# You selfish fuck! (Man with possible HIV cure in his veins refuses to undergo tests)
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-selfish-fuck-man-with-possible-hiv-cure-in-his-veins-refuses-to-undergo-tests/331993
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [November 20, 2005, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-selfish-fuck-man-with-possible-hiv-cure-in-his-veins-refuses-to-undergo-tests/331993 "2005-11-20T23:16:27Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@irishgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/irishgirl)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2005, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-selfish-fuck-man-with-possible-hiv-cure-in-his-veins-refuses-to-undergo-tests/331993/21 "2005-11-21T12:59:41Z")
Talk to me about the viral load test.
What is the false positive rate for it?
Because it did detect HIV virus, just not a lot of it.
---
### Author:  [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2005, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-selfish-fuck-man-with-possible-hiv-cure-in-his-veins-refuses-to-undergo-tests/331993/22 "2005-11-21T17:39:17Z")
> [@irishgirl](#):
>
> Talk to me about the viral load test.
> What is the false positive rate for it?
> Because it did detect HIV virus, just not a lot of it.
From the [avert.org](http://avert.org) website, it claims that prior cases of false positives derive from heightened immune responses after a flu-shot etc. Even the fluid from the initial positive tests were retested again and still came up positive for HIV antibodies, so it certainly seems that there were HIV antibodies in his system and lab error or whatever isn’t at fault here, but the point is that there have been documented false positives before due to some special immune circumstances.
Again, is it more likely that he had a false positive, of which there are documented cases, or some sort of amazing and previously undocumented ability to cure himself of AIDS?
---
### Author:  [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2005, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-selfish-fuck-man-with-possible-hiv-cure-in-his-veins-refuses-to-undergo-tests/331993/23 "2005-11-21T18:04:59Z")
Maybe he was afraid he’d get the old [Henrietta Lacks](http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0400web/01.html) treatment. Sure hope it doesn’t happen to those prostitutes in Nairobi if they turn out to be the source of an AIDS cure.
---
### Author:  [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2005, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-selfish-fuck-man-with-possible-hiv-cure-in-his-veins-refuses-to-undergo-tests/331993/24 "2005-11-21T18:33:04Z")
I think we are looking at this HIV positive from too great a distance in terms of the person.
We are largely distanced from the personal consequencies from being told we are HIV positive, as such I doubt many of us can really appreciate the effect of being effectively told of a death sentence.
Imagine for the last few years that you’ve been living under this shadow, the effect it must have on your thoughts, values, how you see the future, your life plans, your relationships with others.
Suddenly the death sentence is cast aside, decisions you might have made about your future have been delayed, or completely stopped, and to cap it all, your patient confidentiality appears to have been breached, and now everyone in the world wants to know you, they were not interested before, when you were dying, now they are.
I would expect that rationality after such experience is not easy to come by, the media are vying for your exclusive signature, agents pestering you, along with the rest of society somehow putting an implied pressure on you that you are under and obligation to submit to testing, society didn’t care too much about you before.
What happend to his privacy, what happens if retesting shows you either never had it, or maybe even retesting is actually the wrong diagnosis, you still have HIV.
There must be a whole host of conflicting thoughts going throught this young mans mind, and it will not be helped by all those hangers on.
Stardom is enough to turn any persons head, relief from a death sentence and the consequent media flurry must be morally disorientating.
I think the OP is thinking too much in terms of loving humanity, but not considering the individuals that make it up, sure, it would seem this young man has some duty to help save us all, but that’s only from your point of view, now try it from his.
---
### Author:  [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2005, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-selfish-fuck-man-with-possible-hiv-cure-in-his-veins-refuses-to-undergo-tests/331993/25 "2005-11-21T18:48:55Z")
> [@casdave](#):
>
> I
> I think the OP is thinking too much in terms of loving humanity, but not considering the individuals that make it up, sure, it would seem this young man has some duty to help save us all, but that’s only from your point of view, now try it from his.
Already done.
---
### Author:  [@scule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scule)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-selfish-fuck-man-with-possible-hiv-cure-in-his-veins-refuses-to-undergo-tests/331993/26 "2005-11-21T19:32:08Z")
> [@ZebraShaSha](#):
>
> Let us say there are ten thousand men who are tested for HIV. From this test, two men will test positive. 9,998 will test negative. Out of those two men who tested positive, only 1 will have HIV and the other one will test positive but won’t have the disease. This gives us a false positive rate of about 50%, so it is very likely that the man in question did in fact recieve a false positive the first time.
