A French teenager was diagnosed with HIV at birth and after five years she stopped with the medication. 12 years later she is still “in remission”. And scientists are highly surprised by that.
“The research, presented at the International AIDS Society conference in Canada this week, showed scientists had never before known of a case where a HIV-infected child went into long-term remission.” That’s very strange, for there are many, many of such stories. So if they haven’t heard of it, then that’s simply because they never looked and were blind and deaf to the truth. But that’s nothing unusual among scientists, especially among those involved with HIV research.
It doesn’t say why the girl was tested for HIV at birth, but a likely reason would be that the mother had had a postive HIV test. That’s not strange, for it’s known that pregnancy gives a very high chance for a positive result, which is the reason why in Africa so many pregnant women are at once diagnosed with HIV. The test is often part of the routine there and women who were never sick at once are told they have a deadly disease. But in reality the only thing they have is a baby in their belly. So if the mother of this girl for some reason was tested, she was likely positive. So they tested the baby with a test that’s less reliable than flipping a coin and they interpreted the test results based on the history of the mother. And low and behold, the baby was also positive!
What usually happens when a baby tests positive for HIV is that doctors immediately start the baby on a regimen of extremely toxic drugs, which immediately send the usually healthy baby into a downwards spiral. So it’s not so hard to guess why the parents of this girl stopped with the treatment when she was 5 years old. Most probably they stopped just before the drugs would kill the girl, but that of course goes into the category “unknown reasons”.
A year after stopping with the treatment the girl didn’t have any detectable virus load anymore. Eh, wouldn’t that equal a negative test? Oh wait, the test checks for antibodies, which are supposed to be protective with measles, but fatal with HIV. But how then do they detect the viral load, considering that viruses are too small to see with a microscope? I don’t know, but it sounds like an awful lot of assumptions is involved here. It must be, for the scientists have clearly no idea what they are talking about.
The conclusion is absolutely hilarious. The right conclusion should be: anti-retrovirals are toxic drugs that obviously are not necessary anyway. It’s obvious that the girl is “cured” from a disease she never had in the first place. But this is too simple for the scientists. Instead of admitting that their toxic treatments are not a good idea, they attribute the girls present condition to the early intervention with these toxic drugs. They don’t have any proof for that and it doesn’t even make any sense, but they stick with it. After all, HIV science never made any sense from the beginning, so why starting now?