Showing posts with label House of Numbers DVD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label House of Numbers DVD. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

HIV tests a farce? False HIV positives produced by western blot tests

HIV

HIV tests a farce? False HIV positives produced by western blot tests

 

 (NaturalNews) Did you or someone you know test positive for HIV? If so, they probably weren't told that they might test negative if a different test were used... or even if the same test were conducted in another country. HIV tests, as you'll see here, are a wishy-washy, pseudoscientific gimmickry that has unfortunately ensnared many innocent victims into a false AIDS diagnosis.

This is now being revealed in some rather shocking video footage released by Brent Leung, creator of the House of Numbers documentary (www.HouseOfNumbers.com) which tears apart the inconsistencies and dogmatic non-science found in the conventional HIV / AIDS industry.

Watch the footage yourself right now at: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=E9FEA...

There, you'll see world-renowned scientists discussing the so-called "western blot," a highly subjective test that is now being used around the world to falsely diagnose people with HIV and, subsequently, AIDS. This western blot, as you'll learn below, is a spectacularly laughable test that seems to have been designed to make "positive" criteria as loose as possible in order to label perfectly healthy people as having AIDS.

"I don't think the western blot is a useful diagnostic test. I don't think it's worth doing," argues Dr Robin Weiss in the video clip.

Val Turner, an MD from Australia, adds, "It's ludicrous that you can be [HIV] positive in one country and not positive in another."

Neville Hodgkinson, the Medical and Science Correspondent for The Sunday Times (London) adds, "Some people argue that we have a confirmatory test in some western countries, and that repeated testing can lead you to a safer diagnosis. But if the very basis of the test is faulty, then nothing works in fact. ...Because of the different criteria that apply in different countries, you can test HIV positive in one country and be given an AIDS diagnosis as a result of that, whereas in another country you won't test HIV positive and you won't be given an AIDS diagnosis."

A full-blown AIDS patient will almost always show nine different "bands" on an HIV test. But in the 1980's, only one band was required -- P24 -- to diagnose someone as HIV positive (and subsequently having AIDS). The problem is that perfectly healthy people can also test positive for P24, even if they aren't HIV positive.

"In the early days, people developed criteria that were too much like a screening test. So if you had just P24 [band], they might have called it a positive," said Robert Redfield MD, Director, Clinical Care and Research, Institute of Human Virology.

Doctor Val Turner adds, "Many people were diagnosed using these criteria, and then it was realized that forty percent of people who are completely healthy have one or more western blot bands, most commonly a P24 band."

A few years later, the FDA changed its diagnosis criteria for HIV, upping the requirement beyond a single P24 band. But people who had already been diagnosed as having AIDS were never re-tested!

Dr Val Turner explains, "We don't know how many thousand people were testing using that western blot criteria before 1987, but ... shouldn't they all have been tested when the criteria changed in 1987 in case they were no longer positive? So there are probably people out there who would not be positive under the criteria which developed subsequently. Using the FDA criteria which existed before 1993, only 80 percent of AIDS patients had a positive HIV test, which means 20 percent were not positive."

HIV tests depend on personal opinion, not rigorous science

Even today, HIV tests are conducted in a wishy-washy, non-scientific manner where the results depend largely on the opinion of the lab technician reading the test results! (It's absurd, of course, but this is what's happening right now.)

In House of Numbers, Brent Leung visited Claudia Kücherer, MD, a Molecular Biologist at the Robert Kock Institute in Berlin. There, he recorded this conversation:

Brent: "When you're looking at this western blot, how do you determine what is a positive [result]?"

Claudia: "You need a certain number of bands being present. It depends a little bit on the producer of the test."

Brent: "It depends on the manufacturer?"

Claudia: "Yes"

Brent: "Is there a different criteria for what might be a positive?"

Claudia: "Yeah, there are different criteria from the manufacturer."

Manufacturers of the HIV test, in other words, differ in how they define a "positive." You might be "HIV positive" on one test, but negative on another. And the decision on which manufacturer's test to use is based on the opinion of the clinic, hospital or doctor ordering the tests.

Astonishingly, this House of Numbers footage also includes a scene featuring two different HIV test lab technicians working in the same lab who disagree on the criteria for a positive HIV test result. While one lab workers says two bands are needed for a positive diagnosis, another worker says three are required. And they work in the same lab!

Watch this footage yourself right here: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=E9FEA...

Western blot HIV test called into question

But some scientists feel the western blot is not just a good test, but a great one! Robert C Gallo MD, Director of the Institute of Human Virology, says "This has a margin of error if done properly that's extremely low. In other words, it's one of medicine's better tests."

