HIV/AIDS Skepticism

Pointing to evidence that HIV is not the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS

“Cured” of “HIV” — or not really cured?

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2013/10/28

Back in March of this year:

“Dr. Hannah Gay and her colleagues became the rock stars of the medical community this week after they announced at a conference last Sunday that they’d cured a 2-year-old of HIV by using an aggressive three-drug treatment that started when the little girl was only 30 hours old”

— although “rock stars of the medical community” might seem inappropriate in an article entitled “Experts question so-called HIV ‘cure’” (Sydney Lupkin, via World News, 6 March 2013)

The qualms seemed well founded:
“experts question whether this so-called cure is real, and whether high doses of potentially toxic drugs should be administered before an HIV diagnosis can be confirmed”.

Non-experts would find no trouble in stating that “potentially toxic drugs” should definitely not be administered to a baby whose probability of testing “HIV-positive” was about 1 in 4 or 5, according to the official statistics — “babies have a 20 to 25 percent chance of becoming infected with their mother’s HIV”.
Hippocrates, too, would have had no trouble telling the doctors not to do this: “First, do no harm!”

“In the short term, these drugs carry the risk of liver inflammation, allergic reactions, and bone marrow suppression, which can predispose the patient to other infections . . . . They also may have long-term toxicities, but there is little data on the long-term effects of taking these drugs early in life”.
The little data available, however, suffices to be sure that there is long-term harm. Antiretroviral drugs are known to damage mitochondria, and damage to mitochondria is irreversible, so this baby has lifelong damage to the energy centers of all its cells. How much disability this will produce remains unknown, admittedly; but for 18 months this newborn baby received “instead of a standard dose of nevirapine, . . . three antiretroviral drugs — AZT, 3TC and a double dose of nevirapine”.

The decision-making physician was not charged with failure to get proper parental informed consent, rather the Establishment closed ranks: the doctor “had the patient’s interests at heart, and . . . she had the right to deviate from standard of care”.
Yes; but also, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, perhaps especially the good intentions of ignorant people.
Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, ventured that “it’s fortunate that they made the right call”. He also said, “This was a gutsy call that turned out to be correct . . . . They made the right guess”.
I prefer my doctors not to guess, and to leave it to me or my designated proxy to decide whether or not a gutsy call should be made. After all, a synonym for “gutsy call, right guess” would be “reckless but lucky”. Still, making the call achieved publicity for the doctors as among “Time magazine’s most influential people of 2013”.

The continuing care received by the baby seems a bit questionable too, given that the presiding doctor does not know why “the baby’s mother stopped taking her to clinic appointments, bringing treatment to a halt”. Why doesn’t she know? Did she bother to ask?

Half a year later, the media recycled this story:
“Baby ‘cured’ of HIV: New details offer hope for other patients” (Karen Kaplan, Los Angeles Times, ScienceNow blog, 23 October 2013).
The doctors’ original conference presentation had become an article in the New England Journal of Medicine: Persaud et al. (9 authors), “Absence of detectable HIV-1 viremia after treatment cessation in an infant”, DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1302976.
The claim of “cure” no longer appears: “This case suggests that very early ART in infants may alter the establishment and long-term persistence of HIV-1 infection”.
All the evidence of “HIV infection” had been based on laboratory tests, in face of the fact that no tests have been shown to be capable of definitively proving infection (Stanley H. Weiss & Elliot P. Cowan, “Laboratory detection of human retroviral infection”, chapter 8 in Gary P. Wormser (ed.), AIDS and Other Manifestations of HIV Infection, 4th ed., Academic Press, 2004).
Nevertheless, the “standard of care” is to regard such tests as proving infection: “The current standard definition of HIV-1 infection in an infant requires the detection of HIV-1 nucleic acids in at least two separate clinical samples”, citing Panel on Antiretroviral Therapy and Medical Management of HIV-Infected Children. Guidelines for the use of anti-retroviral agents in pediatric HIV infection, AIDSinfo, 2012.

Apparently unaware of all the caveats expressed months earlier, the recent L. A. Times story asserts, “New details about the first person to be cured of HIV through drug therapy alone offer hope that others who are born with the virus may be able to beat it back and avoid a lifetime of treatment. . . . The only other person considered functionally cured of HIV is . . . the ‘Berlin patient’ . . . [whose] cure was brought about by . . . a bone marrow transplant”.

An earlier news story (ABCnews, 3 July), however, had suggested two other “cures” after bone-marrow transplant.

Just as the October recycling of the March “news” story offers no new lessons, so this whole business offers no new lessons about HIV/AIDS beyond those I pointed to earlier (Lessons from the “baby cure”, 2013/03/10).
More generally, it is worth bearing in mind that the latest breakthroughs featured in the mass media are usually wrong in some way and almost always misleading: “Real science isn’t news”.

11 Responses to ““Cured” of “HIV” — or not really cured?”

  1. David Crowe said

    It’s nice to see that some people in the mainstream haven’t totally lost their minds. It would be interesting to know why the mother stopped coming to clinic appointments, and to know whether she had quietly stopped giving the drugs to her child before that. It’s hard to believe that an infant could survive 18 months on a regimen like this. But the frequent, but silent, non-compliance of patients just bolsters the belief of doctors that drug side effects go away over time.

  2. Noreen Martin said

    The statement that no test proves HIV may be accurate as 10 of us who are HIV positive and not on the HAART, although, have high so-called viral loads by PCR testing methods, were tested by electron microscope and HIV could not be found in any of this.

    Tommy Morrison had 2 electron microscope tests performed at different medical facilities and both of these tests were negative for HIV. Although, PCR is the current standard of care for HIV, this certainly brings up some questions to say the least as both tests cannot be right. And I would place my money on the electron microscope since the government uses it for viruses, etc. and for bio-terrosim. If this test cannot find HIV, then it is not there.

    The electron microscope test reveals some serious flaws with the HIV theory of AIDS and could stop this travesty of justice as the flawed HIV tests are the heart of the problem. When the HIV tests go away so would AIDS!

    If one is HIV positive and not on the medicines, I would recommend this test ASAP, as every state is different in its legal filing for a claim.

  3. David Crowe said

    I wrote to the lead author about side effects and she responded, “No adverse effects were detected. Thank you for the important comment.”

  4. rummel mor said

    on a related note Henry, the obituary of Lou Reed indicated that he had been a drug addict and alcoholic for many years, suffered from liver disease as a result, and never quite recovered from his abusive years. Funny how they will obliquely admit such behavior can lead to one’s death, but if you get an “HIV” test and it comes back positive, you have died of “AIDS”. Too late for any such revelations for Tommy Morrison.

  5. Noreen Martin said

    Actually, Tommy [Morrison]’s death certificate does not mention AIDS, which in itself is very surprising. This is the first HIV person that I have heard about not stating this. Personally, I feel that the negative electron microscope tests may have played a part in this and they may have been concerned about law suits, as the way the mainstream thinks, this makes no sense. For whatever read on, they seem to want to keep a low profile.

  6. Cal Crilly said

    Rock Hudson died from inoperable liver cancer and anyone with cancer has enormous amounts of endogenous retroviral activity so they literally kidnapped Rock from France and paraded him around on a stretcher to say he was HIV+, they should have tried that with Lou Reed for a bit more press (sarcasm).

    This is pertinent to the subject

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: