"A doctor gave this baby faster and stronger treatment than is usual, starting a three-drug infusion within 30 hours of birth. That was before tests confirmed the infant was infected and not just at risk from a mother whose HIV wasn't diagnosed until she was in labor.
"I just felt like this baby was at higher-than-normal risk, and deserved our best shot," Dr. Hannah Gay, a pediatric HIV specialist at the University of Mississippi, said in an interview.
That fast action apparently knocked out HIV in the baby's blood before it could form hideouts in the body. "
Read this quote from the Citynews Toronto website:
"During a conference on retroviruses and opportunistic infections in Atlanta, scientists said they believe early intervention with three anti-viral drugs was key to the outcome.
The two-year-old girl began treatment within 30 hours of her birth after doctors diagnosed her mother as HIV-positive days before she went into labor.
Read this quote from BBC News:
"...the case of the Mississippi baby involved a cocktail of widely available drugs, known as antiretroviral therapy, already used to treat HIV infection in infants.
It suggests the swift treatment wiped out HIV before it could form hideouts in the body."
Read this quote from the New York Times:
"Some outside experts, who have not yet heard all the details, said they needed convincing that the baby had truly been infected. If not, this would be a case of prevention, something already done for babies born to infected mothers.
“The one uncertainty is really definitive evidence that the child was indeed infected,” said Dr. Daniel R. Kuritzkes, chief of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
One hypothesis is that the drugs killed off the virus before it could establish a hidden reservoir in the baby.
Now, read these disclaimers from package inserts for common HIV tests:
"A Reactive result by Uni-GoldTM Recombigen® HIV suggests the presence of anti-HIV-1 antibodies in the specimen. Uni-GoldTM Recombigen® HIV is intended as an aid in the diagnosis of infection with HIV-1. AIDS and AIDS-related conditions are clinical symptoms and their diagnosis can only be established clinically."
"EIA testing alone cannot be used to diagnose AIDS, even if the recommended investigation of reactive specimens suggests a high probability that the antibody to HIV-1 is present. [...] At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence and absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood."
"Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosing HIV-1 infection" (HIV-1 Western Blot Kit, Epitope, Inc., Organon Teknika Corporation PN201-3039 Revision #8)
"Apparently"? "Suggests"? "Believe"? "Hypothesis"? Is this really scientific evidence?
Wasn't diagnosed 'until' she was in labor or 'days before' she was in labor? What exactly are the facts here?
Be careful how you 'interpret' things and Question everything!
Wasn't diagnosed 'until' she was in labor or 'days before' she was in labor? What exactly are the facts here?
Be careful how you 'interpret' things and Question everything!
