Since HIV testing cannot detect "HIV" itself, and since the test kits currently used to diagnose alleged "HIV infection" only rely on surrogate markers such as antibodies or genetic material, a study should exist somewhere in the published medical literature which shows that at least one type of surrogate test for HIV has been validated for accuracy by the direct isolation of HIV itself from people who test antibody, RNA , or DNA positive.
A study that validates HIV test kits is missing from the medical literature and It has been almost 30 years since the alleged discovery of HIV and the development and marketing of the HIV antibody test kits, yet it appears that no study ever validated HIV tests by the direct purification of HIV from persons who test positive or have a "viral load."
The accuracy of the HIV antibody tests used around the world to say someone is infected with HIV has never been properly established, and there's no information in the published medical literature showing how many positive tests occur in the absence of infection with HTLVIII/LAV , referred to as HIV.
The accuracy of an antibody or other surrogate test for a virus can only be established by verifying that positive results are found exclusively in people who actually have the virus. This standard for determining accuracy was not met in 1984 when the first HIV antibody test was developed.
To this day, positive HIV antibody screening tests (ELISAs) are verified by a second antibody test of unknown accuracy (HIV Western Blots) or by "viral load," another unvalidated test that detects bits of genetic material (RNA or DNA) that are thought to be associated with the virus.
A validation study would prove the ethical and scientific basis for the practice of telling people who test antibody, DNA , or RNA positive that they are infected with "HIV". Without evidence of validation by direct purification of the virus, a diagnosis of HIV infection rests on unverified beliefs and unfounded assumptions.
Current HIV tests signal the presence of antibodies that react with an assortment of proteins associated with HIV, however, none of these proteins are unique or specific to HIV. Without a validation study, no honest, well-informed doctor can say with any degree of certainty that someone who tests positive is indeed infected with HIV.
"viral load" tests cannot be used to validate HIV antibody tests because viral load tests are not able to directly detect HIV itself. Instead, these tests detect only fragments of genetic material (DNA or RNA) associated with HIV.
Without validation by direct isolation of the virus from the fresh, uncultured fluids or tissues of people who test positive, HIV/AIDS experts cannot know what positive and negative test results actually indicate.
There appears to be no published (peer reviewed)data establishing the accuracy of HIV tests is particularly concerning given that people who test positive are said to be infected with a fatal, incurable virus and treated as if this were an indisputable truth.
Searching the vast published medical literature, there appears to be no evidence showing that popular interpretations of the significance or "accuracy" of HIV test kits are scientifically valid or correct.
FDA (approved) HIV antibody Test Kits
Concerns about HIV/AIDS Testing and Measurement
*HIV Tests 101*