An 11-month old infant was brought by the mother for a review. The mother had noticed that the child had not been eating well for a month. She said the boy had refused the usual cereal with milk, necessitating forced feeding.
The baby was said to be active and fully immunised up to his age and had been growing well up till present. The male infant was examined thoroughly and found to be growing well, but his tongue and the inner parts of the mouth had a whitish patch which the mother said was the milk leftover after feeding. A mouth examination showed that the whitish patch on the tongue, the palates, the inner parts of the cheeks and on the throat were likely to have extended down the tract. This is a clear case of oral thrush, medically called oralcandidiasis.
Other examination of the body part showed swellings under the baby’s armpits and cheeks, which made me to start thinking of possible HIV infection in the child . The mother and child were sent for several blood tests, which revealed that the infant was infected with HIV probably acquired from his mother at birth or during breastfeeding.
The mother was advised at the post-test counselling to disclose the situation to her husband so that he could also be given attention if infected. The he man was brought to the hospital, and he was counselled before doing the HIV test. He tested negative and accused the wife of having extra- marital affairs. The woman and the child are currently receiving treatment in one of the public clinics in Lagos that cater to people living with HIV. The follow-up revealed that the couple has separated and the man has moved on.
The woman was believed to have acquired the HIV infection from a traditional birth attendant where she had her baby.
During the delivery, she had a vagina tear and her placenta did not come out at the right time. She had several concoctions put in her mouth and private part before the placenta separated.
She said, “I did the HIV test when I was six months pregnant and it was negative. I later registered with a traditional birth attendant a month to my delivery on the insistence of my mother.”
Link: http://www.punchng.com/health/healthwise/managing-oral-thrush/

You can't blame the TBA for her HIV status. The reason is clear.

TBA (traditional birth attendant) was responsible, very clear. The woman tested HIV negative six months into her pregnancy. During delivery, TBA made incision to create more space for the baby to pass through. And in all sincerity, you can't say that TBA normally sterilize their equipment. So, the woman contracted HIV when that incision was made on her, and her baby contracted it through brea$tfeeding.

So why did her husband test negative?
Are you trying to tell me that a woman who gave birth 11months ago hasn't had anything to do with her husband even for at least the last five months?
Think about it?

marriedmum:
So why did her husband test negative?
Are you trying to tell me that a woman who gave birth 11months ago hasn't had anything to do with her husband even for at least the last five months?
Think about it?

Come up with your own theory on the possible cause of her HIV status and that of her baby based on the piece of information in the article. The husband tested negative, and that wouldn't be the first case of such. Besides that, it is even irrelevant whether they ccopulate after birth or not, as long as husband has tested negative which means husband wasn't the source of HIV. What is your point again?