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.

PewDiePie
Show Hide image

"Death to all Jews": Why Disney dropped YouTube's biggest star PewDiePie

The Minecraft vlogger turned internet celebrity's taste for shock comedy was too much for the family-focused corporation. 

Disney has cut ties with YouTube’s most-subscribed star after he paid two Sri Lankan men five dollars to hold up a sign that read “DEATH TO ALL JEWS”.

Feel free to read that sentence again, it’s not going anywhere.

A still from PewDiePie's video, via YouTube

PewDiePie, real name Felix Kjellberg, has over 53 million subscribers on YouTube, where his videos about gaming earned him over $15m last year. The 27-year-old, whose content is popular with children, came under fire this month after the Wall Street Journal investigated anti-Semitic comments in his videos. In one video, a man dressed as Jesus says “Hitler did absolutely nothing wrong”, while in another Kjellberg used freelance marketplace Fiverr to pay two men to hold up the offensive sign. The videos have since been deleted.

Jumpcut.

The Walt Disney Company became affiliated with PewDiePie after they bought Maker Studios, a network of YouTube stars, for nearly $1bn in 2014. Following the WSJ’s investigation, Maker dropped the star, stating: “Although Felix has created a following by being provocative and irreverent, he clearly went too far in this case and the resulting videos are inappropriate. Maker Studios has made the decision to end our affiliation with him going forward.”

When you sack a YouTube Star, makes no difference who they are.

Via Wall Street Journal

But why should the story stop there? Neo-nazi website The Daily Stormer are now defending PewDiePie, while the notoriously politically-incorrect 4Chan forum /pol/ have called him “our guy”.  

In his defence, Kjellberg wrote a blog post denying an affiliation with anti-Semitic groups and explained his actions, writing: “I was trying to show how crazy the modern world is, specifically some of the services available online.” In a video last December the star also said: "It's extremely annoying how I can't make jokes on my channel without anyone quoting it as actual facts, like something I actually said", before dressing as a soldier and listening to one of Hitler's speeches while smiling. 

Pause.

(If all of this sounds familiar, recall when disgraced YouTuber Sam Pepper claimed a video in which he groped unsuspecting females was a “social experiment”).

Play.

And yet the story still isn’t over. Disney have learned a hard lesson about assuming that YouTubers are the squeaky clean fairy-tale princes and princesses they often appear to be. Shay Butler, one of the original founders of Maker Studios, yesterday quit the internet after it was alleged he sent sexual messages to a cam girl via Twitter.

Butler is one of the original "family vloggers", and has spent nine years uploading daily videos of his five children to YouTube. A practicing Mormon, Butler has become emblematic of family values on the site. “My heart is sick,” he wrote on Twitter, neither confirming nor denying the allegations of his infidelity, “I have struggled with alcoholism for years… My purpose is to rehab.” 

The result is a very dark day for YouTube, which has now dropped Kjellberg from its premier advertising network, Google Preferred, and cancelled the second series of the star's reality show, Scare PewDiePie

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.