Question to AIDS denialists?

Question

I would have a proposal for you if you do wish to proove your point, that is, that there is actually a scientific objection to the HIV causes AIDS model. There are 2 main points your claims do not address:

1- The HIV test is an accurate predictor of AIDS

2- HIV transmission is now hitting population which in general does not engage in recreational drugs, ie married women.

So to proove your point is right, that is either HIV does not exists/HIV is harmless, what I would propose is that a sample of say, 1000 people, agree to voluntarily receive an injection of untreated blood from a known HIV+ person which is shedding virus (ie not on ARV), and then agree to be tested for HIV periodically. We would then compare, among those who develop sustained HIV infection, how many will develop AIDS, with a sample HIV- (from this sample or outside) population.

Wouldn't this be correct scientific proof (appart from ethical issues, of course)?

Interesting point. I was smelling that religious right-wing people were behind this. It smacked of them, looking as it does like 'intelligent design' (see anti-evolutionists).

However they ARE making a scientific claim. They ARE saying they seriously and honestly believe this.

I'm just wondering how far they are ready to go ? Are they ready to put their lives on the line ? Those which are not HIV+ ?

Zack : Exactly. That's also my point. But in the present case, an 'impartial court' is unfortunately insufficient, since in general people do not have sufficient scientific education to judge such a thing. A scientific education cannot be acquired in a few weeks visiting websites. Thus the study I am proposing, in the tradition of scientists which used to use themselves as test subjects.

mrchrist: How is my methodology flawed ? If the ELISA is non-specific as you propose (and I kind of agree in that specific case, even if HIV must be confirmed with a western blot, which is much more accurate), then it would prove your point, would it not ? If consistently HIV infected people do not develop AIDS, then you ARE right !!!

Prof Sam: What you write does make sense, from your chosen field of work and I must admit your view is interesting. But from my contact with infectiology, I know that the detection of antibodies is much more frequently used for virus detection than virus detection itself, for practical reasons. The PCR method has only been introduced recently, and some are still wondering about its sentitivity. In PCR, you must impose a detection limit, to discern real signal from noise. On that detection limit, there are no gold standard right now. This has led to controversy in my field also, for the detection of enzyme expression. Dont you agree then that my study would make sense ? If the test does not detect the factor that causes AIDS, namely HIV as the consensus has it, wouldn't it have the result I mention above, namely that people detected with HIV do not become more sick with AIDS than HIV- people ? How spectacular a way that would be to prove your point !

bob b: It would be difficult to organize an ethical study on the transmission of HIV in sexual relationships, just as it would be difficult to justify the study I propose ethically. Now your view on immunity is ok, except in the case of lentiviruses, which can hide in the human genome for months or years. Those will trigger a definite immune response, which unfortunatly will be inefficient in wiping out disease once it is truly installed.
And of course the sensitivity of the test(s) HAD to be calibrated using known sick people, how else to link disease virus test ? This does not refute that the test is a predictor for disease. As for the disclaimer, we both know how strongly implanted is the culture of suing is implanted today. In the lab I work in, there is even a disclaimer on the boxes of sodium bicarbonate (ordinary soda) and sodium chloride (table salt) saying that they are not proven NOT to cause cancer!

gosm3r: This is science. Unfortunately a sample of one person is insufficient. How can you calculate statistics ? Contact with a disease does not mean 100% chances infection. And who controlled the test ? That it was made on TV proves nothing. What I propose is an (highly unethical) scientific controlled test.

sasha s: and so does cancer research and the war in Iraq. Who asks questions ? Let's define 'denialist': denying that there is an infectious disease called HIV which causes AIDS.

Tomàs: Who is being neurotic ? Please, I am asking a science question. If you were are not at all afraid that HIV is infectious and causes AIDS, it would by no way shock you. You'd say : what a great idea. It would free everybody of their fear that this is a transmissible disease. It would lift the stigma from those which have been found HIV+. I'm the one who would be afraid for you, and telling you not to risk your life!

bob b: interesting. How many people whom are consistently found out HIV+ stay healthy ? 1-2% ? That is the model-predicted percentage of HIV-immune people. It is true that such people have been found. But can you, in all conscience, affirm that a virus is harmless on the grounds that it makes ill and kills 'only' 98-99% of carriers ? Many viruses that are considered deadly have lower figures than that !

