I
read Early Treatment is Found to Treat HIV in a 2nd Baby, by
Donald G. McNeil Jr. This article was about how the second baby was
successfully treated for HIV by injecting antiviral medication for the first 48
hours of life. This was similar to the first “Mississippi Baby” who was said to
go from positive to negative testing. The long Island baby, the second HIV
cured child, is allowing for a larger clinical study of 60 babies. If
successful, this could mean that all 250,000 babies born with HIV could be
cured right away. However, it is an integral part of the trial that these
babies are still HIV free by the age of two, and eventually through childhood,
before scientists can even consider spreading this treatment throughout the
world. A University of California, San Francisco scientist agrees that this
second baby seems to have been cured, which can potentially lead to a changed
future.
This
article is really important because it gives us a sense that we are nearing the
day HIV becomes a curable disease. Although this article states that this is
only the second baby to have been cured, we have a sense of hope that research
will allow for first more babies to be born cured of HIV and eventually adults
can be cured. Scientific research has come far since HIV/AIDS were discovered.
Now there are preventable measures one can take, as long as medication to
prevent the spread of HIV into the AIDS virus. This is a very important article
for the fascinating world of science.
I
thought the author wrote this article very well. It was difficult at first to
understand this cure, however, I think I did grasp a majority. For a person who
is not in the field to understand that much, it is because of a well-spoken
author. I thought the author could have improved his use of scientific
terminology. Although he did explain some, there was clearly a lack of
explanation elsewhere. I found that there were a few things I had to Google in
order to me to fully understand what he was saying.
Mcneil,
Donald G. "Early Treatment Is Found to Clear H.I.V. in a 2nd Baby." The
New York Times. The New York Times, 05 Mar. 2014. Web. 06 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/health/second-success-raises-hope-for-a-way-to-rid-babies-of-hiv.html?ref=science&_r=0>.
I really enjoyed reading Gabby’s review of the article “Early Treatment is Found to Clear HIV in a 2nd Baby” by Donald G. McNeil Jr. First, I thought her summary was very well-written. It was clear and concise yet detailed enough for me to understand all of the main points of the original article. Gabby also did a great job of relating the article to the audience, showing why it’s an important topic for society as a whole. HIV/AIDS is a serious problem facing our society, so the fact that scientists are making great progress developing treatments and cures is such wonderful news for everyone. I also liked how Gabby told the reader in advance that the author used some tough scientific terms because I was prepared to look these terms up when I read the original article.
ReplyDeleteGabby’s article review was excellent, but there are a couple of ways she could have made it even better. For example, she could have included more specific details about how the treatment has been interacting with the virus in the treated babies. I understood the concept from the review and appreciated that the summary portion was concisely written, but after reading the actual article as well, I think that a little more detail could have been added to the summary. I also thought she could have included some information about other successful research involving HIV/AIDS, whether it be from the article or outside information.
I hadn’t heard about this treatment before reading Gabby’s review, so I found it amazing that we are starting to cure HIV/AIDS. It has been such a tragic, untreatable problem around the world for so long, so I’m extremely happy about the success of the research and treatment discussed in the article. This article is very exciting because it shows that scientists have come an incredibly long way over the years.
I read Gabby’s review of the article, “Early Treatment is Found to Clear HIV in a 2nd Baby.” There were multiple aspects of her article review that I liked. First, Gabby summarized the article in a way that was full of information but also direct and to the point. There was no confusion about the article when reading her review. Also, I thought Gabby did a really good job connecting this article to the first baby who was cured of HIV, providing background on the current situation. Gabby also enhanced her article review by commenting on how influential the cure of the baby is. That being, potentially curing all 250,000 babies born with HIV right away, and decreasing the spread of the disease worldwide. There are few things Gabby could have done to make her review better. The use of quotes could have provided a more authentic feel to Gabby’s review. Another thing Gabby could have done to improve her review was go into more detail about the procedure to cure the HIV in the babies. Despite this, Gabby’s review was very well written. One thing that impressed me was how there are gigantic steps being made to defeat a disease, HIV,that at one point seemed impossible to tame.
ReplyDeleteI read Gabby Diaz’s current event report on the article entitled “Early Treatment is Found to Treat HIV in a 2nd Baby.” Gabby’s current event report was very well done. She did a good job at summarizing what the article said. She did not leave out key facts. However, she also did not include too much information that would be overwhelming for the reader. She explained the information from the article in a way that was very easy to understand. In addition, I thought that Gabby did a good job explaining why the article is important to the world today. For example, she wrote that the “article is really important because it gives us a sense that we are nearing the day HIV becomes a curable disease.” Likewise, I thought Gabby did a nice job of analyzing the article and explaining what the article did badly as well as what it did well. For example, she said that the author was well spoken but he could have improved his use of scientific terminology. Overall, I think that Gabby made the report interesting while providing a nice summary of the article.
ReplyDeleteThe blog contained many good facts and interesting analysis. However, I think that there are some places Gabby could have improved on. For example, although I liked how concise Gabby’s summary of the article was, I wish she had included more details regarding the treatment. She could have elaborated on how the treatment has been interacting with the virus in the treated babies. Also, I wish Gabby included a few quotes from scientists in her review. In the article, there are numerous quotes from scientists, such as Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, executive director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, however Gabby does not include any of these quotes. One quote that I think would have really enhanced Gabby’s report is “This could lead to major changes, for two reasons. Both for the welfare of the child, and because it is a huge proof of concept that you can cure someone if you can treat them early enough.” Likewise, there were a few grammatical errors in Gabby’s blog post. Gabby should have reread her work thoroughly to make sure there were no mistakes before posting it on the blog. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the blog since I learned a lot from it concerning the development of dogs.
I think that Gabby’s current event report was well done and included many interesting facts. It was very disappointing to learn that there is no way to prevent AIDS. However, I was extremely excited to find out that a possible cure for HIV might be on its way. This research could potentially lead to a changed future for AIDS victims. Overall, I think that Gabby did a very nice job.