Abbott Labs 2006 HIV Test Insert

A different story than what you’re told by Bono, Oprah and Barack.

First, the tests have no standard for interpreting their meaning.

• From the paper: “At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.”

Translation: They do not predict illness in people who are not already ill, morbidly impoverished, taking Aids drugs or street drugs.

• “The risk of an *asymptomatic [not chronically ill] person with a repeatedly reactive [positive]serum sample developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known“

The tests have no specific, inherent meaning, but meaning is assigned to persons who are in the CDC’s ‘risk group’ They must be ‘interpreted’ for risk group, and not applied to the general population.

• “Clinical studies continue to clarify and refine the interpretation and medical significance of the presence of antibodies to HIV.”

Note the double-speak – “presence of antibodies.” There is “no standard” for determining the “presence or absence” of antibodies in these tests. The statement above is irrelevant, it has no meaning to this standardless test.

• “AIDS and AIDS-related conditions are clinical syndromes and their diagnosis can only be established clinically. EIA testing [that’s this test] cannot be used to diagnose AIDS, even if the recommended investigation of reactive specimens suggest suggest?] that the antibodies toHIV are present.”

The tests don’t diagnose, the clinician does, based on – not testing positive or negative – but on the CDC’s ‘risk factors,’ like Blackness, poverty, homosexuality.

• “Sensitivity for HIV-1 antibodies was computed based on the clinical diagnosis of Aids.”

The tests are validated, not by matching the results with actual infection with any particular, identifiable particle – the “standard” that is missing, but
by using them on people, pre-supposed to be ‘at risk’ for ‘Aids’, that is, people pre-diagnosed with clinical “Aids.”

The tests don’t give the diagnosis – the clinician does – no testing needed. The tests are said to work if and only if you are in the group that is pre-supposed to be

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

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 Test - Slavery?

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 

YAY! opening 10 Magic Johnson Clinics in the next 3 months

 "amazing, talented crowd that in 2012 AIDS Healthcare Foundation will grow way 
beyond serving our 24 countries....I am opening 10 Magic Johnson  Clinics in the next 3 months here in the US. Thanks to another wonderful acquisition, we will be a billion dollar annual non profit 
next year....and 96 cents of every dollar goes back to direct care and 
advocacy for people living with HIV and AIDS! Just sayin'!!"

dana miller


More Magic Johnson dead camps? More Money for Magic Johnson?

Magic Johnson-sponsored ‘Free HIV testing’ van: Ask for a package insert? 

ESPN to Show Film About Magic Johnson’s H.I.V. Disclosure 

Learn Why is Magic Johnson still alive after 20 years? 

Magic Johnson-sponsored ‘Free HIV testing’ van: Ask for a package insert?

by Liam Scheff

Are you a slave? Does the government have the right to tell you who you can mate with? Do they own your body? The bodies of your children?

Are you a slave?

And, what are you shopping for today?

I approached the Magic Johnson-sponsored ‘Free HIV testing’ van, in the Fort Lauderdale mall parking lot, and asked the HIV testing dude if I could see a package insert for the magical test.  This is the technical instruction and legal disclaimer; the limitations of the medical device – the antibody test.

The HIV testing dude gave me a bit of paper – a PR sheet. I handed it back, and asked again for the test insert. He looked blankly, and handed me the same sheet. He did this twice, and tried a third time. I said, “Don’t give me that paper again – I’m asking for a package insert.”

He eventually gave up, and asked the foreman to come talk to me. A 50-something gay dude came out, and gave me a booklet – the package insert. I opened it, and found the language, as it always appears -

*No, we fooled you, suckers  – this is not really a test for hiv…*

• “The Clearview Complete HIV assay is intended for use as a point-of-care test to aids in the diagnosis of infection… This test is suitable for use in multi-test algorithms designed for the statistical validation of rapid HIV test results.”

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.”

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.”