Most HIV babies aren't born having HIV in-utero, they contract it during delivery

How can they lie to the public by leaving out the fact that most babies arent usually born with HIV contracted during gestation, but rather, are exposed to HIV+ mother's virus especially during natural birthing.

After birth, the child was given aggressive antiviral meds and a year later tested negative for HIV.

Does testing for HIV show negative even when there is an extremely low level of HIV rna in a tiny body due to aggressive HIV?

Plus, how were they certain that the fetus was infected before birth?

reply to post by KamaSutra

Most HIV babies aren't born with HIV, they contract it during pregnancy

Ummm.... last time I checked pregnancy come BEFORE birth. You thread makes less sense than your title. You don't think that these extremely well educated and experienced doctors might have thought to run some tests?

Is it possible that a baby born to a mother who is HIV+ will be born HIV-?

I struggle to believe it is so! If the mother carrying the child is positive it surely stands to reason that the child, which until birth is part and parcel of the pregnant mother, will also be positive!

Surely the mother and unborn child do not have separate immune systems?

Blaming natural birth as a reason for the child becoming infected with HIV during the birthing process seems to be another hidden agenda item, what do those that subscribe to this theory have against natural birth as opposed to medicated (Epidural)/hospital/C Section births?

I am a male but many of my female friends are now opting for natural (Water) births and they and their children actually seem better off for it!

reply to post by KamaSutra


The same for Hepatitis.

It's the blood transferring from the Mother to the Baby. Mostly during Child Birth.

This is how I contacted it and why my sisters do not have it.

Edit : This is the cure all for HiV, Aids, Hepatitis etc.

Btw I used this method for a month and lowered my AST and ALT Levels.




Edit again: I passed a liver fluke with the Beck machine too during that month lol.

I'm not sure but I've actually heard this before. That its possible for a HIV pos women to carry a non effected child. I'm no medical expert but if true it would absolutely make sense that during the act of natural child birth the possibility of the virus being transferred could happen.
There are other viruses that can be transferred this way. How or if the baby isn't effected during pregnancy I have no idea. Like I said I've heard it but from where I can't remember. I'm via my phone ATM but a quick google has found this

pwn.bc.ca...

Well thats why I remember hearing that risk of fetus getting HIV from mother is very low, and that the high risk is during natural childbirth...

thus why C-SECTION is taken as a precaution with all HIV+ mothers' deliveries.

So this is something new that they claim they cured HIV in recent news where what it looks like is the precaution taken at recent exposure (ie rape victims) are given megadoses of antivirals in hope that infection is killed off before its spread in *multiplying* human cells.

What's a liver fluke? I recall when I had ultrasound and lazer to break up a lipoma (fat pad) the weeks after, I felt sharp pains in my urine like something solid was exiting but I never saw anything visibly in my urine. That was not an infection of anysort, just a developmental fat pad/endocrine tissue.

Originally posted by wiser3
Is it possible that a baby born to a mother who is HIV+ will be born HIV-?

I struggle to believe it is so! If the mother carrying the child is positive it surely stands to reason that the child, which until birth is part and parcel of the pregnant mother, will also be positive!

Surely the mother and unborn child do not have separate immune systems?

Blaming natural birth as a reason for the child becoming infected with HIV during the birthing process seems to be another hidden agenda item, what do those that subscribe to this theory have against natural birth as opposed to medicated (Epidural)/hospital/C Section births?

I am a male but many of my female friends are now opting for natural (Water) births and they and their children actually seem better off for it!

edit on 4/3/13 by wiser3 because: (no reason given)

The placenta is a natural barrier to most infections. The mother's blood is kept apart from the fetus' blood. My brain is mumbling something about molecular weight but I'd have to drag out the books to tell you the exact reason why the barrier exists. There is also a blood - brain barrier that exists in all healthy humans. Most infections in the blood don't pass through the brain barrier.

Natural childbirth increases the risk of the infection to newborns born to mothers with high HIV viral loads. Natural childbirth can be a traumatic experience that can increase a newborns chance of being directly exposed to his mother's blood. If a mother has not been taking anti-retrovirals, their blood can be so loaded with the virus that it just isn't safe for them to deliver vaginally. Blood can be exchanged during delivery (that is why Rh factor is concerning). The mother's blood should not come into contact with any break in the infant's skin or with the infant's mucous membranes. C-section allows for more control and safety.

No woman with HIV should ever breastfeed regardless of viral load. Ever.

If your female friends are healthy and there are no contraindications for water births...

Awesome! It isn't exactly a natural place for a human to give birth but it doesn't seem to harm baby and the moms seem to like it.

Ohh. I just spotted the question about immune systems. Newborns immunity is a rather passive. Their mother passes along antibodies in utero and in breast milk. The newborns exposure to pathogens/germs allows them to develop an acquired immunity to the antigens/nasty bugs over time but parents still need to take care to limit exposure to potential risks during the critical first months.

reply to post by WillowWisp


Thanks WillowWisp! Me feeling foolish for my ignorance, but you have answered all my questions as foolish as they now seem to me!

reply to post by wiser3


They are not foolish questions. They are good things to wonder about.