Four things you should know about the HIV "cure" before you get too excited

The baby might not even have been infected in the first place.

The story everyone is talking about today is the HIV "cure" - the Mississippi baby who, after being blasted with a cocktail of anti-viral drugs at birth, is now, at two years old, apparently virus-free. But when reading the euphoric news stories about it here, here and here, you should bear the following in mind:

1. The baby may not even have been infected in the first place

Here's a weird section in the NYT version of the story. Have a read of the following two paragraphs - are the doctors certain or uncertain that the baby was infected?

“The one uncertainty is really definitive evidence that the child was indeed infected,” said Dr. Daniel R. Kuritzkes, chief of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Dr. Persaud and some other outside scientists said they were certain the baby — whose name and gender were not disclosed — had been infected. There were five positive tests in the baby’s first month of life — four for viral RNA and one for DNA. And once the treatment started, the virus levels in the baby’s blood declined in the pattern characteristic of infected patients.

The tests are pretty good, but are not usually trusted as a basis for confirmed diagnosis at that early stage. It is normal practice to confirm positive tests at 6 weeks. But as this baby had already been treated by then, lowering its viral load (negative tests came back at 29 days), it would have been difficult to do this. There is a very small chance the baby was not infected.

The virus may not have yet taken a hold on the baby's cells in a permanent way. Here's the WSJ:

Cells in the baby "may have been infected—there was virus around," said Steven Deeks, an AIDS researcher at University of California at San Francisco. "But the cells being infected weren't the type that become long-lived reservoirs."

There is also a small chance the baby was immune to HIV anyway. Around 1 per cent of Caucasians in the US are naturally immune.

Now, these are small chances, but then this baby is an outlier. It was not part of a large study where such anomalies are ruled out. The scientists have said it is unlikely to be replicable. Any way you put it, the baby itself is an anomaly.

2. This "cure" has already been found, and has been used on newly-infected people since 1987. Even if the baby was infected, today's news would simply extend it to newborns.

Today's news applies only to babies. Newborns at that. And it's not really a new method - rather, it's the same idea as PEP: if you have only just been infected, you might avoid HIV if you are immediately given a large amount of anti-HIV drugs. What the scientists confirmed today is that, in terms of emergency treatment, newborns are the same as newly-infected people. 

Here's the NYT again:

“That goes along with the concept that, if you treat before the virus has had an opportunity to establish a large reservoir and before it can destroy the immune system, there’s a chance you can withdraw therapy and have no virus,” said Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

(Oh, and if you were wondering, someone has actually been cured of AIDs before. This was a man called Timothy Brown, a leukemia sufferer who received a bone-marrow transplant from a donor genetically resistant to HIV.)

3. This would not be breaking much ground in preventing HIV in newborns anyway, because we have a solution for that

In countries with access to top-notch medical care (ie western countries), the transference of HIV from mother to child is extremely rare. This is because mothers are treated with antiretroviral therapy during pregnancy - a very effective way of preventing HIV in newborns.

4. Newborns in countries without a solution for that probably wouldn't get this treatment anyway

In countries without access to top-notch medical care, there is no reason that this treatment would be available where antiretroviral pregnancy treatment isn't.

So what does the news mean? Well it means that a few babies in countries with access to this sort of care but whose mothers have somehow slipped through the net of normal practice can be saved. Joyous news. But not quite as joyous as everyone seems to be making out.

UPDATE: This blog originally said that HIV tests at birth couldn't be accurate, but this applies only to antibody tests. The tests on DNA/RNA, which were done in this case, have a greater (although not 100 per cent) degree of accuracy.

HIV cure: not necessarily.. Photograph: Getty Images

Martha Gill writes the weekly Irrational Animals column. You can follow her on Twitter here: @Martha_Gill.

Show Hide image

Age verification rules won't just affect porn sites – they'll harm our ability to discuss sex

Relying on censorship to avoid talking about sex lets children down.

The British have a long history of censoring sex. In 1580, politician William Lambarde drafted the first bill to ban "licentious" and "hurtful... books, pamphlets, ditties, songs, and other works that promote the art of lascivious ungodly love". Last week, the UK government decided to have another crack at censorship, formally announcing that age verification for all online pornographic content will be mandatory from April 2018.