And how is the test calibration 'circular logic' ? Using sick people as 'calibration' means that you have a postive control. An healthy person can be used as a negative control, if you consider that infection is rare and will cause disease. If your test does not distinguish between those, then either a) it is not valid or b) HIV infection is not rare and seems to be harmless. But then we return to the same question : how many people are healthy HIV carriers ? There's your answer.

So let's see what we have up to now:
- An attack on HIV testing, including the western blot method, which is standard accepted practice in microbiology.
- An old debunked theory on retroviruses, which tells that they 'should not' make you extensively sick, even though influenza IS a retrovirus and HAS killed many people.
- The apparent assumption that all HIV research scientists in the world are either stupid on or NIH payroll.
Nobody is actually answering my question which is : would you litterally stake your life on this ?

And I agree 100% with doubt in science. Of course you should always doubt, even when faced with dogma. My problem with all this is that in science, a theory is right until proved wrong. In the case of dogma, that proof must be particularly overwhelming. And doing science via wide-public media without peer review is definitely bad science, as you should all know. And what of the consequences if you are wrong ? If you are ready to stake other people's lives, ie those whom will stop to be cautious about sex, those which will develop a deadly disease because they are not taking medication, those which will give birth to a HIV-infected child, should you not also be ready to put YOUR life at stake ?

And if there is actually another cause for AIDS, of course there should be research on it ! It is a matter of public health ! If a particular drug or toxin destroys somebody's immune system that way, who would NOT want to know ?

And why's this DMV thing suddenly popping up ?

bob b: You are actually the only person who seem to have a valid argument here, and I do appreciate your input. Yours at least has the hallmark of true scientific discussion, not of people whom desperately want to safely think that they are safe from AIDS because it supposedly attacks 'only' homosexuals, drug addicts and prostitutes. I would like to have a few published references for what you say about only 20% developing disease. If true, then ARV therapy might only be given to those which do develop AIDS, as opposed to the current practice of giving them to all HIV+ people, considering the poor therapeutic index of the drugs. And is there a way to predict which HIV carriers will develop disease ? Is there work in this area ? Also I thought 'retrovirus' meant RNA virus ? Or is there a further distinction ?

bob b: about the retrovirus thing, its ok I just reread your answer. I am not a virologist, as you might have guessed, but I do work in medical sciences. As a matter of curiousity, how does a RNA virus replicates without a retrotranscriptase ?

Answer 1

Lets get some things straight first.

There are varying and/or conflicting opinions on *both* sides of the fence. Its hardly fair to scientific discourse to assess the situation as 2 sided- *good vs. evil* orthodox vs. dissident debate. Even Luc Montagnier would be considered a dissident to some degree as he has doubted HIV being the cause without co-factor(s). One person's opinion should never be taken to represent an entire idea or group though. Likewise, i do not speak for a particular group. As a person well studied into virology and epidemiology, I came to my own conclusions about the nature of this purported disease. As for me personally, Id NEVER advocate not using condoms or that safe sex should not be practiced. I would also never suggest that immunodeficiencies arent real. I do NOT, however, believe HIV is the sole cause of immune disorder.

now to answer your questions-
1- The HIV test is an accurate predictor of AIDS
2- HIV transmission is now hitting population which in general does not engage in recreational drugs, ie married women.


1) The test disclaimer that comes with all HIV assays speaks loudly for itself. They all echo the same sentiment being theres no standards for which to base the accuracy of the tests on. I doubt theres a better single phrase more damning to the cause.

