HIV-POSITIVE BABIES ARE NOT VIRUS-INFECTED

MacDonald reminded me that the Perth Group have documented in devastating fashion that “HIV-positive” data on mothers and babies proves that testing HIV-positive does not signify an infection.

I really should have emphasized that when commenting on the self-contradictions regarding “HIV” and breastfeeding (HIV and BREASTFEEDING AGAIN, 13 February 2008; FIRST: DO NO HARM!, 19 December 2007; MORE HIV, LESS INFECTION: THE BREASTFEEDING CONUNDRUM, 21 November 2007) and claims of mother-to-child transmission generally (for instance, TWINS ATTRACT THEIR MOTHER’S HIV, 12 January 2008; HIV-POSITIVE CHILDREN, HIV-NEGATIVE MOTHERS, 25 November 2007).

The Perth Group’s website has two comprehensive discussions available as links: “Monograph on mother-to-child transmission”, and “BMJ Online Debate”.

MacDonald cited (from the latter) this concise yet fully documented argument by the Perth Group in response to orthodox viewpoints pressed by a certain Peter Flegg:

“In regard to ‘HIV’ seropositive mothers, their infants and antibody specificity, we would be grateful for Peter Flegg’s view on the following:

In 1987 the CDC advised: ‘Most of the [CDC] consultants believed that passively transferred maternal HIV antibody could sometimes persist for up to 15 months’. (18 ) In 1991 the CDC extended the time to 18 months 13 and by 1995 ‘…the range of WB seroconversions might eventually extend beyond 30 months’, (14) that is, at double the age ‘believed’ eight years earlier. Before the AIDS era the evidence was that transplacental maternal antibody in offspring did not persist beyond nine months.(15) In 1993, Parekh from the CDC developed ‘a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)-specific 1gG-Fc capture enzyme immunoassay (1gG-CEIA) to elucidate the dynamics of HIV-1 maternal antibody decay and de novo synthesis of HIV-1 antibodies in infants’. He and his colleagues demonstrated a rapid decay of maternal ‘HIV’ antibody ‘with decline to background levels by 6 months’. (16 ) In other words, if the ‘HIV’ antibody test is specific, any child who has a positive ‘HIV’ antibody test beyond 9 months should remain positive for the remainder of his or her life. In the only study providing a detailed analysis of post partum loss of infant HIV seropositivity, the European Collaborative Study, (17) approximately 23% of the children became seronegative between birth and 9 months. However, 59% became seronegative between 9 and 22 months. Since the latter cannot be due to loss of maternal antibodies, the only explanation is that either: (i) the antibody test is non-specific or; (ii) the children managed to clear ‘HIV’ infection without treatment. If 23% of children test positive because of maternal antibodies and in 59% the test is non-specific, how certain can Peter Flegg be that in the remaining 18% of children the test will not also serorevert after 22 months? Or if the test remains positive, is it a true positive? May we ask, what does Peter Flegg tell the mother of a child who tests positive between 9 and 30 months and what is his approach to the clinical management of this child?”

The cited references are

14. Chantry CJ, Cooper ER, Pelton SI, Zorilla C, Hillyer GV, Diaz C. Seroreversion in human immunodeficiency virus-exposed but uninfected infants. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1995;14(5):382-7.

15. Stiehm ER. Immunologic diseases in infants and children. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company, 1973.

16. Parekh BS, Shaffer N, Coughlin R, Hung CH, Krasinski K, Abrams E, et al. Dynamics of maternal IgG antibody decay and HIV-specific antibody synthesis in infants born to seropositive mothers. The NYC Perinatal HIV Transmission Study Group. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1993;9:907-12.

17. Epidemiology, clinical features, and prognostic factors of paediatric HIV infection. Italian Multicentre Study. Lancet 1988;ii:1043-6.

18. CDC. Current Trends Classification System for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection in Children Under 13 Years of Age. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1987;36:225-30, 235-6.

**************

One can hardly ask for better grounded reasons for recognizing that “HIV-positive” does not signify permanent infection; and that consequently all the claims of mother-to-child transmission of a virus — be it perinatally or as a result of breastfeeding — cannot be taken as valid, based as they are on the most dubious grounds.

Given these facts, how could anyone recommend the administering of toxic antiretroviral drugs to pregnant women and babies? Yet now we have studies exploring how longer exposure to these drugs might influence the spurious indications of the presence of “HIV” (HIV and BREASTFEEDING AGAIN, 13 February 2008).