I'm just suspicious of this one.
A) Why do they think its fine to experiment on a kid and give her AIDS (even a "non-live" version) just because she has cancer. Cancer victims just seem like the latest guinea pigs for absolutely anything. Like "Oh, that didn't kill them, maybe THIS will".
B) If the public swallows "AIDS is good for you" (which they will because it has a cute little cancer patient attached) they will buy anything.
Quoting: mkscrewup They didnt give her aids, they gave her HIV.
HIV eventually turns into AIDS, these days with treatment in maybe a decade, when it may have taken mere years in the past.
Cut a long story short, HIV attacks white blood cells and damages them, eventually leaving you without an immune system.
Leukaemia is a type of cancer that results in massive amounts of white blood cells.
The logic behind this is the HIV infection will combat the cancer. The HIV may have given her 20 years of like instead of the cancer which may have killed her in 2 or 3 years.
A similar example of one disease helping to stop another would be sickle cell, although this works in a totally different way.
Sickle cell anaemia makes you immune to malaria because your blood cells are too malformed to allow the malaria parasite to reproduce properly.