One of medicine's better tests? Really? And yet it can be interpreted in different ways by different lab technicians, different definitions in different countries, different manufacturers and different medical opinions?

The HIV tests, it turns out, is more a matter of opinion than scientific fact. And if you or someone you know has tested positive for HIV, maybe they should get a second opinion.

Why not make the test more accurate?

So why doesn't the industry tighten up its guidelines and require five, six or even all nine bands to show up before diagnosing someone as HIV positive? No one seems to know.

I do, though. Isn't it obvious? The AIDS industry is much like the cancer industry in that it's focused on diagnosing as many patients as possible whether or not they actually have the disease. More patients equals more profits and a bigger "scare story" to feed the media propaganda machines.

We already know that the AIDS industry fabricated evidence to try to exaggerate the scope of the AIDS scare (http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=D35F0...). So it's not surprising they would be promoting a "loose" test that potentially has already ensnared potentially tens of thousands of innocent people into a false AIDS diagnosis.

Once a person is diagnosed with AIDS, you see, they become a profit generating machine for Big Pharma. AIDS pharmaceuticals are extremely expensive, and because they are protected under an FDA-enforced monopoly, they can be sold at practically any asking price.

Even better, once innocent "healthy" people start taking AIDS drugs, they begin to show AIDS symptoms such as compromised immune systems. These side effects are caused by the drugs, of course, not by the disease, but in the minds of doctors and patients, the emergence of these scary symptoms proves that "they really had AIDS."

It's all just loopy, circular logic with a single purpose: To earn more money for Big Pharma at the expense of human suffering.

Now, I'm not saying there's no such thing as a genuine person with immune deficiency. Thanks mostly to our toxic environment, there are certainly people who suffer chronic immune system malfunctions. But it is in the AIDS industry's interests to convince even healthy people that they are ill and need pharmaceutical intervention to survive. And, by sheer coincidence (not!), today's HIV tests are specifically designed in a way that produces a disturbingly high number of false positives.

See the complete collection of exclusive clips from House of Numbers at NaturalNews.TV: http://naturalnews.tv/Browse.asp?me...

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

HIV vaccines cause 50 percent false positive rate in HIV tests

(NaturalNews) It may come as a big surprise to most people, but HIV tests given to people today don't actually test for the presence of the HIV virus. Rather, they test for the presence of HIV antibodies that the immune system creates to defend itself against HIV. And just because you have HIV antibodies doesn't mean you actually carry HIV. In some circumstances, up to 50 percent of HIV positives are false, causing havoc with the lives of those patients who are falsely accused of being "HIV positive."

This startling fact was revealed in a recent study that's being published in the July 21 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. It shows that patients who are recruited for HIV vaccine trials often end up testing positive for HIV even though they were only exposed to the vaccine, not the virus.

"Almost half of HIV-negative people who participate in clinical trials for HIV vaccines end up testing positive on routine HIV tests -- even though they're not actually infected" reports US News & World Report.

Some vaccines caused a false positive rate of over 86 percent.

HIV tests lack credibility

What this new study clearly demonstrates is the complete lack of scientific credibility of common HIV tests. It also demonstrates the dangers of getting vaccinated against HIV, because the mere act of receiving an HIV vaccination may cause you to test positive for HIV which, in turn, can have many serious repercussions in your life:

• You may be denied employment because tests show you are "HIV positive."

• You may be denied health insurance coverage or be charged significantly more than others for the same coverage.

• You may be denied residence in other countries, as many countries require HIV tests for prospective new residency.

• You may be falsely accused of having AIDS by health authorities who archive your medical records and use them against you.

• You may be arrested and sent to prison, accused of attempted murder, by sleeping with someone and not telling them you were HIV positive (even though you don't have AIDS).

• You may be denied the opportunity to participate in certain professions or activities (such as sporting events).

• You may be socially stigmatized and thought of as an "AIDS carrier."

• You may be shunned by sex partners or a spouse.

All this could happen to you if you receive an HIV vaccine -- even if you don't carry the HIV virus!

Why HIV and AIDS vaccines are medically unnecessary

We have already established here on NaturalNews that HIV / AIDS vaccines are medically unnecessary. A healthy immune system can fight off HIV in the same way it fights off a cold virus. But don't just take my word for it; listen to the words of Dr Luc Montagnier, the Nobel prize-winning virologist credited with the co-discovery of HIV. He says:

"We can be exposed to HIV many times without being ... infected. Our immune system creates [antibodies] within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system."
(http://naturalnews.com/027355_AIDS_...)