>
> It is important to understand that when being tested, the false positive rate is tremendous. For women’s breast cancer screening, usually only 1 out of 10 women who test positive actually have cancer. Sadly, most doctors don’t even undestand the statistics involed, which gives the population at large both a false sense of security and a false sense of doom depending on the outcome of the tests. There have been many suicides of people who thought they had HIV because of a positve test result, despite not actually having the disease.
>
> Some but not all of the false positive rates are due to labatory errors, and various other mistakes can be made. Always, always get a second test in these situations.
>
> In all, the man in question merely recieved a false positive the first time, sold his story, and now refuses tests because he knows that he isn’t magical.
Sorry, I hate to do this in the Pit, but cite? For the false positive rate and suicide claim.
---
### Author:  [@Sweet\_Mercury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sweet_Mercury)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2005, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-selfish-fuck-man-with-possible-hiv-cure-in-his-veins-refuses-to-undergo-tests/331993/27 "2005-11-21T20:13:48Z")
> [@scule](#):
>
> Sorry, I hate to do this in the Pit, but cite? For the false positive rate and suicide claim.
He does.
> [@threemae](#):
>
> Here’s some more information:
> [http://www.avert.org/stimpson.htm](http://www.avert.org/stimpson.htm)
I almost made the same mistake untill I saw this.
---
### Author:  [@scule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scule)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2005, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-selfish-fuck-man-with-possible-hiv-cure-in-his-veins-refuses-to-undergo-tests/331993/28 "2005-11-21T20:34:30Z")
> [@Sweet Mercury](#):
>
> He does.
>
> I almost made the same mistake untill I saw this.
I must be missing something, because I read that whole thing already and didn’t see anything about suicides or false positive rates (other than that they’re very rare). Perhaps elaboration is in order? Or some other cites?
---
### Author:  [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2005, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-selfish-fuck-man-with-possible-hiv-cure-in-his-veins-refuses-to-undergo-tests/331993/29 "2005-11-21T21:05:14Z")
Perhaps Mr. Stimpson is a _real_ Scotman. And as everyone knows, real Scotmen don’t worry about HIV. Nooo lads… 'e just g’it the heed!
---
### Author:  [@Sweet\_Mercury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sweet_Mercury)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2005, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-selfish-fuck-man-with-possible-hiv-cure-in-his-veins-refuses-to-undergo-tests/331993/30 "2005-11-21T21:16:16Z")
> [@scule](#):
>
> I must be missing something, because I read that whole thing already and didn’t see anything about suicides or false positive rates (other than that they’re very rare). Perhaps elaboration is in order? Or some other cites?
Sorry, I was referring more to the assumption that the subject in queston is most likely the result of a false positive. I can’t vouch for the other stats.
---
### Author:  [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2005, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-selfish-fuck-man-with-possible-hiv-cure-in-his-veins-refuses-to-undergo-tests/331993/31 "2005-11-21T21:26:34Z")
It seems that the claimed 50% accuracy (or inaccuracy if you’d prefer) rate is totally specious.
[
> [@](#):
>
> The accuracy of a medical test is a combination of two factors: sensitivity and specificity. The ELISA is extremely sensitive (about 99.5%), which means it will detect very small quantities of HIV antibody. This high sensitivity reduces the odds of reporting a “false negative” when HIV antibodies are present. Assuming you are being tested beyond the six month “window period,” discussed above, if the ELISA is “negative,” there is virtually no chance you have HIV.
>
> The high sensitivity of the test creates a slightly lower specificity. This means the result could (infrequently) be “false positive.” To compensate for this, confirmatory tests are automatically performed after a positive ELISA. The WB and IFA are highly specific for HIV antibodies, so they rule out false positive ELISAs nearly every time.
>
> **The CDC states that the combined accuracy of the ELISA plus either the WB or IFA is greater than 99%.**
>
> The CDC recommends retesting any positive ELISA twice; if either retest is positive, then a confirmatory test is performed. Only when the confirmatory test is also positive is the result reported as HIV positive. Again, reputable test sites automatically follow this procedure, so results reported to you can be relied upon completely.
]([http://www.sfaf.org/aids101/hiv\_testing.html#accuracy](http://www.sfaf.org/aids101/hiv_testing.html#accuracy))
Maybe the CDC is wrong, but for a claim of a 50% false positive rate, I think we’re gonna need a solid cite.
