Write a Comment
9 Comments
That EARLY treatment lowers viral load with less toxic and less expensive drug regimens has NEVER been news.
This individual's HIV infection was caught before he made any antibodies. He has never tested as ANTIBODY positive. The RNA enabled the infection to be caught extremely early with HIS HIGHEST RNA ever being his FIRST at 220 - The only thing questioned is if the infection episode was lowed by truvada, eventually aborted by his body, or if he is actually infected. Massive blood draws, leukapheresis, and gut biopsies were among the follow up tests.
How many times has this exact story only to hear "oops, they now have full blown AIDS" or better/worse yet they died of some ARC... Or does the statement "once the viral load has reached and been maintained as such for 2yrs, you are cured! Stop taking your meds..." This top notch HIV Doctor managed to kill all his clients...
I'm curious what highly sensitive tests were used -- I reckon a complete biopsy of every organ, bone marrow test, etc. But I'm too lazy to look it up because the whole premise is bogus.
I would gladly be a test patient... my viral load is in the undetectable stage and has been for over one year now.
Wow,,these prep studies are becoming very exciting! I too would like to know about this special test that is claiming not just an undectable viral load ,,showing eratfiction of HIV from one's body, My understanding is that he or she tested positive and now tested negative,,very much different than undetectable. If ones viral load is undectable and t cell good one my once had full blown aids, please get off the full blown aids message when heal of this old school term, bad spiral message, xxo
Huh, this article mentions "researchers have been unable to detect HIV in his body, using highly sensitive tests." Which suggests special tests were used, which implies those usually come back positive on people even with undetectable blood viral loads. What those tests were would be interesting to hear. I don't mean any disrespect of course, that's perhaps what makes this case relevant.
Joe
It seems to me that his treatment should be considered PEP - post exposure prophylaxis and not PREP - pre exposure prophylaxis. There is so much talk about PREP these days. However, PEP sounds like a more efficient method if people get regularly tested. It would result in less side effects because the dosage period do PEP is much smaller than the unlimited dosage period of PREP. Additionally, from a resource perspective - PEP is given to those more in need than those that desire PREP.
May 1, 2015