antibodies to HIV, not the presence of the virus in the bloodstream. It was his previous exposure to HIV, not the presence of the virus in his bloodstream, that caused the immune response detected by the HIV test, thereby yielding a false-positive result.

That he has been exposed to HIV, and remains negative is rare, but not miraculous.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
***You guys are forgetting. HE had UNPROTECTED ANAL SEX with his HIV POSITIVE BOYFREIND. And he STILL REMAINED NEGATIVE. Having unprotected anal sex with someone who is HIV positive does not mean you'll get AIDS 100%.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Having unprotected anal sex with someone who is HIV positive does not mean you'll get AIDS 100%.

Almost a 100% chance, though.

Originally posted by Secretus
Almost a 100% chance, though. Like I said, not 100%.

SpearofDestiny, you are not changing anything. Yes, it is unlikely you can have regular anal sex with an infected person and stay infection free. But ONLY unlikely. That's certainly happened, several times, and it is again FAR more likely than a spontaeous curing of HIV.

Your bubonic plague example is a bad one because that didn;t have anything like a 100% death rate. Rabies would be better- only one documented case of survival. And so, yes, miracles like that do happen. But you only call it a miracle if you are completly and utterly certain that all the other more likely possibilities are gone.

That has not happened. It is still far more likely that a. he was lucky enough not to catch it and b. the diagnosis was faulty.

That;'s just true- my eyes are open. Yours are looking into a dreamland.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yours are looking into a dreamland. Why didn't I say that?

nearly every disease is beatable due to our immune system, and you do have a chance of overcoming it however small it may be

Originally posted by rader
nearly every disease is beatable due to our immune system, and you do have a chance of overcoming it however small it may be Yeah, our immune system provides anti-bodies for the disease. Anyone ever heard of HIV anti-bodies discovered in 2002? I certainly haven't.

As yet, the only way he could have done that would be to commit suicide.

Science Daily

vincent

Why was this merged? It was two different topics ermm

Urizen needs to feel popular or else he'll get AIDS.

Originally posted by Devil King
For years at a time?

I could have been that he developed an AIDS-like antibody from some other virus.

Technically it is possible to beat the disease, but I pretty much garuntee it didn't happen form herbal supplements.

Those just made his kidneys work harder.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I think that is the question we should consider....

HIV can actually be tricky to transfer, however, it will, and when it does, it'll kill ya.

And trust me, in unprotected sex, you'll be the one who gets it the first time. If not, I'll have you soon.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Urizen needs to feel popular or else he'll get AIDS.



You are probably thee worst representative of Christianity this site has seen short of Marcello







********







And yes, Alliance, I agree with you. Technically you can beat the virus, but it has to be more than just "luck", at least in case with Andrew Stimpson.


There are many theories concerning Andrew Stimpson's case, as well as the prostitutes from Kenya.








Originally posted by Vinny Valentine
Why was this merged? It was two different topics



It's the same topic, I came up with it first

Go back to the OTF

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Urizen needs to feel popular or else he'll get AIDS.

Being "popular" is how you get AIDS.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
You are probably thee worst representative of Christianity this site has seen short of Marcello







********







And yes, Alliance, I agree with you. Technically you can beat the virus, but it has to be more than just "luck", at least in case with Andrew Stimpson.


There are many theories concerning Andrew Stimpson's case, as well as the prostitutes from Kenya.












It's the same topic, I came up with it first

Go back to the OTF

You fail, because... Man curing himself of Aids, and Scientist figuring out how to Neutralize it.. Different topics.

science tells us that it is impossible for the bodies immune system to overcome any strand of the HIV virus. Science does change because their is no such thing as fact though so its possible, but is more likely a myth with an explanation

Science tells you nothing. wtf is "science"

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
science tells us that it is impossible for the bodies immune system to overcome any strand of the HIV virus. Science does change because their is no such thing as fact though so its possible, but is more likely a myth with an explanation

"There are no facts"... Is that a fact?

Originally posted by Robtard
"There are no facts"... Is that a fact?

it's more of an idea

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
You are probably thee worst representative of Christianity this site has seen short of Marcello
Oh, shut up, you bloody twit. Contrary to popular belief, Christians are humans, and humans have senses of humor in addition to the ability to feel annoyed at your bullshit.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Being "popular" is how you get AIDS.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Being "popular" is how you get AIDS.
He's probably a bug-chaser for the attention-whoring he can do.

So, just to clear it up, you think him having a boyfriend with HIV makes him a bug chaser?

Also, do you think there are really people out there who are seeking out AIDs? Or are you just calling them bug-chasers because they have sex with people to whom they are not married?

Originally posted by Devil King
So, just to clear it up, you think him having a boyfriend with HIV makes him a bug chaser?

Also, do you think there are really people out there who are seeking out AIDs? Or are you just calling them bug-chasers because they have sex with people to whom they are not married?
1. He has a boyfriend with HIV?
2. Yes, I do believe that they exist, which is why the term "bug-chaser" exists.
3. No, bug-chasing doesn't necessarily equate to promiscuity. (At least, as far as I know.)

So, Stimpson wanted AIDs. Is that what you're saying?

People with AIDs don't deserve to be loved?

Originally posted by Devil King
So, Stimpson wanted AIDs. Is that what you're saying?

People with AIDs don't deserve to be loved?
I thought we were talking about Urizen, and your conclusion that I believe that "Stimpson wanted AIDS" is a straw man. Then your question about people with AIDS not deserving to be loved is an exponential increase in an attempt at a straw man.

It's not a straw man if I'm asking you a question about why you called him a "bug-chaser".

You brought that term into the discussion. Now, I'm just asking you to clearify. There are far too many question marks in my posts for it to be considered a strawman.

The words of Zeal are quite worthless...don't stress over it Devil King

Originally posted by Devil King
It's not a straw man if I'm asking you a question about why you called him a "bug-chaser".

You brought that term into the discussion. Now, I'm just asking you to clearify. There are far too many question marks in my posts for it to be considered a strawman.

Zeal is a Christian who thinks Homosexuality is wrong. He feels AIDS is a suitable consequence for one who routinely "practices homosexuality".


Atleast that is how it seems. I can't imagine how he wouldn't feel that way, when he can refer to a Gay man as a "bug chaser".

He isn't calling gay men bug chasers.

He first referred to Andrew Stimpson as a "bug chaser" since he chose to have unprotected anal sex with his HIV positive boyfreind, after his initial diagnosis of being HIV positive himself. He saw no point in using protection.


Then I think Zeal referred to me as one, for the number of hook ups I have had.


I don't know or care, I just don't thnk his opinion is worth regarding

Originally posted by Devil King
It's not a straw man if I'm asking you a question about why you called him a "bug-chaser".

You brought that term into the discussion. Now, I'm just asking you to clearify. There are far too many question marks in my posts for it to be considered a strawman.
The way you jumped to conclusions implies a straw man. If that wasn't your intent, I apologize.

Anyway, as I said, I thought we were talking about Urizen. No, not every gay man who has sex with someone who is HIV positive is a bug-chaser; the intent would have to be to get HIV. Yes, I think there are people out there who wants to get HIV/AIDS. I don't understand why, but they do. Lastly, people with AIDS do deserve to be loved--I'm not really sure why it wouldn't.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Zeal is a Christian who thinks Homosexuality is wrong. He feels AIDS is a suitable consequence for one who routinely "practices homosexuality".

Atleast that is how it seems. I can't imagine how he wouldn't feel that way, when he can refer to a Gay man as a "bug chaser".
Just when your failure was at an all-time low, you had to say something chock-full of stupid. AIDS is a consequence of sexual activity, not a judgment by God. Additionally, why don't you get your head out of your ass and learn a bit about the terms?
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Then I think Zeal referred to me as one, for the number of hook ups I have had.
Actually, I said that you were a bug-chaser so you could get attention from it, as you are an attention whore. My evidence is the fact that you've used KMC as your personal blog and talked about how you were doing pornography. Are you actually a bug-chaser? Probably not, and I don't care, as I wasn't being serious.

Duh.

Welcome to the Internets.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Anyway, as I said, I thought we were talking about Urizen. No, not every gay man who has sex with someone who is HIV positive is a bug-chaser; the intent would have to be to get HIV. Yes, I think there are people out there who wants to get HIV/AIDS. I don't understand why, but they do. Lastly, people with AIDS do deserve to be loved--I'm not really sure why it wouldn't.

Just when your failure was at an all-time low, you had to say something chock-full of stupid. AIDS is a consequence of sexual activity, not a judgment by God. Additionally, why don't you get your head out of your ass and learn a bit about the terms?

Actually, I said that you were a bug-chaser so you could get attention from it, as you are an attention whore. My evidence is the fact that you've used KMC as your personal blog and talked about how you were doing pornography. Are you actually a bug-chaser? Probably not, and I don't care, as I wasn't being serious.

Duh.

Welcome to the Internets.



You need to calm down. I was just busting your balls.

I simply don't like the term "bug chaser". It's highly disrespectful, and making crude humor about a very serious issue- people's lives.


I highly doubt any Gay man, or straight person for that matter, wants to get AIDS. That's absurd.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I simply don't like the term "bug chaser". It's highly disrespectful, and making crude humor about a very serious issue- people's lives.


I highly doubt any Gay man, or straight person for that matter, wants to get AIDS. That's absurd.

"Bug Chasers" by Daniel Hill

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
"Bug Chasers" by Daniel Hill

"Year 2000. In Gay nightclubs across the U.S. men wear sleeveless shirts in hopes that someone will notice the tattoo "HIV-" blazoned across their deltoid. What is not so obvious is that the intention of such a tattoo is to attract someone who is HIV+. It is an invitation to infect through a practice known as "barebacking," having unprotected anal sex. In other words, the tattooed man is intentionally seeking an HIV+ partner to infect him with the virus. All that is left is a trip back to the tattoo artist to have that tattoo adjusted from negative to positive. Simple.

Is help all these men are asking for?

In private sex clubs across the U.S. men gather for a chance to participate in what is called Russian Roulette. Ten men are invited, nine are HIV-, one is HIV+. The men have agreed to not speak of AIDS, nor HIV. They participate in as many unsafe sexual encounters with each other as possible, thus increasing their chances to receive "the bug." These are the men known as 'Bug Chasers.'"

You have to be ****ing kidding me... even for a small group, it's just "WTF!".

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No one cares SpearofDestiny.



It's the Topic of this thread genius

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
It's the Topic of this thread genius

Yes, but who actually STAYS on topic in a forum?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
It's the Topic of this thread genius

The man in question was never HIV-positive. His exposure to HIV caused an immune response that yielded a false-negative result on an HIV test. Accept that he is not the key to curing HIV.

Still changing absolutely nothing that has already been said in reply to you, SoD. Overwhelmingly, misdiagnosis is much more likely than miracle cure.

And no matter how absurd you think seeking HIV is, it's been known to happen- Stephen Fry came across the phenomenon in his recent series about AIDS in the modern day.