I'm sure the pediatrician's skills are fine.
The problem with testing is that there is a lower limit of detection, no matter what kind of test is used. A person can have AIDS, but the tests won't detect it because the specific types of cells targeted by the HIV virus have been killed off, and the quantity of virus in other tissues is too low to be detected.
I will need to read the original research articles to see what is really going on here. I know that (if I were doing the diagnosis) I'd want to show that there is no detectable virus, and that the child has a healthy population of the cells normally killed by HIV.
That's a press release. That source, ScienceDaily usually links the original citation. That's iffy when announcements are made at conferences. I don't think the original citation has been published yet. At least PubMed doesn't have it.
I caught a glimpse of some TV show last night saying that the infant does in fact have dead RNA and DNA from HIV in her body.
She was taking three drugs as treatment for HIV.
Perhaps her immune system found a way to kill the HIV?
I don’t know, something stinks here. They weren’t trying to cure HIV, they were just treating it, and boom it’s gone?