There have been no documents to demostrate sexual transmission of HIV. This does NOT mean that my opinion is HIV isnt sexually transmitted. What it DOES mean is theres NO published paper demonstrating transmissibility via sex. HIV may very well be transmitted sexually but I have never conducted research into it myself. (and neither has anyone else) so any evidence to support sexual transmission is based purely on supposition. Forming a hypothesis is completely acceptable and it certainly seems plausible that HIV is spread sexually. The problem though here doesnt lie in the hypothesis however. The problem comes when validating the results using circular logic based on what is assumed true. The tests cleary state that as you can read below-

"At present, there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood. Sensitivity for HIV-1 antibodies was computed based on the clinical diagnosis of AIDS"

The 1st sentence clearly speaks for itself. The 2nd tells us why it states what it does. The sensitivity, or the ability to determine a positive reaction when HIV antibodies are INFACT present, is based on assumption and conjecture.
Heres why...

Lets break down the terminology of the phrase for the layperson- "Sensitivity for HIV-1 antibodies was computed based on the clinical diagnosis of AIDS"

I already went over what senitivity is but to expand on it, its a part of what dictates accuracy.

The HIV anti-bodies are what we're testing for obviously. It of interest to note that the presence of antibodies doesnt necessarily indicate an active infection for ANY disease. Some argue that "denialist" claim that antibodies mean immunity to a disease. This is an expample of "cherry picking" information to support ones argument. The orthodoxy has used this tactic to attack dissident arguments when they are guilty of it themselves. The generalization that "antibodies mean immunity to a disease" is taken out of context. I too, would agree that antibodies do not necessarily imply immunity. I will say that antibodies infer exposure to an antigen through some vector of transmission and that future susceptibility to the disease is lowered. This is the basis for vaccinations so the statement is not without some truth.

And finally we get to the meat of the statement- "clinical diagnosis". Taken from the dictionary this means- "concerned with or based on actual observation and treatment of disease in patients rather than experimentation or theory" What this means is if you "looked" like you were an AIDS patient, you were considered one. Ill venture to say one will be hard pressed to find a scientific basis for this "assumption".

Now on to why this is circular. These tests were designed to be "accurate" based on if a person fit the clinical criteria (per reading the insert). If a person is reactive on the assay, they start "looking" for the clinical criteria the tests were designed around. If they are present, holy cow! lo and behold! a correlation!

Of course if you *arent* reactive based on the standard(less) of AIDS diagnostic protocol, then you arent included in the end calculation. I wouldnt suggest these tests are "meaningless" per se, but looking at the hundreds of thousands of "long term non-progressors" emerging every year, the tests hardly predict the morbidity of AIDS.

2) You'll have to provide a reference to the second claim that "HIV transmission is now hitting population which in general does not engage in recreational drugs, ie married women". Reason why I absolutely demand a reference is, without proof, anyone with even modest debating skills could tear this question apart over its validity. We can speculate all day but we've heard for 25+ years that HIV would spread into the heterosexual population. Please provide any evidence (it doesnt even have to be solid) that suggests women are being infected at a higher rate than before in western countries. Based on the african model of HIV, most do not take tests. They are diagnosed by a set of criteria called the Bangui definition. No test is mandated to diagnose AIDS in africans. Aids stats are extrapolated from those few that do test and other "clinical diagnoses" for the entire continent. This is the usual basis for claims of heterosexual transmission. But as you can research yourself, this is another AIDS "fact" based on supposition.

On to your last question.

This has actually been proposed several times in the history of HIV/AIDS in some form. No such study has ever been allowed for the obvious ethical reasons but there are bureaucratic reasons as well. Youd have to allow for the proper controls which would be difficult even if you could ethically carry out this type of research. SInce we have no known animal model for HIV/AIDS research, we're all back at square one assuming....


To address your question to Mrchristopher, Western blots are not "more accurate" compared to ELISA. Looking back on my original statement on sensitivity, you will see that I mentioned it being a part of accuracy. the other term used to describe accuracy is specitivity. Its the value given to a test to demonstrate the percentage of the results that will be negative when HIV, is infact, not present. They use these combined percentages to infer a near 100% accuracy. Its quite misleading actually. The difference in WB and ELISA is that WB's antigen bands are separate. You can actually see what antibody bands react in the WB where the ELISA you cant. This is where the WB gets specitivity from.
Its the SAME antibodies said to be specific to HIV in BOTH tests. If you react on an ELISA, you WILL undoubtedly react on a WB as well (if the WB is negative, the elisa is considered a false +). The WB only provides you with what bands caused your ELISA to react. Since they both suffer from the same method of validation, one does not validate the other. Since HIV has never been isolated in pure form, no know knows for sure if the antibodies are from HIV.

