HIV re-emerges in 'cured' Mississippi girl

:-(
In March The Smoking Man posted: Scientists announce baby born with HIV is CURED but Today breaking on BBC and HuffingtonPost

A baby girl in the US born with HIV and believed cured after very early treatment has now been found to still harbour the virus.

Tests last week on the four-year-old child from Mississippi indicate she is no longer in remission, say doctors.

She had appeared free of HIV as recently as March, without receiving treatment for nearly two years.

The case raised hopes that more of the roughly 250,000 children who are born each year infected with the human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS, might have a shot at a cure.

Those hopes were dashed when the child's doctors discovered last week that the HIV virus had begun replicating, Dr Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infections Diseases, said at a press conference on Thursday.

I'm not surprised.

I read a while back when this was just a pipe dream that if they discontinued the Retro-antivirals that the most likely outcome would be the HIV returns.

I imagine had they continued treatment for a while longer, or permanently in some form or another, that the virus would have remained undetectable.

Just more proof that we really don't understand this virus or how it operates in the body. Just a shot in the dark all the time.

~Tenth

1 hopes she will be ok. @ times I wonder if viruses need the host body to be @ sufficient temps to grow and if the body temps were altered would this assist in cures. Another way is somewhat what I recently observed hospitals doing to keep clean with a light

Emits UV light to penetrate through the cell walls of bacteria and viruses and destroy their DNA
$67,000 robot being tested in dozens of other hospitals across the US

www.dailymail.co.uk...

The body would require exposure somehow to light internally and externally as the viruses avoid and move and are trapped between light barrier. Maybe sound also to off set the virus attachment ability or a combination of all tech mentioned...

Will remain hopeful for the many ill as the species advances in the med. tech. fields.

NAMASTE*******

i wonder what type of test they are giving the girl? Because HIV is very difficult to test for with any real accuracy.

What is not to get? HIV is a virus. Viruses never leave once they enter the host. They simply lie dormant if the environment is not conducive to their launching an effective attack. The HIV virus will show positive once a threshold has been breached in viral load. You must have this else a false positive would be more common.

So it doesn't breach the threshold, seems to be gone, and the media spins it as such, playing off the ignorance of laymen. I never believed that HIV, or any virus for that matter, could make it passed the defenses of every single individual on the planet. Doesn't it seem more likely that the ones who effectively dealt with it, were not tested, as their was no reason? If they were tested, showed up negative, and were asymptomatic, then we assumed it's just not in them?

There's been at least a few now who have fought off HIV from showing up positive after simply going about their daily lives. I recall a man from Europe who did just that at least 5 years ago now.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
So it doesn't breach the threshold, seems to be gone, and the media spins it as such, playing off the ignorance of laymen. I never believed that HIV, or any virus for that matter, could make it passed the defenses of every single individual on the planet. Doesn't it seem more likely that the ones who effectively dealt with it, were not tested, as their was no reason? If they were tested, showed up negative, and were asymptomatic, then we assumed it's just not in them?

There's been at least a few now who have fought off HIV from showing up positive after simply going about their daily lives. I recall a man from Europe who did just that at least 5 years ago now.

Wouldn't this make one a carrier? Just because one is asymptomatic doesn't mean that one isn't infectious and with viruses, that stuff is for life. Just because there aren't any scabs down there this week doesn't mean the herpes vanished.

There is a cure. Someone in a laboratory hit's the "off" switch.

I'm still going with the theory that it's a man-made virus created with technology incomprehensible to most. It's too perfect to be from nature; Which gives all organisms weaknesses like a huge game of rock, paper, scissors.

Here's something that makes you think:

Earliest known HIV case - 1959

The earliest known case of infection with HIV-1 in a human was detected in a blood sample collected in 1959 from a man in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo. (How he became infected is not known.) Genetic analysis of this blood sample suggested that HIV-1 may have stemmed from a single virus in the late 1940s or early 1950s.

Source

A few years earlier in 1953:

In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick suggested what is now accepted as the first correct double-helix model of DNA structure in the journal Nature.

Source

So, what I see here is we discover the modern model for DNA in 1953, a mere six years later is when the first case of HIV appears; A coincidence, or something else?

So far it seems the closest to 'curing' we have found is a full bone marrow transplant from an HIV immune donor.

originally posted by: Vortiki
So, what I see here is we discover the modern model for DNA in 1953, a mere six years later is when the first case of HIV appears; A coincidence, or something else?

Doesn't even seem like that much of a coincidence. If you wanted to imply HIV was made in a lab, I think you would need to look at this, and the dates don't match up:

www.brighthub.com...

Gene splicing first came to worldwide attention in 1973 with the creation of the first genetically engineered organism.

Most conspiracy theories are not valid but the medical field is suspect because of the huge financial incentives. As someone once said, there's no money in cures, but there's a lot of money in treatments. From that perspective there would at least be financial incentives to withhold cures, but I'm not sure if the drug companies are evil enough to do this. I think HIV is just really difficult to cure, and there's no guarantee a cure is even possible.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Vortiki
So, what I see here is we discover the modern model for DNA in 1953, a mere six years later is when the first case of HIV appears; A coincidence, or something else?

Doesn't even seem like that much of a coincidence. If you wanted to imply HIV was made in a lab, I think you would need to look at this, and the dates don't match up:

www.brighthub.com...

Gene splicing first came to worldwide attention in 1973 with the creation of the first genetically engineered organism.

Most conspiracy theories are not valid but the medical field is suspect because of the huge financial incentives. As someone once said, there's no money in cures, but there's a lot of money in treatments. From that perspective there would at least be financial incentives to withhold cures, but I'm not sure if the drug companies are evil enough to do this. I think HIV is just really difficult to cure, and there's no guarantee a cure is even possible.

They are that evil. But the thing is they simply do not work on cures as they are not financially viable for many illnesses. HIV is really difficult to cure though, it has some amazing evading techniques such as hiding in places treatments can't reach creating reservoirs to reinfect the host.