Your own body, in other words, can protect itself from HIV exposure with the same technology your body uses to save your life from influenza every year: Your immune system.

HIV vaccines, then, are entirely unnecessary. Vaccines are Big Pharma's way of selling you something you don't need by trying to convince you that you might die without it. And when it comes to AIDS, Big Pharma has done a terrific job of scaring people into pursuing all kinds of unnecessary treatments that only harm their health in the long run.

In this way, the AIDS industry is much like the breast cancer industry... or the prostate cancer industry: Most of what they push onto people is medically unjustified, scientifically unproven and actually harms more people than it helps. But it's great for generating more profits for Big Pharma.

And that's the point of all this. AIDS is just another profit center for the drug industry, and if their vaccines actually cause you to test positive for HIV, that's even better for their profits because some percentage of those people who test positive are probably going to be put on retroviral drugs to treat HIV, and those drugs are massive profit centers for Big Pharma.

Western medicine causes disease instead of curing it

See, what's really fascinating here is that the AIDS industry demonstrates yet again how the medical industry causes the very diseases it claims to be treating. Mammograms -- which claim to "detect" breast cancer -- actually cause breast cancer. So if you get enough mammograms, eventually you'll develop breast cancer and require expensive cancer treatments.

The AIDS industry now works in much the same way: If you get an HIV vaccine, chances are you're then going to test positive for being an HIV carrier, and you'll become an "AIDS patient" who spends your life savings on needless drugs and other expensive treatments for a disease you don't even have!

The psychiatric industry works the same way, too: It actually invents fictitious diseases such as "oppositional defiance disorder" (which means disagreeing with authority) and then tries to put children and adults on mind-altering psychotropic drugs to "treat" that disease.

The more you look into the industries of pharmaceuticals and vaccines, the more you realize the whole business is just full of bunk. Their vaccines don't work, their tests produce false positives and their pharmaceuticals can kill you.

That's why it's so much easier to just take care of your own health, build up a healthy immune system, avoid exposure to toxic chemicals and let your body's miraculous immune system do the job for you.

See this jaw-dropping video clip about the AIDS fraud

Do you still think an AIDS diagnosis is reliable? Did you know that a huge percentage of people who are diagnosed with AIDS were never tested for HIV?

Watch this stunning new video clip from House of Numbers to learn the rest of the story: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=0B547...

See more clips or buy the DVD of this remarkable documentary at www.HouseOfNumbers.com

Sources for this story include:
http://health.usnews.com/health-new...

Monday, July 19, 2010

HIV drug causes liver damage, admits FDA

Monday, July 19, 2010 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The HIV drug Videx (sold generically as didanosine) may cause fatal liver problems, the FDA has warned.

Since the drug's initial approval, the agency has received 42 adverse event reports linking Videx and its delayed release version Videx EC to a rare liver disorder known as non-cirrotic portal hypertension. In four of these cases, patients died from liver failure or severe bleeding. Only three patients were able to fully recover from the condition, and all of those needed a liver transplant. Patients had been undergoing treatment with the drug for anywhere from months to years.

Although it has not yet been proven that the drugs caused the liver disorder, the FDA noted that there is definitely an association between the two.

In non-cirrotic portal hypertension, blood flow through a major vein in the liver becomes constricted, causing blood to back up into the esophagus. Veins in the throat can become so enlarged that they rupture, leading to serious and potentially fatal bleeding.

Although the FDA stated that the benefits for HIV patients still outweigh the risks, it warned that Videx patients should be closely monitored for any signs of portal hypertension. Furthermore, it noted that "the decision to use this drug ... must be made on an individual basis between the treating physician and the patient."

Videx was first approved in 1991, and the delayed release version was approved in 2000. The drug is a type of antiretroviral drug known as a nucleoside analogue, and slows the proliferation of HIV to prolong the onset of AIDS and extend the life of patients.

It has previously been linked to other forms of liver damage, especially in combination with other antiretroviral drugs including hydroxyurea and ribavirin.

According to a spokesperson for manufacturer Bristol-Myers Squib, worldwide sales of the drug amounted to $71 million in 2009.

Sources for this story include: www.aboutlawsuits.com/hiv-drug-vide... online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100129-714703.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines; www.medscape.com/viewarticle/716198.

Watch House of Numbers to learn more about HIV, AIDS and AIDS Drugs. 

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Study reveals promise for HIV test

Early detection hope of S.D. researchers

Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 12:05 a.m.