To bacteriaboy
Your lab may very well use PCR but your statement provides evidence that you do not understand how it works. No PCR based test detects the full viral genome. Only pieces of RNA thought to be specific to HIV. How does your lab decide what are real constituents of HIV and what parts are contaminants? Well no one knows (not even your lab) so its validated with the immunoglobulin assays. But you work for a lab so you should know all this. If HIV was present in any meaningful amount, PCR shouldnt be needed to detect it. Any viral culture technique used to detect other viruses should suffice if virals loads are infact what the test indicate.. Since you work at a lab, you should ask you colleagues to recruit , oh say 100,000 people considered by the established standard to be HIV negative to take a PCR based HIV assay. While we are at it, lets also include some dogs, goats, and zebras in the mix. In theory, NONE of these groups should show a viral load. How much are you and your colleagues willing to bet on how specific the primers are to the HIV genome???

addendum for Notyour B

dont get caught up in the nomenclature. "Lentivirus" is a taxonomical misnomer.

"And of course the sensitivity of the test(s) HAD to be calibrated using known sick people, how else to link disease virus test ?"

This is exactly my point. Its "clinical diagnoses" that are used to validate the test. I already explained how cirular logic makes a near 100% correlation with disease. This validation never takes into account what would normally be considered "healthy". This should point out why the tests arent a good predictor of health.

The explanation is "well HIV just hasnt caugh up to you yet but you will eventually die of some AIDS related complication!" There are perfectly healthy people now living over 20 years without taking medication. Regardless if HIV causes aids or not, its definitely NOT the dreaded death sentence like its purported to be. Car accidents kill about as many as said to die from AIDS a year. Why isnt driving to the store stigmatized as much? If the DMV got a fraction of what AIDS inc has spent, we'd all be driving Ferarris. <- sarcasm


Notyour b
How many people stay healthy? Well the vast majority are *currently* healthy but the ever evolving latency period confounds the situation.
Since most people do not take ARV's and do not have any Aids defining diseases, a better question would be "what percentage of HIV+ actually develope disease?"- namely the AIDS defining ones. That would only be about 20%. A far cry from the 98-99% you claimed and these people arent even dead yet. Let me reiterate one thing- I never said AIDS doesnt exist; I only question the role of HIV in the progression of disease.



Onto the test again- You cant validate a test by using disease as a control. The only thing this would demostrate is an affinity towards disease and NOT that a person has a viral infection. Only the isolation of HIV in pure form can be used to validate the test. This has not been done. This is why the disclaimers state what they do- not because of the "mcdonalds coffee" lawsuit.

How many people are healthy HIV carriers you ask? Most of them- see previous answer.


Heres the rebuttal to your "So let's see what we have up to now" Section.

No one attacks the validity of the techniques involved in ELISA, WB, or PCR. What we do attack is how these methods of diagnostic were validated.

Influenza is NOT a retrovirus. Its a group V, negative sense single stranded RNA virus. retroviruses are characterized by replicating via reverse transcription.

Theres not that many HIV virologist in the world to begin with. The number of orthodox HIV virologist and dissident virologist arent that dissimilar. You cant study HIV without consent of the NIH hence the appearance of many scientists vs. a few rogue "quacks".

Would I stake my life on it? I wouldnt "stake my life" on anything except friends, family, and country. In the realm of science, Its the pursuit of truth im interested in. This isnt a jihad or crusade for me.

