1) No HIV test has ever been tested against HIV. The claims for sensitivity and specificity are based on assumptions and estimates, not virus isolated from patients’ blood. Some tests’ claims for sensitivity and specificity are based on agreement with other HIV tests, which themselves were never tested on HIV.
2) 60-70 other factors that can make HIV tests positive have been published in respected scientific and medical journals.
3) Some of the 60-70 other factors are actually vaccinations against other diseases, like Hepatitis B or Flu.
4) Semen in the blood can directly make HIV tests positive, as can antibodies to it. Semen is also immunosuppressive to a degree. Very large quantities from lots of different guys over a long period of time, possibly noticeably so.
5) Foreign cells that are known to have no HIV in someone’s blood have been known for many years to make HIV tests positive.
6) Pregnancy is a known factor that can make HIV tests positive.
7) Most of the statistics for Africa come from tests on pregnant women, who may additionally have some of the other factors that can make tests positive, such as tuberculosis or malaria.
8) Black people are also more likely to show up positive because of naturally occurring higher Immuno-gamma-globulin levels. Most of the people in Africa are black. Most pregnant women in Africa are black.
9) All the controlled studies of heterosexual transmission suggest that for a normal heterosexual couple having unprotected sex, the positively-diagnosed partner transmitting their diagnosis to the negatively-diagnosed partner is virtually impossible as it happens so rarely.
10) Despite some apparent claims that prostitutes from certain remote tribes seem to have some immunity to showing up HIV positive, the same can be observed in prostitutes all over the world, including New York and London where prostitutes are hardly from one tribe. The one factor that correlates highly to a positive diagnosis for prostitutes is drug use. The original study of New York prostitutes lumped non-drug using and drug-using prostitute statistics together to make it sound like all prostitutes had a higher rate of positive HIV diagnosis. In reality the non-drug-using prostitutes had a lower rate of positive diagnosis than the general population of New York. A recent three-year study in London was abandoned because only 3 of the 500 prostitutes showed up HIV positive, and they were drug users. So it’s obviously sexually transmitted then.
11) The theory that if one test shows up positive the test is repeated ‘for confirmation’ is statistically flawed. The reliability is only improved if the cause of a false positive is random failure of the test. This is the same as the chance of getting a specific number at roulette improves if you have two goes at it, as the two spins are unrelated events. But HIV tests are repeated on blood from the same person. If it is the same non-HIV factor that made the test positive then getting a second positive from the test, whether it is a different lab or different test kit, will not necessarily be any more accurate because it could be the same non-HIV factor that made it positive again.
12) Antibodies, that all the tests depend on, are non-specific to a particular bug by their very nature – they will latch on to anything that has the same chemical marker on the outside. The very word vaccinate is based on the fact that antibodies to one bug can protect someone against another. Smallpox was wiped out on the basis that antibodies to cowpox (vaccinnia) also attack smallpox (variela).
13) Everybody (ie, every single person) has HIV antibodies according to the tests themselves, it’s just whether or not you have enough to reach their arbitrary threshold that determines whether the test is classed as positive or not. If everybody has them, either everyone has been exposed to HIV, or else they are not unique to HIV, and possibly just some by-product of processes within the body.
14) The result thresholds at which the ELISA tests are designated negative, indeterminate or positive are arbitrary and set so that approximately the expected percentage of the population falls into the positive and negative categories.
15) The tests themselves admit that in populations where there is low prevalence of HIV, the majority of positives will be false ones.
16) The original ‘purified’ HIV that was originally used to determine the proteins supposedly unique to it, was not pure, according to an interview with Luc Montagnier himself. He even admitted that they had failed to reproduce the virus or get it to infect anything despite monumental effort, that they did not purify it, and the solution from which the ‘specific’ proteins were taken had no retroviral-like particles in it. He also added, that right from the start they knew they did not have what caused AIDS alone. He has constantly maintained that it is merely a co-factor.
17) The supposed HIV antigen used in HIV ELISA tests is described as ‘semi-purified’. Ie, not pure. They don’t generally say what else is in the mix, but it is probably leukaemic t-cells as that is the usual laboratory source of what they claim is HIV.