The evolution of AIDS from a deadly disease shrouded in fear to a largely manageable condition took another step forward Monday, when San Diego researchers unveiled results of a study looking at an early-detection method for the virus that causes the illness.

The report’s authors said a rarely used blood test can spot HIV weeks before the body recognizes the infection. They recommended that it be offered along with the more common screening method to people at high risk of contracting the virus, including gay men, intravenous drug users and people with multiple sex partners.

Among the 3,151 participants in a two-year study, the blood test identified HIV in 15 individuals who had falsely tested negative with the traditional saliva swab procedure.

False negative results occur in as much as 1 percent of those who take the swab test, which pinpoints antibodies produced by the immune system in response to infection. It can take as long as three months for the body to begin producing enough antibodies to trigger a positive reading.

During that lag time, people can unknowingly spread HIV through unsafe sex and miss early treatments that could improve their health in the long run, said Dr. Sheldon Morris, an AIDS researcher at the University of California San Diego’s Antiviral Research Center in Hillcrest.

Morris was lead author of the HIV-testing report, which appeared Monday in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. His colleagues included other researchers from UCSD and San Diego County’s HIV, STD and Hepatitis Branch.

“If people got an antibody test alone and were told they weren’t infected when they were, they could be a strong infection risk until they get tested again, which according to guidelines could be six to 12 months later,” Morris said.

The latest findings reinforce similar conclusions from a 2005 study led by scientists at the University of North Carolina. Those researchers administered the early-detection blood test to a much larger sampling of people.

Participants in the San Diego study whose blood tested negative could get their results in person, through an automated telephone system or by logging on to a secured website. About 65 percent of those who sought their results used the automated options.

Morris said the pattern demonstrates a shift in attitudes about AIDS. The illness once was viewed as a death sentence that needed in-person counseling to deal with issues such as shame and secrecy. But advances in detection and treatment have turned it into a chronic, controllable condition for most patients — not unlike diabetes.

“HIV is not as mysterious as it once was,” Morris said.

The early-detection blood test, which homes in on nucleic acid RNA molecules produced by the virus, has been used to screen most of the nation’s blood donation supply since 2002, according to its maker, Gen-Probe of San Diego.

The FDA approved the test for use as an HIV diagnostic tool in late 2006, but its cost — as high as $100 — and more complicated administration have helped discourage widespread use, said Rowena Johnston, vice president and research director of the New York-based international HIV/AIDS research foundation known as AMFAR.

Samples for the blood test are obtained through finger pricks and must be sent to a laboratory, which can take up to two weeks to return results.

“The reason the antibody test is (widely) used is because of low cost and convenience,” Johnston said. The saliva swab method can produce a reading within a few minutes.

But identifying people with HIV within a few days or weeks of infection has become a public health imperative, in part because the virus level tends to be highest during the early infection stage — making transmission to others more likely, she said.

“This really is a key to preventing HIV transmission,” Johnston said.

Because of the blood test’s cost, health experts said, it probably isn’t practical to offer the higher-level screening to the general population. It makes more sense to focus on high-risk HIV groups because they record larger numbers of false-negative antibody test results.

In the San Diego study, participants were recruited from several HIV testing sites in the region, including those run by UCSD, the county and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center.

Each participant was given the saliva swab test, and then blood samples were taken from those who tested negative. The samples were sent to labs in San Diego and Emeryville in the Bay Area, where they were analyzed for HIV nucleic acid. Patients who tested positive for HIV after the blood analysis received the results from clinic staffers within a week.

Morris said the blood test is sensitive enough to detect the virus components within 10 days of infection.

“I think the time is coming where we will have to adopt a strategy for earlier (HIV) detection,” he said. “If you have a testing site with a high-risk prevalence, then you probably should be running this test on all of their samples” that tested negative for virus antibodies.

Keith Darcé: (619) 293-1020; keith.darce@uniontrib.com

See House of Numbers to learn more about HIV and AIDS.
Watch HIV scientists Dr. Niel Constantine and Robin Weiss talk about the accuracy of HIV Testing.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Fungus-tainted corn a factor in Africa HIV spread?


(Reuters Health) - A new study raises the question of whether corn contaminated with a fungus-derived toxin is helping to facilitate the transmission of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa.

The toxins, called fumonisins, are produced by a particular type of fungus that can grow in corn after the plant is damaged by pests such as the cornstalk borer.

Fumonisins may be harmful to human health, with some studies linking consumption of the toxins to an increased rate of cancer of the esophagus, the tube that connects the throat to the stomach.

