Hiv testing is the new pink triangle

Reading the standard medical literature on HIV tests, you will discover that:

• The Tests ‘test’ for no one thing.
• They diagnose no one thing.
• They do not show infection with any single thing.
  

HIV tests may tell you that you have an illness, or they may tell you that you are pregnant. They give no single response, and diagnose no single condition. They may indicate immune suppression, or any variety of major or minor ailments.

The complex details of HIV testing are not reported to the public; they remain hidden in the medical and industry journals, and are actively suppressed by major media in public discussion. These are important public issues, and we all should have a clear and unobstructed view of all available data, no matter how it affects or challenges a publicly-held idea or policy.

It is impossible in a court of law to receive a death sentence for any crime as easily as it is to receive a false reading on an HIV test. It is a label that cannot be overcome in court, and cannot be appealed under any circumstance.

• Images from HIV Tests
• Testing PDFs

But, now it can be appealed. And returned. Return Your HIV Test Diagnosis Now.

——————————————————————————————————————————————

If you are about to be tested, or have recently been tested, then you must understand the technical flaws and limitations of HIV testing, what the tests react with, and how they are interpreted. If you would like help in writing to your doctor, write RTB, and we’ll assist you

Know your rights: You have a right to informed consent, a right to read and review all critical literature on a medical procedure before agreeing to undergo it.

Know your rights: You have a right to read and review all critical literature on HIV testing, before submitting to a test. You have a right to choose whether or not to take a test, based on your reading of the critical medical literature on testing. It is your legal right:

• To review all critical literature on the tests and on testing
• To take or to not take a test.

Before you test, seek answers to the following questions:

• How are the tests constructed? How do they work? What do they measure?
• What are the specific mechanical components of the tests? Where are the parts made? Where do they come from?
• What makes a test react? What makes a reaction positive or negative?
• What is the difference between a positive and a negative reaction?
• What standards are used to interpret a reaction?
• What other factors are used to determine the meaning or interpretation of a test result?
• Do the tests measure only one thing? Do they measure what they claim to measure? Do theycross-react, and if so, with what? Why do they cross-react?
• Who are the tests used on? Where are they issued most often? What gives a test a higher versus a lower “predictive value“?

Excercise your right to informed consent, and make the decision according to a full understanding of the tests, their limitations and uses, as reviewed in twenty-five years of the medical literature.

Read All Entries in the “Tests” Category

Exercise your right to informed consent, and make the decision according to a full understanding of the tests, their limitations and uses, as reviewed in twenty-five years of the medical literature.

More on testing below, and at ARAS.ab.ca/test

Here are ten facts every person diagnosed as HIV-positive has a right to know

reposted from helpforhiv.com/

Being diagnosed HIV-Positive can be a traumatic experience – emotionally, mentally, and physically.

Following the initial shock, most people are faced with a lot of fears and questions about a number of life-changing issues.

We created this website to help you find your way through these fears by helping you better understand the medical facts about your diagnosis, and to provide information that can help guide you in making some important decisions.

Here are ten facts every person diagnosed as HIV-positive has a right to know (click on the words in green for quick references)…

FACT #1: There is strong evidence that the HIV test you took is very often wrong. We have found over fifty different scientific studies listing seventy non-HIV conditions that can make the test produce false positive results. Depending on which test you took, they have been proven to be wrong as much as 90% of the time. So you might not be HIV-positive at all.

HIV testing cannot detect "HIV" itself

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."

Everyone Reacts Positive on the ELISA Tests for HIV

by roberto giraldo


For the last 6 years I have been working at a laboratory of clinical immunology in one of the most prestigious University Hospitals in the City of New York. Here I have had the opportunity to personally run and get to know in detail the current tests used for the diagnosis of HIV status, namely, the ELISA, Western blot and Viral Load tests.

