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.

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 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.

D.C. hopes to test 35,000 employees for HIV over 3 months

By Marissa Evans -  

The District’s departments of Health and Human Resources, along with union leaders, kicked off a campaign Wednesday with the goal of testing 35,000 city employees over the next three months. During that period, city employees who decide to get tested will first receive instructions on how to prevent infection. READ the whole article: washingtonpost.com

What they don't tell people is:

What you can expect

By Mayo Clinic staff

HIV is usually diagnosed by testing your blood or a sample of cells taken with a cotton swab from inside your cheek for the presence of antibodies to the virus. Urine samples can also be tested for HIV antibodies, but the results are slightly less accurate.

Unfortunately, these HIV tests aren't accurate immediately after infection because it takes time for your body to produce antibodies to the virus. Most people develop antibodies to the HIV virus within three to six months of infection.

If this test is positive — meaning you have antibodies to HIV — lab technicians run the same test again on the sample you provided. If the repeat test is also positive for HIV antibodies, you need a confirming blood test called the Western blot test, which checks for the presence of HIV proteins.

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.

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.”

“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.

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

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

IS A POSITIVE WESTERN BLOT PROOF OF HIV INFECTION?

"...we are not simply contending in order that my view or that of yours may prevail, but I presume we ought both of us to be fighting for the truth..."  From Philebus, the Dialogues of Plato

It is currently accepted that a positive Western blot (WB) HIV antibody test is synonymous with HIV infection and the attendant risk of developing and dying from AIDS. In this communication we present a critical evaluation of the presently available data on HIV isolation and antibody testing. The available evidence indicates that: (a) the antibody tests are not standardised; (b) the antibody tests are not reproducible; (c) the WB proteins (bands) which are considered to be coded by the HIV genome and to be specific to HIV may not be coded by the HIV genome and may in fact represent normal cellular proteins; (d) even if the proteins are specific to HIV, because no gold standard has been used and may not even exist to determine specificity, a positive WB may represent nothing more than cross‑reactivity with the many non‑HIV antibodies present in AIDS patients and those at risk, and thus be unrelated to the presence of HIV. We conclude that the use of the HIV antibody tests as a diagnostic and epidemiological tool for HIV infection needs to be reappraised.