In the new study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, researchers looked at whether there may be a relationship between HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa and general consumption of foods prone to contamination with fumonisins or other fungus- produced toxins (known as mycotoxins).

Using data from the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization, the researchers found that as sub-Saharan countries' per-person corn consumption rose, so did HIV transmission rates.

In countries with a relatively higher percentage of Muslims -- a factor linked to lower HIV rates -- those with high per-capita corn consumption had an estimated HIV infection rate of 291 per 100,000 people in one year. In contrast, the rate in those with low corn consumption was 74 per 100,000 people.

Meanwhile, in countries with both fewer Muslims than average and higher-than-average corn consumption, there were 435 HIV cases per 100,000 people.

The researchers also found that higher per-capita corn consumption correlated with a higher rate of esophageal cancer. Since fumonisin toxins have been linked to that cancer, the finding serves as an indicator that populations with high corn consumption were exposed to higher levels of the toxin.

What all of this means is not yet clear. This appears to be the first study to find an association between corn consumption and HIV transmission rates in sub-Saharan Africa, lead researcher Dr. Jonathan H. Williams, of the University of Georgia in Griffin, told Reuters Health in an email.

The findings, he and his colleagues say, must be considered preliminary and need to be backed up by further research.

It is biologically plausible that high fumonisin intake could make a person more vulnerable to HIV infection. According to Williams, research suggests that the toxin makes certain tissues more vulnerable to infections by viruses.

A number of factors have been identified as key in sub-Saharan Africa's HIV transmission rates; male circumcision, for example, has been shown to lower heterosexual transmission, while having multiple concurrent sex partners or other sexually transmitted infections increases the risk.

The current findings raise the possibility that food safety -- in particular, the issue of fumonisin-contaminated corn -- is an additional factor.

Based on their statistical model, Williams and his colleagues estimate that if the "maize (corn) factor" were eliminated in sub-Saharan Africa, HIV transmissions could be cut by as much as 58 percent.
Contamination might be prevented, for instance, by planting corn varieties genetically modified to be resistant to pests. It may also be possible to remove contaminants, Williams said, through certain milling technologies or by soaking the grain in water; fumonisin is water-soluble, so "steeping" the grain or meal, then discarding the liquid may remove the toxin.

In a region where an estimated 1.7 million people become infected with HIV annually, that would mean more than 1 million infections averted each year, the researchers note.

All of that, however, remains speculation until further research is done confirming the link between contaminated corn and HIV.

SOURCE: link.reuters.com/bad29k American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, online May 19, 2010.

Article Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65848I20100609


Watch House of Numbers to learn more about HIV and AIDS. 



Click here to see Luc Montagnier's views on clearing HIV naturally. 

House of Numbers now available on iTunes and Amazon.com 

Monday, June 7, 2010

House of Numbers Adds Additional Content to its Deluxe Edition DVD


House of Numbers has added full interviews to its Deluxe Edition DVD along with additional featurettes. A list of all the featurettes can be seen below and a list of full length interviews will be announced shortly. 


Behind-the-scenes: The Making of House of Numbers

Extended Interviews

32 Featurettes:

HIV Testing

  • 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" for HIV Tests
  • Testing of High Risk vs. Low Risk Populations
  • HIV Testing Campaigns
A I D S
  • CDC: Initial AIDS Definition
  • Creating an African AIDS Definition
  • Bangui: AIDS By Numbers
  • Bangui: Peripheral Psychological Damage
  • Bangui Redux: National Variation in AIDS Definitions
  • Through a Glass Darkly: African AIDS Statistics
  • Clinical AIDS: A New Disease? 
  • A Growing Family: AIDS Marker Diseases and Indicators
  • Bangui Westernized
  • Politics and Public Health: A Study in Conflict
  • CD4 T-Cell Count Marker: Medical Application
  • 1997 - CDC Tables 11 and 12: Addition by Subtraction
Deconstructing a House of Numbers:
Experts Examine Global HIV/AIDS Statistics

  • Dr. James Chin
  • Rian Malan
  • Dr. Charles Geshekter (Archival, 2001)
A Second Look
  • The "Probable Cause" of AIDS
  • Dr. Don Francis on Dr. Robert Gallo
  • Profile: Dr. Peter Duesberg
"Why I Began Questioning HIV" -
Five Skeptics' Stories

  • Dr. Kary Mullis
  • Rian Malan
  • Neville Hodgkinson
  • Dr. Rodney Richards
  • Dr. Christian Fiala
Click Here To Purchase the DVD