18) Robert Gallo, the American who effectively stole the claim to have discovered it first from Montagnier, was later found guilty of serious scientific misconduct by his fellow scientists. The law was hurriedly changed so he could not be charged with a crime, and thus could avoid publicly discrediting the test from which America was making huge amounts of money. Later on, they had to give up the majority of royalties anyway when the French government threatened to take them to court when it was proven that Gallo had used the French sample for his patent application. The cause of the French action was that the American patent office had ‘mislaid’ Montagnier’s prior patent application and Gallo’s subsequent one had been granted. But it isn’t about money, really. Honestly.
19) Gallo had previously claimed to have discovered a leukemia retrovirus but the results and the method he used to isolate it were universally condemned. He used the same technique for supposedly isolating HIV, but that result was announced to the world which took it as gospel before other scientists had got a proper look at it. Subsequent claims that it was seriously flawed were buried under the avalanche.
20) The subsequent quality of claims for isolation of HIV are seriously below the standard agreed for proof of existence of retroviruses at the 1972 conference on retroviruses (or oncoviruses as they were called then, as they were thought to be involved with cancer). Many scientists are convinced that HIV has never been isolated at all and is probably a laboratory artefact caused by sloppy science. In other words, it might not actually exist as an infectious article at all.
21) No-one has ever proved that HIV causes AIDS, and a German court has just declared that HIV must not be claimed to be definitely the cause of AIDS as there is no proof. The original claim by Gallo was that HIV was the probable cause of AIDS. Over time, in scientific references to Gallo’s original paper, the word ‘probable’ gradually got used less and less, even though there was no additional research that suggested it was.
22) Recent new HIV tests released on to the market, such as the OraSure HIV-1 antibody kit admit that HIV is thought to be the cause of AIDS. So they’re not sure then.
23) No-one has shown HIV infecting T-cells. Most AIDS scientists have now abandoned the theory that HIV directly kills T-cells as it is no longer tenable, but popular literature continues to claim that HIV infects and kills T-cells, even though no-one has shown how the HIV could have got in there in the first place. In other works, their belief that HIV infects T-cells is based on faith with no evidence that withstands scientific scrutiny, which is also a definition of religion.
24) What is called HIV that is used in HIV test kits comes from an immortal T-cell line. They use very strong chemicals to force the ‘HIV’ out of the T-cells. But if everyone has failed to get ‘HIV’ into T-cells, how sure are they that what comes out of them is HIV?
25) If HIV does kill T-cells, how come they have an immortal T-cell line from which they extract all their HIV for the test kits?
26) The criteria for a positive diagnosis differs substantially all around the world. For example, Scotland is different to England and Wales, which is different to America. The ‘confirmatory’ Western Blot test which is supposedly more specific used in America has effectively been banned by the Public Health Laboratory here for 10 years because it is “Non-specific, irreproducible, and difficult to interpret, and should never have been let out of the lab”. Diagnosing by English/Welsh criteria (two ELISA tests) in America without that test is illegal and would be charged as ‘medical negligence’.
27) The source of HIV proteins used in Western Blot tests is actually another cell that is presumed to be infected with HIV, and when the cell is broken apart, the bands that identified as being HIV ones are presumed to be HIV.
28) Analysis of the protein bands in Western Blot tests shows that all the bands can be produced by proteins from places other than HIV. So none of the bands that are allegedly specific to HIV are in actual fact specific to it at all.
29) Both officially and unofficially, the tests are interpreted in many places according to their expectations as to what the results will be. As ‘risk factors’ are sent along with the tests, the lab can decide whether or not to interpret a reading as ‘indeterminate’ or ‘negative’ or ‘positive’. The WHO actually put instructions to interpret test results in some conditions according to known risk factors (thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophesy), and the Australian Western Blot guidelines do the same. In the UK, at least one head of a testing laboratory has said they will ‘disbelieve’ positive results that come from white heterosexual males with no known risk factors (what about black heterosexual males?). For a gay male with identified ‘high-risk’ factors that shows up indeterminate, they are more likely to re-process the sample, adjusting various things to get a definite positive. This means that to an extent the tests become a subjective self-fulfilling prophesy rather than an objective search for medical truth.
30) The supposedly less sensitive but more specific Western Blot turns up positive on many people who are negative according to the ELISA test. Appoximately 1 in 3 random people have bands claimed to be specific to HIV.
31) HIV test kits themselves admit that there is no agreement even on how to diagnose HIV antibodies – let alone the virus itself.
32) Test kits also say that each type of test alone should not be used to diagnose HIV.