1. Diluting the serum for the ELISA testThe ELISA test is a test for antibodies against what is supposed to be the Human Immunodeficiency Virus or HIV. To run this test, an individual’s serum has to be diluted to a ratio of 1:400 with a special specimen diluent. According to the test kit manufacturer this diluent contains "0.1% triton X-100, Bovine and Goat Sera (minimum concentration of 5%) and Human T-Lymphocyte Lysate (minimum titer 1:7500). Preservative: 0.1% Sodium Azide" (1).

This extraordinarily high dilution of the person’s serum [400 times] took me by surprise. Most serologic tests that look for the presence of antibodies against germs uses neat serum [undiluted]. For example, the tests that look for antibodies to hepatitis A and B viruses, rubella virus, syphilis, hystoplasma and cryptococus, to mention a few of them, use straight serum [undiluted]. However, to try to prevent false positive reactions some serologic tests use diluted serum; for example this is the case with tests that look for antibodies to measles, varicella and mumps viruses which use a dilution of 1:16, to cytomegalovirus [CMV] 1:20 and to Epstein-Barr Virus [EBV] 1:10.

The obvious questions are: What makes HIV so unique that the test serum needs to be diluted 400 times? And what would happen if the individual’s serum is not diluted ?


2. Testing the ELISA test without diluting the serum

HIV Antibody Test Certificate of Accuracy

The following document may help you exercise your right to informed choice with regard to HIV testing.

By asking physicians to stand behind their recommendations for HIV testing, the certificate reveals their confidence in

these procedures as well as their knowledge of the serious potential consequences of administering non-specific HIV

tests. They also alert doctors to your understanding of the faults and risks of HIV tests and AIDS treatment drugs.

If your doctor is certain that HIV tests are accurate, reliable, and able to diagnose actual infection with HIV, s/he

should agree to sign the certificates without hesitation and thereby give their professional endorsement of these

procedures. *Also read:   Return Your HIV Diagnosis Now 

HIV Tests on Trial: Fort Bragg Acquittal

Tim Cavanaugh - reason.com/blog

Reason contributor Terry Michael investigates a military trial in Ft. Bragg, North Carolina that ended with the acquittal of an Army sergeant of charges that he didn't inform sexual partners of his positive HIV status. 

Expert witnesses raised doubts about the general validity of HIV tests during the May aggravated assault trial of the NCO referred to by supporters (Michael provides his full name) discreetly as "Sgt. TD." It also seems the prosecution either didn't mount or wasn't allowed to mount a strong attack: 

An 8-year Army veteran, Dixon spent 247 days in pre-trial custody after charges brought in 2011, when he was arrested after a former girlfriend accused him of assault and battery, for throwing a plastic bottle at her during an argument. Judge Batdorf found Dixon guilty of that physical assault charge, unrelated to HIV status disclosure, and sentenced him to 120 days (waived for time he had already served.). The arrest resulted in Dixon’s “status” later being revealed, to other women identified as former sexual partners. There was no testimony in the trial from any of the women disputing Dixon’s claim that he used condoms.

There also was no testimony from any of the women that they had contracted HIV from Sgt. Dixon. The defense introduced into evidence a1997 scientific paper by Dr. Nancy Padian from the Univ. of California-San Francisco, who studied the potential for transmission of HIV in 176 “sero-discordant” heterosexual couples, where one partner was HIV-positive and the other HIV-negative, and not one of the subjects ever contracted HIV through sex.

Soldier acquitted in AIDS assault case after HIV tests shown to be completely bogus

NaturalNews 
An Army sergeant who was falsely accused of being HIV positive, and who spent 240 days in pretrial custody as a result, has officially been acquitted of the charges levied against him. Thanks to the efforts of the Office of Medical and Scientific Justice (OMSJ), a private investigative agency that focuses on medical and scientific fraud, Sgt. "TD," who was arrested in 2011 for HIV-related criminal charges, has been vindicated of his HIV-positive status, which has also caused the legitimacy of HIV tests to once again be called into question.

