To see how insane the 'AID$' myth is consider this. The CDC says half a million Americans have ' AIDS' but don't know it because they have no symptoms. They have said this for ten years now. Funny how the ones who do test, take the 'wonderful' life saving drugs ($17,500 a year min)
have 92% side effects and 27% deaths.
No test = life, health and wealth
Test= Poverty, suffering and probably death.
I'm off to test.
Testing ruined the careers of Magic Johnson and boxer Tommy Morrison for no good reason as they both test NEGATIVE now.
Testing landed poor Andre Parenzee in jail for 15 years for a victimless 'crime'
Testing has killed millions via toxic 'meds' Remarkable information about HIV tests including the fact that no HIV test has ever been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the actual diagnosing of HIV infection.
Few doctors, clinics, journalists, or AIDS organizations know that all current HIV tests are approved only as screening tests, prognostic tests (for predicting a possible future outcome) or as "an aid in diagnosis" and are not intended to be used for determining if a person actually has HIV.
The FDA's lack of such approval speaks to the fact that no HIV test can directly detect or quantify HIV or determine the presence of specific HIV antibodies in human blood. There's a recent interview with Magic Johnson here:
http://www.kaletra.com/consumer_healthy_...
Doesn't support your claims.
You don't even have the minimum cost of combination therapy right (generics can be $350 per year or less), and you offer no citation for "92% side effects and 27% deaths" because it's just made up.
As is the idea that antibodies always indicates protection against disease. Not the case for Dengue, where having antibodies can make the infection *worse.* Not always the case for hepatitis B & C, or herpes zoster which can cause shingles despite the presence of antibodies. Transplantation drugs don't deplete antibodies, yet people that receive these drugs are at risk of developing opportunistic infections - this is because not just antibodies but T cells are involved in protection against disease. This was known before HIV ever came along, but AIDS denialists have so little to work with that they're forced to repeat the same lies over and over in the hopes that someone will fall for it.
This is the background to the YA AIDS denial campaign for anyone that's unaware, it was launched on an MSN group called "Dissident Action":
http://groups.msn.com/aidsmythexposed/ac... you should never promote not getting tested it's ppl like you that help spread the diseases in the first place.. i hope you tell all the women (or men) you are with about your "testing" philosophy before you're intimate with them...
I think anyone who gives aids to another person should be put in jail for attempted murder or murder Quote: "Remarkable information about HIV tests including the fact that no HIV test has ever been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the actual diagnosing of HIV infection."
This means absolutely nothing. Other serology tests which are a diagnostic aid and not a definitive diagnosis include those for infectious mononucleosis and pregnancy. Yet, we do not assume mono and babies do not exist. Here's the problem with your argument... you offer no evidence to back it up.
Here's the irony of your argument... the methodology of your argument is no different then your complaint about AIDS testing. Or in simpler terms, you are the pot calling the kettle black.
I am not criticizing your premise, you may very well have points here but in offering no scientific references, you are just a left field conspiracy theorist whack job... and the word definitely need more of those. First of all, HIV is a virus, AIDS is a constellation of symptoms.
I've had several friends that died due to infection from this virus. Half of them took antiretroviral medications that were available at the time, the other half didn't because they were already symptomatic of AIDS and it was too late to take anything.
People like Magic Johnson tested early (apparently) and were able to get started on medications that arrest the replication of the virus. I have not heard anything about him NOT testing positive for HIV. He was infected and his blood should still show the "footprints" of infection - antibodies. You should build antibodies to any virus you become exposed to. For instance, you might get a cold a couple times a year, but you should have resistance to the virus after you've recovered, so you will never get the exact same strain ever again.
Other viral illnesses aren't so kind to us. Once we become infected, they remain in our bodies and cause occasional symptomatic outbreaks, like you see with herpes.
I suppose the next thing you will suggest is that people with cancer shouldn't be treated with chemo because it's toxic and deadly. Well, DUH. It has to be deadly to kill the cancer cells.
