Here's A More Detailed Article
Basically it looks like 29 days after the birth the child showed no signs of the virus in her blood. She then received regular check-ups for 18 months and then there was a 10 month gap where the mother stopped taking the child to the doctor. Being a mental health therapist I can say, at least for my clients, the hardest thing to do is to keep someone coming in when things are going well. I imagine that is what happened here but it is unclear what occurred during that 10 month period or why, officially, the mother stopped bringing her child.
After the 10 month break the mother brought her daughter back and, again, through several tests the virus was still virtually undetectable. The one significant hang up is here;
"There are no samples that can be used by other researchers to confirm the findings, which may lead skeptics to challenge how the doctors know for sure that the child was infected.
Persaud said the team is trying to use the tiny scraps of viral genetic material they have been able to gather from the child to compare with the mother's infection, to confirm that the child's infection came from her mother. But, she stressed, the baby had tested positive in two separate blood tests, and there had been evidence of the virus replicating in her blood, which are standard methods of confirming HIV infection."
So there are still questions to sort out. But it looks like the majority of people believe the child had the virus and now does not following treatment. Currently;
"The researchers are trying to find biomarkers that would offer a rationale to consider stopping therapy within the context of a clinical trial. If they can learn what caused the child to clear her virus, they hope to replicate that in other babies, and eventually learn to routinely cure infections."
Log in to comment