Showing posts with label Robert Gallo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert Gallo. 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...

Friday, July 30, 2010

The state budget and AIDS policy

By Frank Stoppenbach
Red Hook
Published: Friday, July 30, 2010 2:14 AM EDT
Though unable to craft a balanced state budget, New York’s fractious legislature voted unanimously to no longer require written consent for HIV tests.

I would have voted against the bill.  First, because of the life-changing (and permanent) implications of a positive HIV test.  Second, and more important, because there are many unresolved questions about HIV tests that really call for a reexamination of them.

I can actually prove the need for a reexamination.  How can someone who is neither a doctor nor a scientist do so?

The same way business people and legislators who are not technical experts do – by asking reasonable questions (often formulated for them by technical experts).  If reasonable answers do not come back, something is wrong.


For HIV and AIDS, 38 questions raised by doctors and scientists were put into a presentation and sent, along with a cover letter summarizing ten of the questions, to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).

HHS did respond to seven of the questions, and you can see the correspondence back and forth at www.aidspetition.org/Questions.  I think it is evident that HHS was not able to resolve the ten questions, with one exception.

Three of the questions were (1) Why do criteria for a positive HIV test, unlike any other test, differ by geography; (2) Dr. Henry Bauer’s finding that positive HIV tests in the U. S. correlated with race, even in low risk populations, suggesting that the tests indicate general immune system activity, not the presence of a microbe; (3) The fact that most babies who test HIV-positive at 9 months (after maternal antibodies have disappeared) turn negative by 24 months, seemingly curing themselves of incurable HIV.

A few months ago, HIV co-discoverer Dr. Montagnier, seeking to explain the high rates of HIV in Africa, and low rates here, in effect said that a healthy immune system can get rid of HIV[1].

Which raised the question: why are we spending huge sums (nearly 3 percent of New York state’s entire budget, an incredible $3.2 billion), mostly on very costly anti-HIV drugs, if basic nutrition and health measures can solve the problem?

It may come as a surprise that the HIV tests, which form the basis for an AIDS or HIV diagnosis, have unresolved concerns.  Or that the role of HIV in AIDS is unproven.


The latter point was made by Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis, who discovered that there was no scientific reference that could back up the statement, “HIV is the probable cause of AIDS”.

Dr. Robert Gallo, the co-author of the original and widely referenced paper linking HIV with AIDS, acknowledged under oath that it was not sufficient for proof.

In normal science, such questions get resolved by debate and new experiments.  But HIV/AIDS has really transcended science, and is now almost beyond questioning.

This situation is due to HIV/AIDS’ dual role: (1) as an explanation for certain illnesses; (2) as a cautionary tale to promote sexual responsibility.  Questioning the first undermines the second, so we are caught in what might be termed a policy trap, doomed to continue spending outrageous sums that amount to a wealth transfer from taxpayers to the drug industry.

Slowly, though, the questions are getting asked, as in the documentary “House of Numbers”.  And perhaps New York’s budget problems will finally lead to hearings on the questions surrounding AIDS policy and spending.

Questioning AIDS dogma is controversial, but it is not clear why.  All other policies undergo review and audit, and the scientists who have raised questions have only asked for a fair hearing.

The worst that could happen, if the concerns are unfounded, is that a small amount of time and money would have been spent gaining more confidence in the current policy.

On the other hand, if the HIV skeptics are proven correct, it is possible that tens of millions will have stigma lifted, and the chance to be cured, likely saving many billions of dollars annually.

Thoughtful comments are welcome (siteinfo@aidspetition.org).  For critics, do try to include an explanation for the self-curing babies.


Original Source: http://www.thedailymail.net/articles/2010/07/30/opinion/doc4c5267ebb5df2488101532.txt

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