The article talks of how a baby with HIV is deemed “cured”. The baby was born prematurely. The mother did not go to a doctor during her pregnancy, and it was only discovered while she was in labor that she was HIV positive. They then tested the baby, finding the levels of the virus quite low. However, they didn’t take any changes and immediately proceeded to attack the virus aggressively using a different concoction of three drugs. Normally, a baby would be treated with only one or two as a safety measure. They continued this treatment for five months. When the baby’s blood was once again submitted for testing, they found out that all the viral numbers for the tests were negative. They initially thought it was a mistake but later confirmed that it was NOT a lab error.
This new finding could be massive towards develop for some sort of vaccine, at least for younger kids. They found out in this case that rapid, aggressive treatment was the key to preventing the illness in this particular child. This could lead to better concoction of drugs aimed towards curing a young child’s HIV. This is a better solution because the only other known person before to be cured of HIV was a man who had gotten a bone marrow transplant from someone HIV resistant, but not everyone can do that, so we needed a miracle where someone survived using a simpler method without going under the knife.
The problem I found with this article was although they said the baby was technically HIV positive, they still lacked definite evidence that he was infected. He also had surprisingly low viral count in his test, maybe rendering the treatment useless to other babies who may have a higher count. Also, even after, they still found some viral genetic material in his body, even though they didn’t replicate, and stayed dormant. Is it possible for the virus once again “wake up” and start replicating? Also there has been scattered cases where babies fight off this virus even without the aid of medicine, making this case a bit of a fluke.