For twenty years, news stories, politicians, and drug companies exploited fear, promoting massive African AIDS cases that, in fact, never did exist, with “AIDS” cases bearing no relationship to immune deficiency caused by a virus. It is vital to further note that most of the $9.8 billion a year of U.S. tax dollars presently going to Africa (noted above) via PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief) is earmarked for the exact anti-viral drugs that have been causing the mortality of Americans the last 15 years, year after year, and with no solution in sight staying the present course.
The conspiracy of “HIV” testing.
One may also legitimately ask President Obama’s new science advisors whether or not there has not been some vast conspiracy regarding “HIV” molecular testing, and questions about who stands to gain from “an HIV diagnosis because “HIV” test kits cross-react non-specifically with other factors and known disease syndromes.
In human patients, with respect to the accuracy of diagnosis, it should also be taken into account that at least 70 false positive “HIV” cross-reactivities with various markers used in the test kits have been reported in the scientific peer-reviewed literature, and some of these are recognized by the CDC and are listed by many MMWR’s, and Public Health Agency Guidelines.
Therefore, to obtain an unequivocally positive “HIV” diagnosis (assuming that we ignore for a moment that “HIV” hasn’t been isolated, and that no test kit claims to be able to confirm a positive surrogate marker, and that different places have different standards for convicting someone as being “HIV” positive), each of the following potential cross reactivities should be eliminated through differential diagnosis by an “HIV/AIDS expert” as possible cause of a false-positive result on the ELISA’s, WB’s, or PCR-based tests, before a positive “HIV” conviction is made by an attending physician:
The spurious detection of p18, p24, p55, p12, p32, p51, p66 and gp160, gp41, gp120 antigens that may be present in fluids obtained from patients who have warts or who are pregnant, or from patients who suffer from acute viral infections, or who have had recent flu or hepatitis B vaccinations.
For example, Josephson et al. (3) reported the results of a Western Blot study that analyzed the supposed “HIV” capsid protein, p24, in indeterminate patients, in which they claimed:
“Despite the fact the majority of p24-and p24/25-indeterminate specimens exhibited specific antibody reactivity with HIV core antigen, there was no evidence linking this reactivity to HIV infection. On the contrary, based on available data and limited patient information, we predict that HIV infection was not the cause in most cases. For example, all of the specimens were collected in an area of the country which has a low prevalence of AIDS. Of the 21 patients exhibiting specific p24 reactivity for whom results were indeterminate, 12 were also from low-prevalence groups (i.e., blood donors and women). In addition, results for all five patients who were retested after a period of weeks or months remained indeterminate. One patient in particular who was healthy and not at risk for HIV infection, remained moderately (2+) reactive to recombinant p24 for 6 months. In addition to our own data, Kleinman et al., (8) recently reported that only a small percentage (4.3 of blood donors who exhibited indeterminate p24 reactivity in the HIV Western blot, progressed to show positive reactivity by Western blot over a mean interval of 20 weeks. Most of the donors, however, showed persistent p24 reactivity. Although Ranki et al. (13) have reported that a persistent and restrictive antibody response to the core proteins of HIV is a sign of latent HIV infection in a high-risk population, similar results have not yet been demonstrated in low-risk individuals.”
“A possible explanation for the specific p24 antibody reactivity in our patient population is that it represents cross-reactivity with another human retrovirus.”
In other words, although all of the samples tested were initially reactive, the authors “feel” that in actuality none of the patients were really carrying “HIV,” because 12 were from “low-risk groups” (perhaps they weren’t black, or openly admitting that they had just competed a 20 year addiction to heroin, or were in fact pregnant, or had warts). The explanation these AIDS researchers provided is really quite imaginative as well-that perhaps these people were all infected with some other retrovirus to account for their indeterminate reactions (HTLV-5 is even suggested). So if you test indeterminate for “HIV” as all these 21 samples did, then perhaps you harbor “a different retrovirus,” one perhaps that in time, will cause 99 diseases instead of the mundane 48 that “HIV” “causes?”
In making an “HIV” or “AIDS” diagnosis, it should also be determined that alcoholic hepatitis, exposure to alpha interferon therapy, antibodies of healthy patients with high affinity for polystyrene used in different test kits, anti-carbohydrate antibodies, anti-collagen antibodies, arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma, connective tissue disease, dermatomyostitis, tuberculosis, some strains of malaria, hemophilia, hepatitis, hemodialysis, high levels of circulating immune complexes, herpes simplex I and II, HLA antibodies (to Class I and II leukocyte antigens), hyperbilirubinemia, hypergammaglobulinemia, leprosy, lipemic serum, malaria, the presence of some malignant neoplasms, mycobacteriaum avium, non-specific detection of free ribonucleoproteins, organ transplantation, other retroviruses, the receipt of gamma globulin or immune globulin (as prophylaxis against infections), multiple transfusions, pregnancy especially in multiparous women, Q-fever with associated hepatitis, primary biliary cirrhosis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, renal failure, rheumatoid arthritis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, recent tetanus, flu, or hepatitis B vaccination, T-cell leukocyte antibodies, chronic drug addiction, or visceral leishmaniasis are not responsible for a false cross-reactive HIV test, as all of these (and about 40 other) factors have been shown to generate false positives (4).
AIDS diagnosis is different in different places.
