Henry H. Bauer, Ph.D., writes that "HIV tests are not HIV tests." A positive test does not mean that a person has or will get...

A Positive Routine "HIV Test" is Likely to be a False Positive, Scientist
In many jurisdictions, tests for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are required screening for pregnant women. Some even suggest screening the entire population for HIV. The rationale is to administer powerful antiretroviral drugs to healthy individuals to "prevent transmission."
But what if healthy people take expensive, toxic drugs for a condition they cannot transmit because they don't have it?
In the spring 2010 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Henry H. Bauer, Ph.D., writes that "HIV tests are not HIV tests." A positive test does not mean that a person has or will get AIDS. It doesn't even mean that he has HIV. Rather, it is a test for antibodies, either to HIV or to something that cross-reacts with it.
The FDA said in 1987 that "the significance of antibodies in an asymptomatic individual is not known." It is still not known, as positive tests have been reported in many illnesses, including multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, malaria, and aplastic anemia. They have also been reported after immunizations to tetanus or influenza, and may even be caused by pregnancy itself.
"The problem of false positive tests applies to all screening tests, not just HIV," states Jane M. Orient, M.D., executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). "If a population with a very low likelihood of a disease is tested, there will be very few positive tests. But even with an excellent test, a positive is more likely than not to be a false positive."
If only one in 1,000 tested individuals has HIV, then only one out of every six positive tests is a true positive, even if the HIV test is as good as is claimed.
This is why a test that is a very good for screening blood donors can do much more harm than good if used to screen the entire population, Dr. Orient stated.
Dr. Bauer's article on HIV testing can be accessed at
Source: Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) http://pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=349718&Itemid=96

Author with HIV refused China visa

MALCOLM KNOX
March 6, 2010

Robert Dessaix . . . "insulted".
THE prizewinning author Robert Dessaix, who was to be part of an Australian delegation of authors and publishers to China next week, has been refused a visa because he is HIV-positive.


Dessaix, 65, had been due to leave today to travel to Shanghai for that city's International Literary Festival, where he was to be a headline speaker with Les Murray, Alexis Wright, Alice Pung and Morris Gleitzman, and international bestsellers such as Louis de Bernieres, Scott Turow and Junot Diaz. The festival is the biggest showcase of foreign writers to have been staged in China. Last night Dessaix's name was still on the festival program.


Over the next eight days, he was to have speaking engagements at universities and bookshops in Beijing and Chengdu. These included a public interview with Australia's ambassador to China, Geoff Raby. The appearances are now to be cancelled.


''It's medieval. I feel snubbed and insulted, of course, and also humiliated,'' Dessaix said. ''There had been interventions at the highest level on my behalf, but they were refused, so I see it as a snub to Australia, not just to me.''


Dessaix, who has never been to China, put in his visa application four weeks ago. The guidelines for the application stated that HIV status had no prejudicial bearing. In good faith, he declared it.


Dessaix had had no political involvement in matters concerning China, and said he had been told by Australian officials that although China did not give reasons for the visa refusal, his health status was the issue.


The Department of Foreign Affairs in Canberra would not comment on his individual case.


The Herald was unable to reach the Chinese embassy in Australia for comment.


Dessaix will instead return to his home in Hobart. http://www.smh.com.au/world/author-with-hiv-refused-china-visa-20100305-pozb.html

Perth Group response to Sylvia Piccinotti about HIV Isolation

http://www.facebook.com/HouseOfNumbers?v=app_2373072738#!/topic.php?uid=40491054861&topic=14240

Valendar Francis Turner 

Response to Silvia Piccinotti from the Perth Group

Sylvia wrote: If you want someone with scientific training to explain to you exactly why the misinformation you have been fed by AIDS denialists is wrong, I am willing to provide explanations.

PG: We look forward to your scientific answers and explanations in regard to our questions below.

