HIV dissidents foam at the mouth about the treatment of newborns with anti-retroviral drugs, but this new study shows that it works:
The Stanford team found that HIV-infected infants treated with anti-retroviral drugs within two months of birth were less likely to develop AIDS as toddlers than were infants whose treatment was only delayed slightly, to the age of 3 to 4 months.
Of 10 children who started therapy before they were 2 months old, three (30 percent) got sick before they were 3 years old. In contrast, of 16 children who started therapy later, 11 (68 percent) got sick before the age of 3.
But both groups benefited from the treatment, whether given soon after birth or a little later. Without treatment, as many as 20 to 30 percent of HIV-infected infants will develop AIDS by the age of only 4 months — and almost all will get sick by age 6.
Posting this would cause Google Ads to flood us with AIDS-testing ads, one of the reasons I’ve ditched Google.
What I usually find with these cases is that the press usually breathlessly reports whatever the researchers tell them, but when you look at the studies themselves you usually get a clearer picture. Ditto if you simply ask direct questions of the researchers–which usually isn’t hard.
I of course haven’t read this particular study, nor can I even get to the article, but I confess I’ve seen so many popular articles that get so many facts wrong that I’m not much inclined to go out of my way to read it unless someone who knows something about the debate (and isn’t just into name-calling and stupid inaccurate statements) points it out.
The Mercury News is pretty good on AIDS Dean, as is the nearby Frisco paper.