Skip to comments.Doctors say infant cured of HIV at UMC
Posted on 03/03/2013 4:49:57 PM PST by grandpa jones
click here to read article
So what is HIV then?
I suggest reading Peter Duesberg’s “Inventing the AIDS Virus.”
It does a good job of explaning the shenanigans that created the imaginary virus.
As Rush often says: “Folloow the Money.” (To date several Trillions)
Blind tests are for nominal treatments versus a placebo, not satisfying Koch's postulates. From the 2nd link in comment# 75:
The last two postulates stipulate that inoculating the organism into an animal model (i.e., exposing or infecting the animal) leads to the same disease and that the organism is recoverable from that animal. The evidence satisfying these postulates was established in 1997, when Francis J. Novembre, Ph.D., and colleagues from Emory University in Atlanta, GA, published in the Journal of Virology that a chimpanzee inoculated with HIV ten years earlier had developed an AIDS-defining OI(opportunistic infection). Prior to the OI, the HIV RNA viral load had increased (partially documenting recovery of the organism from the animal model) and the CD4 cell count had decreased in the chimpanzee. Cultures of blood from the animal also were positive for HIV, establishing recoverability of the organism. Subsequently, blood from that chimp was transfused into a second, healthy chimpanzee. This second chimpanzee later had an increase in the HIV viral load and a decrease in the CD4 cell count.The supposed HIV antibody is present in thousands of times more people that do not exhibit AIDS than do.
Prior to this 1997 report, fulfillment of Koch's third and fourth postulates was lacking. Interestingly, the incubation period for clinical AIDS in this chimpanzee, with whom humans share 98% gene homology (structural similarity), was essentially equivalent to the average incubation period in humans -- ten years.
Give HIV enough time to reduce their CD4 counts. Once that happens AIDS defining diseases occurs. With the newer drugs for HIV they don't develop AIDS defining diseases because their CD4 counts are normal.
Their solution to that dilemma is to push death dealing AIDS drugs down their throats until they die.
The newer drugs don't have the adverse effects like AZT and earlier drugs.
P.S. They isolate HIV directly in tests called viral loads. It's not just antibody testing for HIV.
HIV is a retrovirus, meaning that it has an RNA genome.
If they locate HIV DNA in her body, that suggests that the virus integrated itself into her DNA. Some viruses do that; they make DNA copies of themselves and insert them into the host chromosomes. (We actually have thousands of viruses in our DNA.)
Virus inserted into her DNA could be unable to remove itself to cause further infection. In that case, she’s most likely fine. (Unless the virus inserted itself into a gene—but that’s another long discussion.)
Finding bits of HIV RNA is more troublesome; that could mean the virus is hiding somewhere. Or it could mean that virus inserted into her DNA is still trying to make copies of itself; if the entire virus isn’t there, those bits of RNA probably won’t do much.
The HIV drugs are meant to inhibit viral replication. To my knowledge, they don’t kill virus. I can’t say anything more than that, since I don’t know what drugs they were to be able to look them up. If her viral load was low enough and the drugs administered early enough, there may not have been much virus around to damage tissue and establish a strong infection. Then, her immune system would have a better chance of controlling the virus. One reason HIV is so devastating is that it goes directly for the immune system; people can’t fight it off because the cells that would normally kill the virus have been destroyed.
Some people have immune systems that are more able to fight off different kinds of infections than other people. This little girl could have a particular immune system variation that makes her more resistant to HIV infection.
I know this is a lot of information. There is a lot going on here, which is why I would *really* like to see the original report (when they publish it).
Sorry, this is an addendum to the previous reply.
When I said that the little girl could have an immune system that is more capable of holding off an HIV infection, I should have specified that people having such an immune system variant have been characterized and documented.
The doctor treated the baby for 18 months
Then the woman disappears for 10 months it shows back up as a child is HIV free
hardly the fault of the doctor
I have a cousin who works at the very hospital as a obstetrician nurse
about minority behavior and obstetrics in a 40 percent. Black state
Simply savage like to be frank
On several news reports I have heard Dr Gay and others say they are trying to figure out just what they did that “cured” the child.
Per petitfour's link in comment# 10:
The infant underwent remission of the HIV infection after receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) within 30 hours of birth Zidovudine, Lamivudine and Nevirapine. A series of tests showed progressively diminishing viral presence in the infants blood until it reached undetectable levels 29 days after birth. Gay switched Nevirapine with Kaletra for long term therapy.
Give up on the “Koch” angle, because that is the first nail in the ‘HIV’ coffin. The fact that so many “HIV positive” people, the vast majority by orders of magnitude, do not suffer from AIDS at all, and that the majority of those that do suffer from AIDS are not HIV positive does not fit Koch.
Thank you for the additional information, neverdem. Now I know a bit more about the drug mechanisms.
These drugs work in different ways to prevent the virus from making new virus particles. Normally, they would prevent the spread of virus to uninfected cells, putting the HIV in stasis. Infected cells remain infected, although they can be killed and removed by the immune system if it is functional and able to recognize them as infected.
I wonder if anyone is doing a genetic analysis of the little girl's immune system? It would be interesting to see if she has a variant known to decrease people's chance of becoming infected.
I’m not sure what to make of it...children’s immune systems are different than adults, and sometimes the child will test positive from a disease not because the child is infected but because it has viruses etc. from mom, but the virus won’t take hold and later tests will be negative.
I’d wait a few years to see what this means...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.