quote: (post)

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.

quote: (post)

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.

quote: (post)

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

quote: (post)

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.

quote:

Andrew Stimpson: The Man "Cured" of HIV

False positive test result and diagnosis

This seems the most probable 'alternative' scenario, and one that the CWT has suggested as an explanation . . . A false positive result can either occur because the test detects a non-HIV antibody (i.e. an similar antibody produced against a different virus) or, theoretically, because there are somehow HIV antibodies present, although there is no actual HIV infection.

. . . The CWT's assertion that the virus was 'transient' suggests he may have somehow had antibodies in his blood following exposure without actually having a current HIV infection . . .

quote: (post)

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.

quote: (post)

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.[b]

quote:

Andrew Stimpson: The Man "Cured" of HIV

[b]False positive test result and diagnosis

This seems the most probable 'alternative' scenario, and one that the CWT has suggested as an explanation . . . A false positive result can either occur because the test detects a non-HIV antibody (i.e. an similar antibody produced against a different virus) or, theoretically, because there are somehow HIV antibodies present, although there is no actual HIV infection.

. . . The CWT's assertion that the virus was 'transient' suggests he may have somehow had antibodies in his blood following exposure without actually having a current HIV infection . . .

quote: (post)

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

quote: (post)

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

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Secretus
Almost a 100% chance, though.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yours are looking into a dreamland.

quote: (post)

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

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Devil King
For years at a time?

quote: (post)

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