Waiting for the people who say he should have abstained after learning his diagnosis.
Don't see why anyone would say that. He was extremely careful.
Waiting for the people who say he should have abstained after learning his diagnosis.
Waiting for the people who say he should have abstained after learning his diagnosis.
Nowhere in the article says he's gay, but you can tell from the video.
Still, good for him now he knows he's not sick and will never even see the inside of a courtroom to make the millions that he deserves.
It's only in the GAF title along with the emphasis of having sex with men (duh, that's what gay men do), every other title doesn't mention it anyways, hence my confusion.Seems kind of unnecessary to the story to put his sexuality into the title anyways.
Holy crap...
And he only has had sex since with those who are HIV positive and he still doesn't have it?
Don't see why anyone would say that. He was extremely careful.
I knew the drugs for HIV made the seropositive partner less likely to transmit it, but does it also have effects against recieving it? I know there are special "cocktails" for extreme cases like rape, but those are not the same as the retrovirals, or are they?
.
Is this your first day at NeoGAF?
Wow. Not only was a false diagnosis given, but they gave him utterly horrible advice. People who are HIV positive can still have sexual relations with people who aren't. The right thing to do wasn't "only have sex with partners who are HIV positive," but to take all the necessary precautions and be completely open about his status. The advice he was given borders on discriminatory.
Poor guy.
Sero-sorting is a completely rational response for people - accidentally infecting a loved one is an outcome that would lead to a lifetime of guilt.There's nothing in the article that says he was told to only date HIV+ people. Is that said in the video?
Was it a false positive? Or did they just say "You look a little peaky. Whelp, you probably have AIDS".
Russell's saga began in September 2004, when he was diagnosed HIV-positive by a UKMC doctor, according to the lawsuit, which was filed in mid-August.
Russell questioned that diagnosis, saying an earlier test had come back negative. So UKMC ordered a confirmatory test a few weeks later. That test, called a Western Blot test, didn't detect HIV 1 and came back negative for HIV 2, according to the lawsuit.
So he was already immunocompromised which resulted in a false positive, and for whatever reason they never looked at the test results for the blood test they ordered afterwards that would have definitively proven whether or not he had HIV.
Pretty much the textbook definition of malpractice.