33) No individual test has been approved for diagnosis of HIV in an individual, even though that is what doctors and labs use them for. They have been approved for screening of blood supplies though, where it doesn’t matter if you dispose of a couple of units of blood to be on the safe side.
34) Using one type of HIV test known to be inaccurate to ‘confirm’ another type of HIV test known to be inaccurate, does not necessarily make the combination of tests accurate. Not only have the individual tests not been compared to HIV, but combinations of tests also have not been compared to actual HIV.
35) Positive HIV tests have only been shown to have some statistical correlation with actual AIDS-diagnosed ill-health in the present, and a relatively low correlation with people who are presently healthy. The correlation is not that good, and does not imply which one causes the other. It is not surprising that there is at least some correlation between a positive diagnosis and ill-health as many of the factors that can cause HIV tests to show up positive are themselves a health risk, such as TB and malaria, or Hepatitis B.
36) Postive HIV diagnoses seem to have a poor correlation with future ill-health in people who are currently healthy by all other measures, are psychologically ok, have good nutrition, and do not indulge in activities known to cause poor health, such as taking anti-retroviral treatment or recreational drugs or getting multiple and repeated infections from their behaviour or environment.
37) In a recent study of people with TB in Africa, testing for HIV showed that a positive or negative diagnosis made no statistical difference to the quality of life or lifespan of the individual. In other words it was irrelevant.
38) Statistics from various places around the world suggests that people diagnosed HIV positive actually survive longer if they don’t take the ‘life-saving’ AIDS drugs.
39) Viral load or PCR tests routinely disagree with HIV antibody tests.
40) Viral load tests themselves admit that they cannot be used to confirm absence or presence of HIV. In other words, the number the doctor tells you doesn’t actually tell you if there is any or none of the virus in your body, so it can’t tell you if it is black or white, even though he is using the finer shades of grey to convince you that the virus is growing or declining.
41) Viral load tests use as their central technology a process called polymerase chain reaction. The inventor (Professor Kary Mullis) of the Polymerase chain reaction process (PCR) who won the Nobel Prize for it utterly condemns his technology being used in viral load tests as it is fundamentally unsuited to it, and will produce spurious and completely unreliable results.
42) He also said that, even while working on research into HIV for the government, he could find no proof anywhere that HIV caused AIDS.
43) What the viral load test looks for is such a tiny fragment that it is like finding a headlamp bulb and assuming it means you have a whole working car of a specific model, also ignoring the fact that the headlamp bulb on its own is not a whole car, and might have come from a whole range of different cars that all use the same type of headlamp bulb.
44) No viral load test has ever been compared to HIV from a patient either.
45) Viral load tests have been reported as being completely unreliable as indicators of future health or predictors of life expectancy in practice. Yet, they are still a key marker on which many AIDS drugs are approved, regardless of the patient’s actual clinical health.
46) All the statistics for supposed HIV infection around the world come from these non-specific and unproven tests at some stage. That includes different countries where criteria for a positive diagnosis would be illegal in each other’s countries as being unreliable.
47) Many phenomena that superficially support the HIV/AIDS paradigm, on closer inspection turn out to be paradoxes that the HIV/AIDS model does not have a plausible or viable explanation for. For example, all the haemophiliacs that were supposedly infected with HIV from blood plasma, had factor VIII that was cell-free and the supposed fragility of HIV and sensitivity to an ideal environment means it would not have survived the filtering, freeze-drying and reconstituting process anyway.
48) Many different phenomena when taken together form paradoxes that are simply not plausibly or viably explained by the HIV/AIDS model. For example, how come many babies in Africa show up HIV positive when their parents don’t. Yet, far from all being sexual perverts and presuming that all those babies must have been raped, studies have shown Africans generally to be more sexually conservative than those in wealthier nations. It couldn’t be that the tests are unreliable though, no.
49) Every observable phenomena claimed to support the HIV/AIDS paradigm has plausible and viable alternative explanations that fit the data well. For example, Factor VIII given to haemophiliacs was only 2% pure originally, and 98% other crap including many blood proteins from other people – which would have produced loads of antibodies when injected, thus not only setting off the HIV tests but also would be immunosuppressive too. Many haemophiliacs died of symptoms that are known to be side effects of AZT, and the rest stopped dying when given much purer Factor VIII instead of the 98% impurity stuff.
That’s enough for now!
Mike Hersee : <email@example.com>