This is typical of mainstream HIV articles. An bare assertion buttressed only by an intensifying adjective, and followed by an appeal to conformity.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Alternatively, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
The following link includes the entire article including references. Once again, thanks for the impetus to find it.
Cumulative data on serological testing of newborns and infants have shown that (i) maternal and newborn anti-HIV-1 IgG titers are high at delivery, which may explain the persistence of antibody in the infants of seropositive mothers; (ii) in some situations, serial HIV-1 antibody testing may identify infected infants; and (iii) detection of anti-HIV-1 IgA or IgM is specific for infection but the sensitivity of this assay may be compromised in certain situations, such as when infected infants are hypogammaglobulinemic or when the rise and fall of HIV-1-specific IgM synthesis following acute infection has been completed before delivery of the infant. Cumulative data on PCR, viral culture, and tests for antigen in newborns and infants have shown that (i) among all age groups, viral culture is probably the most specific test available for detection of HIV-1, as PCR and the p24 antigen test may (though rarely) give false-positive results; (ii) the sensitivity of these tests increases in the order of antigen, culture, and PCR, with relatively insensitive results in the first 3 months of life for all of these tests; (iii) the sensitivity of all of these tests improves and approximates 90 to 100% when infants over 6 months of age are tested; and (iv) data regarding the sensitivity, specificity, and usefulness of these virological assays in infants under 3 months of age are very scant and inconclusive.