Reports of a Mississippi infant who had been "cured" of HIV dominated news coverage during early March 2013. The infant girl was born in rural Mississippi in July 2010 to a mother who did not receive prenatal care or HIV treatment. Doctors began administering powerful antiretrovirals to the child only hours after she was born. The child remained on HIV meds for approximately 15 months before she and her mother were lost to care for more than half a year, and the little girl is now believed to be "functionally cured" -- the presence of the virus is so minute that lifelong treatment is not necessary.
The pediatric "functional cure" has renewed focus on the so-called HIV "cure" agenda. Only days after the pediatric case made international news, French investigators reported their "functional cure" of 14 patients. These follow the widely reported case of Timothy R. Brown -- the so-called "Berlin patient" -- who doctors said was "cured" of HIV via a radical stem cell transplant. Researchers hope that the Mississippi and French cases will yield some broader implications for treating people living with HIV/AIDS.
Rod McCullom has written and produced for ABC News, NBC and FOX, The Atlantic, the Los Angeles Times, EBONY, POZ and many others. Read his blog at Rod 2.0.
Comment by: Christi
(Kansas City, MO)
Fri., Dec. 13, 2013 at 10:27 am UTC
Thank you for this amazing, well-written article and for bringing attention to the world that HIV/AIDS no longer has to be associated with a death sentence. My ex-husband, father of my only child was diagnosed 3 years ago with full blown AIDS and because of these INCREDIBLE advances in research/medication development, he is virtually cured today when only 3 years ago, his labs were so off the charts, we figured he wouldn't live a year. He is healthy today and I thank whatever power exists, that he is still here for our son.
Comment by: Angel
Mon., Dec. 9, 2013 at 7:00 am UTC
I agree that it's criminal to intentionally pass this viscous virus. It may not be an automatic death sentence anymore, the changes and sicknesses suffered are horrible. How could anyone wish it on there worse enemy.
Comment by: Tom
Sat., Dec. 7, 2013 at 1:09 am UTC
What a surprise, someone on thebody.com is admonishing readers not to spit or bite. This website should change it's motto from "The Complete HIV/Aids resource" to "The complete HIV/Aids resource for hypochondriacs".
Comment by: SEL
Mon., Dec. 2, 2013 at 7:40 pm UTC
While having HIV is certainly no crime, it is a crime to put someone at risk for contracting HIV when you know you have it. It is a crime to bite or spit on someone when you know you are infected. All one has to do as ask yourself if you would want someone to those things to you. I think not.
I have friends who think it is okay not to disclose their status and they have spread the disease to others. People should
be given the option to engage in sexual activity with a HIV positive person. In that sense it is a crime not to disclose your status prior to having sex with someone. .
I have a friend who intentionally infected two people. I love my friend very much, but that was a criminal act and I felt so bad because i knew he was having unprotected sex without disclosing his status.
I dont understand how knowingly putting someone at risk for a deadly disease no matter how the risk factor could be considered a crime.. i bet anyone infected would have liked disclosure from their partner if they knew their status.
While there are some very responsible and highly ethical HIV positive people, the converse is also true, so these laws need to remain in place. More importantly, we all need to be tested and practice low-risk protected sexual acts. Some sex acts are too risky to be practiced and I wish this issue would
be brought to the forefront.
Comment by: bartleby
Tue., Dec. 10, 2013 at 6:02 pm UTC biting and spitting might be considered assault or battery, but it's certainly not a crime because of someone's status. you can't transmit HIV through biting or saliva, so it's not considered HIV exposure.
it gets more complicated when you talk about the ethics of unprotected sex. i agree it's not right to try and intentionally infect others. but at the same time, each person has a personal responsibility to protect themselves. when engaging in unprotected sex, you don't know for sure if someone has HIV or not. what if they simply don't know their status? why wouldn't you use a condom every time anyway? if someone says they're negative, would you just believe them, skip the condom and point fingers later? no, you should still be using a condom regardless.
HIV criminalization just doesn't work. it perpetuates stigma. it discourages testing. and it takes all the honus off of negative folks to protect themselves.
not to mention, HIV is not the death sentence it once was, yet it often gets singled out. should we be criminalizing exposure to other STDs, like herpes, hepatitis, Gonorrhea and syphilis? i mean some of these other STDs can also be chronic, life threatening if left untreated, or at the very least a pain to live with. but we don't criminalize those STDs because that would be ridiculous. so we shouldn't single out HIV.
Add Your Comment:
(Please note: Your name and comment will be public, and may even show up in Internet search results. Be careful when providing personal information! Before adding your comment, please read TheBody.com's Comment Policy.)
The Body is a service of Remedy Health Media, LLC, 750 3rd Avenue, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10017. The Body and its logos are trademarks of Remedy Health Media, LLC, and its subsidiaries, which owns the copyright of The Body's homepage, topic pages, page designs and HTML code. General Disclaimer: The Body is designed for educational purposes only and is not engaged in rendering medical advice or professional services. The information provided through The Body should not be used for diagnosing or treating a health problem or a disease. It is not a substitute for professional care. If you have or suspect you may have a health problem, consult your health care provider.