A former girlfriend of Sgt. TD, as well as three other women, reportedly pressed charges against the man after several ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay), Western Blot, and viral load tests revealed that he was allegedly HIV-positive. Based on these tests and on affirmations by both a doctor's diagnosis and a soldier's signed confession, each of the women claimed that Sgt. TD exposed them to HIV without disclosing that he was infected, which is said to constitute aggravated assault.

Initially, it appeared as though Sgt. TD had no defense, and would have to potentially serve 37 years in federal prison for his alleged crime. But after Sgt. TD's attorneys asked OMSJ for help on the case, to which the group agreed, it was eventually shown that each of the HIV tests conducted, including Western Blot, the so-called "gold standard" of HIV tests, could not be relied upon for absolute accuracy in light of the numerous outside factors that may have tainted their results.

HIV test are 99% accurate?

When they say the tests are '99% accurate', what they mean is 99 times out of 100 it will give the same result if the SAME TEST is given to the same person. It does not mean it's 99% accurate in detecting HIV, which as you pointed out the test does not actually do. 

But what do most people think when they go to the testing site and are told the test is 99% accurate? You and I both know what they think, and it's one of the dirtiest mind tricks of the HIV shell game. reprinted from

When they use the term "accuracy" in regards to HIV tests, they're referring to overall accuracy. The dirty trick here is that they in turn use the overall accuracy to imply that a positive test is over 99% accurate, when this is far from the case. Indeed, if there were no such thing as HIV (meaning that a positive test would have 0% accuracy), the overall accuracy of an HIV test would still be >99%, because >99% of all individuals tested would get a true negative reading.

Return Your HIV Diagnosis Now

Reposted from reducetheburden.org
RTB: The OMSJ has made it easy for you to turn in your false HIV diagnosis. Please read their article on “Erasing HIV’s Scarlet Letter,” and download the “Differential Diagnosis” forms, linked at OMSJ.org and below.


Erasing HIV’s “SCARLET LETTER” [Link]

1. Your first letter reminds your doctor who you are.  It should contain short questions about a) the tests he used, b) how the diagnosis was made, and c) the kind of response you seek.

BY CERTIFIED MAIL

(RECIPIENT) David Jones MD 123 Main Street Anywhere, MASS 00001

Re: HIV diagnosis of patient Michael Smith, (DOB: 5/28/72) Dear Dr. Jones: As you will recall, I visited you on (DATE/DATES).

At that time, you told me that I was “HIV Positive” which, as you might expect, was devastating. Although I had no reason to question your diagnosis at the time, I am no longer confident that your diagnosis was accurate. In fact, I don’t recall that you or anyone else ever conducted a diagnosis.

Please tell me what test or tests you used to diagnose me as HIV-positive.

I respectfully request that you respond to this letter within 2 weeks, so that we can set up a meeting to discuss the test and your diagnosis.

Sincerely, Signed/Name/Address

If you are asked to come in for a visit, do so – and bring a recording device.  During your visit, turn it on and lay it in plain sight so that both sides will know that the conversation is being recorded.

In some states and countries, it is illegal to secretly record someone.  If the device is sitting in the open, it should not violate any laws.  If you’re not sure, turn it on and say clearly that you are recording your conversation “because what they will say is important and you don’t want to misunderstand anything they’ve said.”  If they refuse, leave the recorder on and re-state that they want the recording device off.  Then leave the clinic, go home and write another letter.

If the doctor happens to respond in writing and identifies the test used, you’ll probably find the test in this list.  If he doesn’t identify it, pick one test, and ask if he used that test.  Mail your certified letter.

Your follow-up letters should ask exactly how he conducted his diagnosis.  He should explain exactly how he ruled out each of the 100+ conditions that are known to “cross-react” to HIV tests – conditions that include flu, tetanus and hepatitis shots, pregnancy, colds, the flu, physical injuries, and so forth.  Your doctor should be able to list ALL OF THE KNOWN CROSS-REACTIONS and explain exactly how he ruled out each one.  If he fails to answer this simple test, it suggests that he did not conduct a competent diagnosis.