---
### Author:  [@ZebraShaSha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZebraShaSha)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2005, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-selfish-fuck-man-with-possible-hiv-cure-in-his-veins-refuses-to-undergo-tests/331993/32 "2005-11-21T22:21:35Z")
Mea culpa, the false positve rate is in fact 1 in 10,000. However, the point still stands: the chances of you having the disease if you recieve a positive test is still 50%.
To understand this, imagine 10,000 men being tested for HIV. One male has the disease (base rate) and will test positive with practical certainity, better known as sensitivity. Out of the rest who are not infected, some 9,999 men, another dude will also test positive. This is the false positive rate, which I jumbled above. Now, in all, 2 men have tested positive out of 10,000 men.
But, out of those 2 men, only 1 has the disease. This means that there is a 50% likelihood of testing positive and having the disease.
Sorry I screwed up my post above. Are we clear now?
(Most of this information comes from Gerd Gigerenzer’s _Calculated Risk_. His cites for the above are varied, but I will provide one. First off, I’ll make the same disclaimer that he does, which is that no real standardization has been applied to calculating false positive rates. With available data, though, He, Hoffrage, and Ebert found a false positive rate the same as the CDC one, which can be found in _AIDS Care, 10,_ 197-211.)
---
### Author:  [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2005, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-selfish-fuck-man-with-possible-hiv-cure-in-his-veins-refuses-to-undergo-tests/331993/33 "2005-11-21T22:30:02Z")
> [@ZebraShaSha](#):
>
> Mea culpa, the false positve rate is in fact 1 in 10,000. However, the point still stands: the chances of you having the disease if you recieve a positive test is still 50%.
No, it’s still 9,999 in 10,000.
> [@ZebraShaSha](#):
>
> To understand this, imagine 10,000 men being tested for HIV. One male has the disease (base rate) and will test positive with practical certainity, better known as sensitivity. Out of the rest who are not infected, some 9,999 men, another dude will also test positive. This is the false positive rate, which I jumbled above. Now, in all, 2 men have tested positive out of 10,000 men.
> But, out of those 2 men, only 1 has the disease. This means that there is a 50% likelihood of testing positive and having the disease.
The math there is seriously screwed.
Where are you getting that out of those two men, one will have it? Where are you getting that our of 10,000 tests, only one will test positive? Can you provide some oneline cites?
---
### Author:  [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2005, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-selfish-fuck-man-with-possible-hiv-cure-in-his-veins-refuses-to-undergo-tests/331993/34 "2005-11-21T22:55:05Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#):
>
> No, it’s still 9,999 in 10,000.
No, it’s not, and the math is not particularly screwed. Meet [conditional probability](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability) and [Bayes’ Theorem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem).
Hope this helps.
---
### Author:  [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2005, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-selfish-fuck-man-with-possible-hiv-cure-in-his-veins-refuses-to-undergo-tests/331993/35 "2005-11-21T23:00:29Z")
> [@pool](#):
>
> It would be awesome just for the fact that you could say prostitution saves millions of lives.
Wouldn’t be saving lives anyway, just not possibly taking lives.
---
### Author:  [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2005, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-selfish-fuck-man-with-possible-hiv-cure-in-his-veins-refuses-to-undergo-tests/331993/36 "2005-11-21T23:04:58Z")
> [@Maeglin](#):
>
> No, it’s not, and the math is not particularly screwed. Meet [conditional probability](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability) and [Bayes’ Theorem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem).
You’re going to have to do a lot better than a wiki cite.
Why don’t you quote the parts you view as relevant and maybe show the work that one would use to get at the result of a 50% error rate in a test that’s 99% accurate?
Because otherwise it sounds like a plan ol’ Gambler’s Fallacy.
---
### Author:  [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2005, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-selfish-fuck-man-with-possible-hiv-cure-in-his-veins-refuses-to-undergo-tests/331993/37 "2005-11-21T23:16:56Z")
Cut the guy a little slack; he’s probably under intense pressure from the pharmaceutical mafia.
\*“Mr. Stimpson? I represent a consortium of businesses with heavy financial investments in the palliative care and management of HIV. We were very interested to hear that the key to eliminate this disease may reside in your blood. You know, blood is a very powerful and mysterious substance, Mr. Stimpson. Sometimes it can vanish from a person’s body entirely, at high speed. Sometimes people are found floating in the river without any blood in their body at all.” \*
---
### Author:  [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2005, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-selfish-fuck-man-with-possible-hiv-cure-in-his-veins-refuses-to-undergo-tests/331993/38 "2005-11-21T23:21:38Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#):
>
> You’re going to have to do a lot better than a wiki cite.