I guess the only sure test for YOU will be a positive HIV antibody test, and the eventual and inescapable consequences of insolent refusal to keep yourself or those you infect from the only treatments we have available to us today. I do not wish this upon you, of course. On the contrary, I hope you research the condition further and maybe talk to diagnosed sufferers and THEN give your opinion on whether it's a real disease or not.
ADDENDUM: Additional information -
INTENDED USE
The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR鈥欌€?Test is an in vitro nucleic acid amplification test for the
quantitation of Human lmmunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-l) RNA in human plasma. The Test
can be used with either the Standard or UltraSensitive Specimen Processing Procedure. When the
Standard Specimen Processing Procedure is used, the Test can quantitate HIV-1 RNA over the
range of 400 - 750,000 copies/ml. When the UltraSensitive Specimen Processing Procedure is
used, the Test can quantitate HIV-1 RNA over the range of 50 - 75,000 copies/ml.
The Test is intended for use in conjunction with clinical presentation and other laboratory markers of
disease progress for the clinical management of HIV-1 infected patients. The Test can be used to
assess patient prognosis by measuring the baseline HIV-l RNA level or to monitor the effects of
antiretroviral therapy by measuring changes in plasma HIV-1 RNA levels during the course of
antiretroviral treatment. Monitoring the effects of antiretroviral therapy by serial measurement of
plasma HIV-1 RNA has been validated for patients with baseline viral loads 2 25,000 copies/mL.
The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as
a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection.
That information is directly from the website link that you posted. When you look at the label in context, you see that the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR test is an test for those who have already tested positive, and that person's serum level is now being monitored. That's why it's not a diagnostic test - the diagnosis has already been made. Either you or some one else has already brought this up because I vividly remember telling them that you are quoting info about tests used to screen for HIV. Then a different test is done to confirm the presence of HIV. This is so we can be as accurate as possible in diagnosing HIV. Magic is negative because drugs are keeping the viral load down and he is still alive because he takes his drugs. Yes the drugs can have toxic side effects, many drugs used to treat many diseases do. That is why a cost-benefit analysis is done before drugs are given. You have an interesting opinion that will bother a good number of people.
I agree with the others who worry about people not getting tested or treated because they were not able to see through your statements.
I also saw that you are trying to get people to not use condoms. Hi there.
I just want to commend you on your language sir.
When you say "who could be so foolish" you are reffering to millions and millions of people all around the world.
I personally feel insulted that you call most of the smartest people and some of the most brilliant people the world has to offer "Foolish".
When you talk about Magic Johnson and Tommy Morrison, according to you they are also foolish because they at one time used the same tests. Actually twice if you count the times they tested " NEGATIVE". I am very sure the same tests were used.
And how come when the "Tests that are not Test" prove someone negative, they are all of a sudden life savers, but when they test someone HIV positive, then they are "not tests". Is the "AIDS Test" Accurate?
Many people are surprised to learn that there is no such thing as a test for AIDS. The tests popularly referred to as "AIDS tests" do not identify or diagnose AIDS and cannot detect HIV, the virus claimed to cause AIDS. The ELISA and Western Blot tests commonly used to diagnose HIV infection detect only interactions between proteins and antibodies thought to be specific for HIV -- they do not detect HIV itself. And contrary to popular belief, newer "viral load" tests do not measure levels of actual virus in the blood.
All HIV antibody tests are highly inaccurate. One reason for the tests' tremendous inaccuracy is that a variety of viruses, bacteria and other antigens can cause the immune system to make antibodies that also react with HIV. When the antibodies produced in response to these other infections and antigens react with HIV proteins, a positive result is registered. Many antibodies found in normal, healthy, HIV-free people can cause a positive reading on HIV antibody tests. (23) Since the antibody production generated by a number of common viral infections can continue for years after the immune system has defeated a virus -- and even for an entire lifetime -- people never exposed to HIV can have consistent false positive reactions on HIV tests for years or for their entire lives.