It is unclear at this point what this mandatory check will entail, but it's expected that you will need to submit your credit card details to a site before being allowed to access adult content (credit cards can’t be issued to under-18s).

The appointed regulator will almost certainly be the British Board of Film Classification who will have the authority to levy fines of up to £250,000 or shut down sites that do not comply. These measures are being directly linked to research conducted by the NSPCC, the Children’s Commissioner and the University of Middlesex in 2016, which surveyed more than 1,000 11 to 16-year-olds about viewing online pornography and found over half had accessed it. 

Digital minister Matt Hancock said age verification "means that while we can enjoy the freedom of the web, the UK will have the most robust internet child protection measures of any country in the world". And who can argue with that? No sane adult would think that it’s a good idea for children to watch hardcore pornography. And because we all agree kids should be watching Peppa Pig rather than The Poonies, the act has been waved through virtually unchallenged.

So, let’s put the issue of hardcore pornography to one side, because surely we are all in agreement. I’m asking you to look at the bigger picture. It’s not just children who will be censored and it’s not just Pornhub and Redtube which will be forced to age check UK viewers. This act will potentially censor any UK site that carries adult content, which is broadly defined by the BBFC as "that it was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal".

I am a UK academic and research the history of sexuality. I curate the online research project www.thewhoresofyore.com, where academics, activists, artists and sex workers contribute articles on all aspects of sexuality in the hope of joining up conversations around sex that affect everyone. The site also archives many historical images; from the erotic brothel frescoes of Pompeii to early Victorian daguerreotypes of couples having sex. And yet, I do not consider myself to be a porn baron. These are fascinating and important historical documents that can teach us a great deal about our own attitudes to sex and beauty.

The site clearly signposts the content and asks viewers to click to confirm they are over 18, but under the Digital Economy Act this will not be enough. Although the site is not for profit and educational in purpose, some of the historical artefacts fit the definition of  "pornographic’" and are thereby liable to fall foul of the new laws.

And I’m not the only one; erotic artists, photographers, nude models, writers, sex shops, sex education sites, burlesque sites, BDSM sites, archivists of vintage erotica, and (of course) anyone in the adult industry who markets their business with a website, can all be termed pornographic and forced to buy expensive software to screen their users or risk being shut down or fined. I have contacted the BBFC to ask if my research will be criminalised and blocked, but was told "work in this area has not yet begun and so we are not in a position to advice [sic] you on your website". No one is able to tell me what software will need to be purchased if I am to collect viewers' credit card details, how I would keep them safe, or how much this would all cost. The BBFC suggested I contact my MP for further details. But, she doesn’t know either.

Before we even get into the ethical issues around adults having to enter their credit card details into a government database in order to look at legal content, we need to ask: will this work? Will blocking research projects like mine make children any safer? Well, no. The laws will have no power over social media sites such as Twitter, Snapchat and Periscope which allow users to share pornographic images. Messenger apps will still allow users to sext, as well as stream, send and receiving pornographic images and videos. Any tech savvy teenager knows that Virtual Private Network (VPN) software will circumvent UK age verification restrictions, and the less tech savvy can always steal their parents' credit card details.

The proposed censorship is unworkable and many sites containing nudity will be caught in the crossfire. If we want to keep our children "safe" from online pornography, we need to do something we British aren’t very good at doing; we need to talk openly and honestly about sex and porn. This is a conversation I hope projects like mine can help facilitate. Last year, Pornhub (the biggest porn site in the world) revealed ten years of user data. In 2016, Brits visited Pornhub over 111 million times and 20 per cent of those UK viewers are women. We are watching porn and we need to be open about this. We need to talk to each other and we need to talk to our kids. If you’re relying on government censorship to get you out of that tricky conversation, you are letting your children down.

The NSPCC report into children watching online pornography directly asked the participants about the effectiveness of age verification, and said the children "pointed out its limitations". When asked what intervention would most benefit them, this was the overwhelming response: "Whether provided in the classroom, or digitally, young people wanted to be able to find out about sex and relationships and about pornography in ways that were safe, private and credible." I suggest we listen to the very people we are trying to protect and educate, rather than eliminate. 

Dr Kate Lister researches the history of sexuality at Leeds Trinity University