> Why don’t you quote the parts you view as relevant and maybe show the work that one would use to get at the result of a 50% error rate in a test that’s 99% accurate?
I am going to _have_ to? You have got to be kidding.
I am not paid to teach elementary probability to man-children.
I post to the SDMB for fun and to fight ignorance. The wiki articles are sufficiently informative without being overly rigorous. Someone of your intellect should have little difficulty figuring out the important parts and perhaps learning something about basic probability in the process. The tools are in your hands. If you don’t want to bother, I won’t lose any sleep. Like scott\_plaid, “you win”.
---
### Author:  [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2005, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-selfish-fuck-man-with-possible-hiv-cure-in-his-veins-refuses-to-undergo-tests/331993/39 "2005-11-21T23:39:53Z")
> [@Maeglin](#):
>
> I am going to _have_ to? You have got to be kidding.
Nope, no joke. Non peer reviewed user-created often-wrong wiki articles are a piss poor cite. Besides which you refuse to quote the relevant part or show your work at how you arrive at your conclusion.
> [@Maeglin](#):
>
> I am not paid to teach elementary probability
Cute schnookums. So you make a driveby wiki post, and then can’t even quote the relevant part, and then you whine about it.
You still can’t even tell me how this is not just a Gambler’s Fallacy.
> [@Maeglin](#):
>
> I post to the SDMB for fun and to fight ignorance.
I call bullshit on the second part.
.Telling people that a 1 in 10,000 chance of getting a false positive is actually a 50% chance is termendously dangerous and irresponsible.
> [@Maeglin](#):
>
> The wiki articles are sufficiently informative without being overly rigorous.
And yet you refuse to quote the specific part you’re saying proves that a test with a false positive rate of 1 in 10,000 actually has a false positive rate of 1 in 2.
The example given above by **Zebra** assumed that instead of having 10,000 positives, there is at first only one, and then a second. It wasn’t one false positive out of 10,000 tests, but one false positive out of 10,000 postive results. Again, the math is screwy as the chance out of 10,000 positive results is that only **one** is a false positive. Not 5,000.
> [@Maeglin](#):
>
> Someone of your intellect should have little difficulty figuring out the important parts and perhaps learning something about basic probability in the process.
And someone so quick to condescend to someone asking for more than a driveby wiki cite should be able to explain something rather than whatever the heck your post is supposed to ‘prove’.
> [@Maeglin](#):
>
> The tools are in your hands. If you don’t want to bother, I won’t lose any sleep.
If **I** won’t bother? You drop a user-created non-peer-reviewed wiki cite and then refuse to even quote which part of it would be applicable? And I’m the one who won’t bother?
> [@Maeglin](#):
>
> Like scott\_plaid, “you win”.
Yeah, asking which part of your cite supports the claim that a test with a false positive rate of 1 in 10,000 actually has a false positive rate of 1 in 2 is beyond the pale. I’m definitely claiming that “I win.” Mmm hmmmmmm.
Now if you’re going to get all snippy and call me a ‘man-child’ because I want you to actually do more than make a driveby post with a cite whose credibility is poor at best, and then claim I’m somehow acting dishonorably, you can be my guest.
---
### Author:  [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2005, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-selfish-fuck-man-with-possible-hiv-cure-in-his-veins-refuses-to-undergo-tests/331993/40 "2005-11-21T23:49:28Z")
Now if you’d like to, calmly and without the snark, simply explain why a chance of 1 in 10,000 for a false positive is equal to a chance of 1 in 2, I’d like to hear it. I’m honestly asking that, just as I was honestly saying that to prove such a massively important point you’d sure as heck need more than a simple wiki cite.
For instance, it does seem that I made a mistake and that, if I’m reading it correctly, the stat of 1 in 10,000 is for 10,000 tests one will come back with a false postive, and not 10,000 positives one will be false. But, still, that doesn’t mean you’ve done anything other than offer a driveby wiki cite.
But if you don’t want to cut the needless condesencion and driveby flinging of wiki stuff, I guess that ‘fighting ignorance’ is too big a mission for the day and ‘snarking’ will replace it.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-selfish-fuck-man-with-possible-hiv-cure-in-his-veins-refuses-to-undergo-tests/331993.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-selfish-fuck-man-with-possible-hiv-cure-in-his-veins-refuses-to-undergo-tests/331993.md?page=3)