The accuracy of an antibody test can be established only by verifying that positive results are found in people who actually have the virus. This standard for determining accuracy was not met in 1984 when the HIV antibody test was first created. Instead, to this day, positive ELISAs are verified by a second antibody test of unknown accuracy, the HIV Western Blot. Since the accuracy for HIV antibody tests has never been properly established, it is not possible to claim that a positive test indicates a current, active HIV infection or even to know what it may indicate. (24) In one study that investigated positive results confirmed by Western Blot, 80 people with two positive ELISAs that were "verified" by a positive Western Blot tested negative on their next Western Blot. (25)
Antibodies produced in response to simple infections like a cold or the flu can cause a positive reaction on an HIV antibody test. A flu shot and other immunizations can also create positive HIV ELISA and Western Blot results. Having or having had herpes or hepatitis may produce a positive test, as can vaccination for hepatitis B. Exposure to microbes such as those that cause tuberculosis and malaria commonly cause false positive results, as do the presence of tapeworms and other parasites. Conditions such as alcoholism or liver disease and blood that is altered through drug use may elicit the production of antibodies that react on HIV antibody tests. Pregnancy and prior pregnancy can also cause a positive response. The antibodies produced to act against infection with mycobacterium and yeast, infections which are found in 90% of AIDS patients, cause false positive HIV test results. (26) In one study, 13% of Amazonian Indians who do not have AIDS and who have no contact with people outside their own tribe tested HIV positive. (26) In another report, 50% of blood samples from healthy dogs reacted positively on HIV antibody tests. (27)
Prior to the notion that HIV causes AIDS, viral antibodies were considered a normal, healthy response to infection and an indication of immunity. Antibodies alone were not used to diagnose disease or predict illness. Before HIV, only ELISA and Western Blot tests that had been shown to correspond with the finding of actual virus were used to diagnose viral infections. There is no credible scientific evidence to suggest that these rules should be disregarded to accommodate HIV.
In addition to being inaccurate, HIV antibody tests are not standardized. This means that there is no nationally or internationally accepted criteria for what constitutes a positive result. Standards also vary from lab to lab within the same country or state, and can even differ from day to day at the same lab. (28) As HIV test kit manufacturers acknowledge, "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood." (29)
The following chart illustrates just some of the varying criteria for what is considered a positive HIV Western Blot, and shows how someone could actually switch from positive to negative simply by changing countries. The differing standards for positive HIV tests are not limited to the locations and agencies mentioned here -- criteria vary from lab to lab and results are open to interpretation. An inconclusive test can become positive or negative based on an individual's sexual preference, health history, zip code or other survey data.
The various proteins used in HIV Western Blot tests are arranged into bands that are divided into three sections. These three sections are represented by the abbreviations ENV, POL and GAG. Proteins in the ENV section correspond to the outer membrane or "envelope" of a virus; POL refers to proteins common to all retroviruses which include polymerase and other enzymes; GAG stands for "group specific antigen" and includes proteins that form the inner core of a virus. The protein bands in each section are indicated by the letter "p" and are followed by a number which describes the molecular weight of that protein measured in daltons. For example, p160 is an ENV protein that weighs 160 daltons.
It is important to note that none of the proteins used in HIV antibody tests are particular to HIV, and none of the antigens said to be specific to HIV are found only in persons who test HIV positive. In fact, many people diagnosed HIV positive do not have these "HIV antigens" in their blood.
As mentioned previously, newer HIV "viral load" tests do not isolate or measure actual virus. The tests' manufacturers clearly state that viral load "is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection." (31) In fact, viral load tests have not been approved by the FDA for diagnostic purposes and have not been verified by virus isolation. For more information on viral load tests, please see What's Up With Viral Load? on page 36. Of course, the most outstanding problem with any HIV test is that HIV has never been demonstrated to cause AIDS.
Defined Terms
Antigen: A substance that can trigger an immune response, resulting in the production of antibodies as part of the body's defense system against infection and disease. Many antigens are foreign proteins (those not found naturally in the body); they include microorganisms, toxins, and tissues from another person used in organ transplantation. Antigen stands for ANTIbody GENerating.
False Positive: Indicates infection where none exists. |
