Re: Re: Questions for Peter Flegg 28 September 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Mark Bartlett,
CD Investigator

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Questions for Peter Flegg

Nicholas Bennett,

You said re babies and HIV ... "Peter Duesberg ignores the mortality ...."

Is it not true that a baby born to a mother who is HIV positive, is born HIV ANTIBODY positive?

How does one discern they are treating infection vs. treating antibodies in a newborn?

Will most babies not lose their HIV status on their own, after about 18 months, as the maternal antibodies wane?

If a mother is treated and the baby is still born HIV positive and the baby does NOT go on to develop AIDS, how does one decide the Tx was the reason? Are they included as Tx successes?

We certainly would not treat a baby who tests measles ANTIBODY positive, for measles, or for that matter, virtually any other disease where they test ANTIBODY positive when born.

Is it not true that in one study (Dr. Richard D. Semba of Johns Hopkins Hospital: Lancet, 1995) found that using vitamin A supplementation was as good as, if not superior to AZT (at a cost of about 2 cents/day) in preventing mother-to-child transmission? If that is the case, who needs antiretrovirals!

Competing interests: None declared