To emphasize the deadly absurdity of the situation, if someone HIV+ is diagnosed with AIDS in the U.S., all he/she has to do is go to Canada for another opinion, and voila (!), nineteen out of twenty times he/she will no longer be an AIDS patient, and thus not be prescribed the toxic drugs that actually bring mortality by their “side effects” such as liver or pancreatic failure, lymphoma, mitochondria destruction, and heart attacks.
One must also take into account, that when diagnosing the 48 AIDS defining illnesses by surveillance definitions, that the standards for making an HIV, ARC, or AIDS diagnosis vary, and are different depending upon the country or region of a country where people are tested.
For example, if a WB is performed on an African in most countries in Africa, the presence of any two of the 9 proteins detectable on a Western Blot (WB) including GAG (p24, p40, p55), POL (p32, p53, p68), or ENV (p 41, p120, p160) is diagnostic of a positive diagnosis, whereas in Australia, one or more ENV-associated proteins plus one or more of either POL or GAG is diagnostic of a positive diagnosis.
In The united Kingdom, any one or more of the ENV proteins, plus p31 (p32), plus p24 is diagnostic of a positive diagnosis, whereas, in the US, all 4 ENV proteins, plus p31, and p24 must be present, according to the CDC. The US FDA, and Red Cross have different standards as well (with respect to how many bands must be present on the WB (Biotechnology, June, 1993,11:696-711).
In 2001, the CDC’s MMWR, Guidelines for Laboratory Test Result Reporting of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Ribonucleic Acid Determination, the recommendations from a CDC Working Group as of November 16, 2001 ( 50(RR20);1-12) reported that:
“Results obtained with available test methods are variable, and laboratories present these results in different ways, indicating that guidelines to promote standard practice in reporting of test results are warranted.” 2A
“No test reporting standardization exists; specifically, standard units of measurement of test method have not been established. Laboratory viral load test reports should be accurate and adequate for patient treatment and public health monitoring of the HIV and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) epidemic. To assure test reporting comparability among laboratories, standard methods are needed; moreover, standardized results are needed for early detection of infection, early access to patient care, and early detection of treatment failure.”
“Results obtained with available test methods are variable, and laboratories present these results in different ways, indicating that guidelines to promote standard practice in reporting of test results are warranted.”
“Adoption of these guidelines by all public and private laboratories that perform HIV viral load testing will improve the quality and usefulness of viral load test results for the physician ordering the test and for reporting to public health departments.”
In January 1, 2000, the CDC HIV-infection surveillance case definition was expanded to include viral load test results despite the fact that:
“In certain cases, laboratory slips indicated that HIV had been detected at a value below the test’s lower limit (e.g., HIV detected was <400 copies/mL), or the laboratory slip provided an actual number of copies outside of the stated reportable range.”
The National Institutes of Health and Henry J. Kaiser Foundation, US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, 2001 have claimed the following (vailable at <http://www.hivatis.org>. Accessed July 20, 2001):
…”Until a common standard is available to use for normalizing values obtained with different assay methods, choosing one assay method is advisable when HIV RNA levels are monitored to guide therapeutic decision-making. The goal to develop a common standard for normalizing values obtained with different test kits has recently been reported.”
“Available tests are not licensed for diagnosing HIV infection, but the viral load test results are used for reporting HIV infection to local and state health departments.”
This was the state of affairs at the beginning of our new century. Things have gotten worse since then. In 2006, the December Senate approved Burr’s bioterrorism bill-a bill just in time for Christmas to establish the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, commonly referred to as BARDA, which passed by unanimous consent. The bill describes how forced vaccines, quarantines, criminalization of “HIV” and other molecular diseases should be signed into law as the ‘debate’ regarding Bush’s war in Iraq continues. Also in 2006, the massive recalls of “HIV-test kits” continued as they had during the last decade. For example, the FDA just last year recalled Vironostika HIV-1 test kit lots: 259606, 121566, 1008926, 259606, 121567, 1008926, 259606,121568, 1008926, 259605, 259717, 160342, 1011220, 259605, 259717,160339, 1011021, and said:
“These HIV-1 finished kit lots in the field have been reported to contain EnzAbody reagent that appears noticeably cloudy and/or flocculent, instead of clear and non-turbid as expected 30 minutes after reconstitution. Use of cloudy EnzAbody could possibly increase your risk of inaccurate HIV test results in patients and therefore should be avoided.”
Also in 2006, a nationwide team of AIDS researchers led by doctors Benigno Rodriguez and Michael Lederman of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland disputed the value of viral load tests-a standard used since 1996 to assess health, predict progression to disease, and grant approval to new AIDS drugs after their study of 2,800 HIV positives concluded that viral load measures failed in more than 90% of cases to predict or explain immune status (5):
“Viral load is only able to predict progression to disease in 4% to 6% of HIV-positives studied, challenging much of the basis for current AIDS science and treatment policy.”
This United States public health disaster, and agony on a personal level, continues every day, brought by anti-retroviral drugs and mindless vaccine trials that should be instantly stopped or minimized. U.S. AIDS cases and deaths continue to be needlessly created by the 1993 AIDS definition, and with the current useless tests, with Congress and top health officials conducting business as usual, blind to victory over AIDS throughout Europe, Australia, and even right next door in Canada, all who reject the U.S. model of AIDS. The new President Barack Obama must demand a complete reassessment of this monumental medical fiasco, and stop the mindless massacre.