Posted on 07/10/2014 8:14:02 PM PDT by markomalley
A US girl born with the AIDS virus and in remission for years despite stopping treatment now shows signs that she still harbors HIV – and therefore is not cured. The news is a setback to hopes that very early treatment with powerful HIV drugs might reverse an infection that has seemed permanent once it takes hold.
The Mississippi girl is now nearly 4. As recently as March, doctors had said that she seemed free of HIV despite not having been on Aids drugs for about two years. That was a medical first.
But on Thursday, doctors said tests last week showed that she is no longer in remission. She is now back on treatment and is responding well, doctors said.
The news is "obviously disappointing" and may have implications for a federal study that had been about to start testing early, aggressive treatment in such cases, said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Very sad, but I have a feeling this disease is beyond human medical machinations.
Never say never.
/johnny
This judgment sent from God - unfortunately - affects a lot of others in society who had nothing to do with that judgment. Sin and its judgment has a way of affecting a lot of other people, too, in society!
It’s certainly possible that they’ll eventually create a cure for AIDS, but you didn’t mention the larger issue. What activities cause and spread AIDS and other diseases in the first place?
Our culture is focused on the effects—not the cause. Even if AIDS is cured—and a cure would be great—what’s next? The people who choose high risk behaviors will continue to spread other diseases and quite possibly originate something even worse than AIDS, but we’re not supposed to mention THAT.
People won't quit bad behaviors. All you can do is call them on it and point it out.
/johnny
I thought the same thing. Too eager to boast Mission Accomplished to keep that research money flowing in. If there is total immunity for this child, they may not know for sure until certain hallmarks of maturity occur. It remains to be seen how the virus reacts to the onset of puberty, with all the hormonal changes. How will childbirth effect her, will gestation revive or worse activate her latent illness? Can she pass on the disease or the immunity?
So homosexuals want to be able to donate blood like normal people because of the reliability of testing?
I think not.
And risk being called a racist, or patriot, or christian, or ... american ?
It's a very insecure person that worries overmuch about bad press.
Really makes the libs angry when you take away their only leverage. ;)
/johnny
AIDS is not a retrovirus. HIV is a retrovirus and is claimed to be the cause of the large collection of diseases that are lumped together under the term AIDS.
This is well known.
It is also unproven. Just for drill do a Google search looking for the definitive evidence that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Good luck. You will need lots of time on your hands. But be forwarned - you will come up empty.
HIV is proven as cause of AIDS, just because a couple of lunatics on the internet spout conspiracy theories, does not mean there is a valid debate on the subject. There was some HIV+ woman awhile back who did not believe the virus caused AIDS, so she did not take anti-retrovirals and had two kids, breastfeeding them for years. Naturally both developed AIDS.
Anyone who doubts the connection between HIV and AIDS should infect himself with HIV and not take retrovirals thus showing everyone he/she is right. This chart of virus particles vs immune cells has been around for years and tells the whole story.
The good news is that medical science has developed effective ways to keep the disease under control, with the newest retroviral therapy, it is better to have HIV than to have type 2 diabetes in terms of long term prognosis.
That is the disconcerting thing about liberalism.
If any negative behavior requires human willpower or a moral framework to alleviate it, most conservatives will attempt to do just that, and falling short, will strive to do better.
Liberals on the other hand, have this perverse approach to everything from crime to sexual behavior, where they actually embrace damaging behavior and encourage it because they view it as outside the responsibility of human control.
For example, sex between young teens. Instead of discouraging it by pointing out the negative aspects of such activity, they assume humans are animals that are completely at the mercy of their baser instincts, and since the behavior cannot be controlled or suppressed (in their view) they actually encourage it and make it easier.
Same with crime. I swear, liberalism is a mental illness.
Anecdotal evidence is not proof. Nor is correlation.
If you have the evidence point me to it.
If HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, then what does?
The great majority of AIDS victims in the U.S. are gay or drug users or both and male victims greatly outnumber females with AIDS.
This is highly untypical of contageous diseases.
AIDS is a collection of diseases that result from a damaged immune system. Just the sort of problem you have with long term drug use and unprotected sex that is the norm in the gay community.
The only proof that HIV causes AIDS is based on a correlation between a positive test for HIV antibodies (not HIV itself) and one of the many AIDS defined diseases.
Lots of people test positive for HIV antibodies. But AIDS deaths are mostly gays and drug users and male.
Ask yourself why that would be. Ask yourself what other virus acts like that.
You’re not really claiming that this girl, as a newborn baby, had been having anal sex with poppers, are you?
No, I believe that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus and have never stated otherwise.
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.