Just as a policeman must rule out gunshot wounds, stoke, diabetic shock or other ailments before arresting someone for drunk driving, your doctor must identify and all of the known conditions that cause false positive test results and explain exactly how he ruled them out.

Your objective is to pin down the doctor.  Don’t let him play “hide the penny” with you.

Once you’re satisfied that your first letter and follow-up questions have been answered, move to second letter.

HIV Tests Are Not HIV Tests. WHAT? part 2

Exploring more from the posting HIV Tests Are Not HIV Tests. WHAT?  dated FEBRUARY 7, 2012. Henry H. Bauer, Ph.D. adds:

Abstract

HIV tests do not detect HIV. The seminal papers did not demonstrate HIV to be the cause of AIDS. The patent based on this work did not demonstrate that HIV tests are specific for HIV. The progression from “HIV is the probable cause of AIDS” to “HIV antibodies demonstrate active infection by HIV” came by assertion and not evidence. HIV-test-kits do not claim that the test detect infection, and they have never been approved for that purpose. There is no gold standard for an HIV test, and the existing tests are at best adjuncts to clinical diagnosis.

Drastic consequences include that healthy individuals are subjected to iatrogenic harm through life-long intake of highly toxic medication.

Introduction

So-called “HIV tests” do not detect infection by HIV (human immunodeficiency virus, a retrovirus), even though for more than a quarter century these tests have been widely used precisely as purported diagnosis of such infection. The manufacturers of the test kits do not claim that the tests detect infection, nor has the Food and Drug Administration approved the tests for that purpose, and authoritative discussions of how to detect HIV infection make plain that the tests are insufficient to diagnose infection.

The story behind this circumstance has a number of parts:

1.     The initial claimed discovery or identification of a retroviral cause of AIDS.

2.     The patented method for detecting antibodies claimed to be specific to human immunodeficiency virus.

3.     A progression from claiming to find antibodies to presuming that presence of antibodies signifies active infection --- without the benefit of any specific evidence to that effect and in the face of evidence to the contrary.

4.     In absence of any gold standard test, the first (unproven, unvalidated) antibody test has been the basis for supposed validation of all later tests.

The consequences of the mistaken equating of “HIV-positive” with “infected by human immunodeficiency virus” could not be more serious. Healthy individuals who happen at some time to test “HIV-positive” have suffered physical, psychological or financial damage as a result of such a “diagnosis”; particularly harmed have been gay men and people of African ancestry.

In the following, when citing early work that employed the nomenclature of HTLV-III and LAV, those terms are used rather than the now-agreed term “HIV.”

“Why have I to believe that the AIDS test meaning is equivalent to an infection with the HIV virus?

ANALYSIS OF THE ANTIBODY TESTS 
by: Fabio Franchi   Specialista in Igiene,   Medicina Preventiva   e in Malattie Infettive  Trieste
http://www.cesil.com/0898/enfrah08.htm


The tests of the antibodies we shall examine are the Elisa, the Western Blot, the p24 antigen capture assay.

ELISA (Pict. 1) 


In Italy, the screening test (ELISA), “provided with a good sensibility (near 99%) and a lower specificity, valued about 90-95% in 1988”(4), is used at first to identify the HIV infection. However these percentages must not deceive, in fact the test predictive value changes depending on the infection prevalence in a certain population. According to a theory expressed in 1988 by the AIDS National Commission (4), in case of screening of the Italian prison population, in comparison with 6,902 real positive individuals there should have been 1.751 false positive; on the contrary, in case of blood donors, in comparison with 198 real positive, a good 999,990 should have been false positive (505 times more!). In the over mentioned text (2) the authors assert that the progressive improvements took sensibility of the test to 95% and its specificity to 99.8%, in high-risk population. Nevertheless they admit that “the positive predictive value can greatly fluctuate depending on the population they study”. Actually this happened. Depending on the information published on the English authoritative medical magazine The Lancet (5), in 1990 on 20.2 million ELISA tests made in Russia, 20,000 were positive, but only 112 were confirmed by the WB; in 1991, on 30 million ELISA tests, a good 30,000 were positive, but of these only 66 were confirmed by the Western Blot, that is a minimum percentage (0.002%). 
“Then as the ELISA test has been planned to optimize the sensibility to the detriment of the specificity, it should not be used by itself for the HIV-1 infection diagnosis without a confirmation test (2), although in some Countries is used alone.