Silvia: To isolate a virus, usually what you do is that you get a sample from an infected individual/animal, you then find cells that will grow virus in culture and infect these. These cells then make a huge amount of virus which is released into their liquid growth media. You can collect this media and by a series of centrifugations and filtering remove all cell debris until all you are left with is virus. The presence of high concentrations of virus can be verified by electron microscopy.

PG: Please provide us with the first published and a few confirmatory EM studies which show material devoid of “cell debris” in which “all you are left with is virus” bearing all the morphological characteristics attributed to HIV particles. Please provide us with a short summary to show how the evidence in at least one of these papers supports your statements.


Silvia: If you want to produce virus in the lab on command and in very high titers, usually you will make a DNA construct that you can introduce into cells that contains the entire HIV genome. This will drive the cells to produce millions of HIV particles that are collected as described above.

PG: Please provide us with the first published and a few confirmatory studies where “a DNA HIV construct that you can introduce into cells that contains the entire HIV genome” leads to the appearance of particles which are exactly the same as the particles of the “purified virus” from which the RNA used to produce the DNA originated. Please provide us with a short summary to show how the evidence in at least one of these papers supports your statements.


Sylvia: There used to be a challenge on Peter Duesberg's website where he said he would provide a $1000 reward for an EM picture of isolated HIV virus. I can't seem to find this challenge anymore, but the picture was provided years ago and the challenge met. As you may note, Peter Duesberg doesn't question the existence of HIV, only its relation to infection.

PG: If Peter Duesberg does not question the existence of HIV why would he “provide a $1000 reward for an EM picture of isolated HIV virus”. Please give us the picture “provided years ago”.


Sylvia: In the 1980s, doctors were encountering patients with very low T cell counts and immunodeficiency that was unaccountable with the medical knowledge at the time.

PG: The patients did not have “very low T cell counts”. They had normal T cell counts. What some, but no means all had, were low T4 cell counts. T4 cells were a new subset of T cells discovered not long before the beginning of the AIDS era and which, without any proof, were assumed to play a crucial role in immunity.


Sylvia: Once they came to the conclusion that the disease was of viral origin, they had to isolate the disease causing agent. Luc Montagnier accomplished that feat, but he didn't prove that LAV (or HIV now) causes the disease. All he showed is that you can isolate a novel virus from these patients.

PG: Could you please give us the EM in the Montagnier paper which proves that “by a series of centrifugations and filtering remove all cell debris until all you are left with is virus. The presence of high concentrations of virus can be verified by electron microscopy”.

Sylvia: To prove the novelty of the virus, beyond it causing a new disease you also have to show the virus in itself is new. Electron micrographs are insufficient for that purpose because a lot of viruses look similar (e.g. VSV vs. rabies, HIV vs. SIV, etc.). The best way is to sequence their genes and compare them to known viruses. HIV was compared to known retroviruses such as HTLV and was found to be a new pathogen, never before identified.

PG: To prove the existence of a new (“novelty”) retrovirus first you must:

1. Have proof for the existence of particles bearing all the morphological characteristics of retroviruses.
2. Prove the particles have unique biochemical constituents (proteins and RNA but no DNA).
3. Prove the particles are infectious, that is, the introduction of particles into a cell culture results in the appearance of particles with the identical morphology and biochemical constituents (proteins and RNA) as the parental particles.

The only way to prove the particles have unique (and identical) proteins and RNA is to purify the particles. That is, as you say, by undertaking a “series of centrifugations and filtering remove all cell debris until all you are left with is virus. The presence of high concentrations of virus can be verified by electron microscopy”.

Please provide us with the first and preferably several confirmatory papers which demonstrate the existence of the unique HIV proteins and RNA. Please provide us with a short summary to show how the evidence in at least one of these papers supports your statements.


We assume you accept that the HIV theory of AIDS is predicated on the existence of HIV. When you have provided us with the evidence we have requested, then and only then, can we proceed to discuss its role in the pathogenesis of AIDS.