HIV Tests Are Not HIV Tests. WHAT?

HIV tests do not detect HIV or HIV antibodies.  HIV tests detect antibodies.  Period.  Test manufacturers claim that their tests are 99 percent accurate for sensitivity and specificity.

SENSITIVITY measures how often a test is positive when you already know what you are testing for is present.  SPECIFICITY expresses how often a test is positive when a patient DOES NOT have the condition.

In all HIV test literature, sensitivity and specificity are not based on measurements of the test against an isolated virus, but is a concordant measure between two tests that do not detect HIV or HIV antibodies.  Careful examination of the manufacturer’s label information makes this clear contrary to their claims of sensitivity and specificity of 99.9 percent.  The vast majority of these reported measures of accuracy have nothing to do with whether HIV is present, but how well one test performs as compared to other tests already on the market.  These measures of accuracy refer to the concordance between two tests; namely, how often a new test says a sample is positive when one already on the market says it is positive (sensitivity), and how often it is negative (specificity).  Given the fact that all HIV antibody tests are based on the same molecular principles and built from the same portfolio of basic molecular building blocks, their remarkable concordance is not surprising.

However, even if two different tests demonstrate 100 percent concordance, that does not justify the use of either for purposes other than what they have been validated and approved for.  By analogy, if two different manufacturers were to construct two different timepieces using the same specifications for the gears and wheels, only to put them in different casings, it is very likely that these two clocks would perform quite similarly.  However, even if there were greater than 99.9 percent concordance between these two timepieces, one cannot conclude that either clock measures time accurately.

HIV tests are so notoriously inaccurate that ALL FDA-approved HIV test package inserts warn clinicians that persons who test positive can only be “PRESUMED to be infected.”

Ask for the Kit insert before your next HIV and AIDS test.

Learn more : A Selection of HIV Documents

Evidence of Fraud? Unearthed by US Governmental Investigations into the scientific work of Dr. Robert Gallo As made available  in "Fear of the Invisible" by Janine Roberts

Walgreens launches Free HIV Testing in LA

Poor Neighborhoods of LA 

come get your FREE HIV Test. 

Which test?

Before you run, take the bus, subway READ: Understanding HIV Testing, for Beginners 

In partnership with Greater Than AIDS and the Los Angeles Department of Public Health,Walgreens is proud to offer FREE HIV testing at select Walgreens pharmacies in Los Angeles on the last Thursday of every month from 1 – 7pm, starting on Thursday, January 26, 2012. Check out the list of participating stores below.

Extended Interviews HIV Testing 101 from the "House of Numbers" Deluxe DVD.

"House of Numbers" special feature mini-documentaries on HIV Testing from the Deluxe Edition DVD: HIV Testing 101, False Positives: Causes and Factors, History and Evolution of HIV Testing, Reading the Fine Print: HIV Test Inserts, The Changing Criteria of Western Blot Testing, Deciphering Test Results for False Positives, Examining the "Gold Standard", Rapid Testing in High Risk vs. Low Risk Populations

Spontaneous HIV Seroreversion: Real or Apparent?

Reader Remarks on:

Denis, Siakama. Wanyama.

I have come across a patient also confirmed HIV positive from 2 different institutions using the rapid kits, determine and unigold. She had CD4 trend drop hence initiated on ART, and her immunity responded accordingly with a rise in CD4 count. Later, rapid tests done, were NEGATIVE, ELISA also confirmed NEGATIVE and viral load done, undetectable! This has left us in a very peculiar position.