Notyour B,
Not that i wish to discontinue this discussion, its just getting too large and indepth; its beyond the scope and intentions of Y!A. I do beg you however to bring your questions to a forum like aidsmythexposed.com so your questions can be put on the table and hopefully answered to your satisfaction. I promise you will not be met with "fanatical denialists" and ridicule. Many of the members of that forum started out just like you wondering if there was merit to the dissident argument. You wont be harrassed into converting to the "dark side" either. I humbly invite you to join the forums and read the literature so we can *all* discuss the issue and hopefully come closer to the truth (whatever it may be). Please bring all your question there as it will be much easier to discuss/debate in forum thread style.

Answer 2

I saw the movie yesterday for the first time and it makes a lot of sense scientifically. It does not have the slightest tinge of religious propaganda. And the movie answers both your questions. However you claim married women who don't use drugs get aids. Being a person with an open mind I would like to see that study that claims none of the married woman used drugs. They would also have to not have taken AIDS drugs because the movie said it was the treatment that caused AIDS symptoms and not HIV. Also your study would have to include woman who had the same symptoms but did not have AIDS to prove that there was a difference between people with the disease in the two groups. I am all for scientific inquiry and both sides should present their evidence in an impartial court. I want to know the real answer not emotional opinions.
Addendum: This has been interesting. Thanks for the feedback and I will eventually side with the group and does the best scientific studies. In the mean time I will listen to both sides and see how this very interesting controversy develops.

Answer 3

Question to AIDS denialists?


This Question Smacks into the heart of a "Neurotic Tweak"..at best this doesn't deserve a response. Human Beings have emotions feelings and oppinions people who RETHINK or Think Differently about something whether it be Science,Religion,or Politics are treated like the live Slaughtered Animals that hang on a hook. Calling someone a "Denialist" without an Understanding is Screaming Guilty.

People With this Mindset ought to be ashamed and Seek out some Psychiatry!
_____________________________________________
NOW TO WASTE MY TIME WITH THE CLOSED MINDED HERE..




I would have a proposal for you if you do wish to proove your point, that is, that there is actually a scientific objection to the HIV causes AIDS model. There are 2 main points your claims do not address:


I wonder if this Proposal is coming from an overworked Nurse....


____________________________________________

1- The HIV test is an accurate predictor of AIDS

There is No such thing as an AIDS Test or a Test for AIDS..nor is the "HIV Test" a Test For HIV.. No Antibody Test has Been Validated by a Gold Standard to detect ACTUAL HIV In Humans. NO HIV Test has Been Approved by the FDA for the Purposes of "DIAGNOSING" Someone with HIV Infection Including any Dubious PCR METHOD.

The Current HIV Tests in HIV/AIDS Research are Only for PROGNOSIS according to the FDA. This FACT is Reeadily available in ALL HIV Tests KITS that are Hidden from the Public.

_____________________________________________

2- HIV transmission is now hitting population which in general does not engage in recreational drugs, ie married women.

With No PROOF that ANY Human Hosts the Retrovirus REFFERED TO as HIV the Transmission theory of HIV Human to Human has no Merit and must be Reappraised.

A Viral Epidemic must Spread equally among the Sexes(50% to 50%) regardless of Age,Religion,Sexual Orientation,Nationality,etc to be considered an epidemic.

As of 2005 The State Health Facts Maintain that Men are at an 80% Infection rate and Women are ONLY at 20% in the USA.

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/cgi-bin/healthfacts.cgi?action=compare&category=HIV%2fAIDS&subcategory=Cumulative+AIDS+Cases&topic=Cumulative+AIDS+Cases+All+Ages+by+Sex

Even Using the Dubious HIV Testing to make these claims there is still no epidemic...for Transmission. According to this Fact HIV is a MALE RETROVIRUS! in the United States.


____________________________________________
So to proove your point is right, that is either HIV does not exists/HIV is harmless, what I would propose is that a sample of say, 1000 people, agree to voluntarily receive an injection of untreated blood from a known HIV+ person which is shedding virus (ie not on ARV), and then agree to be tested for HIV periodically.


This IS NOT about being Right. This is about Questioning Things that just Don't add up.. www.ThePerthGroup.com Has proposed what Should and Needs to be done A LONG TIME AGO to Settle this Debate. The HIV Industry is Pumping Trillions of Dollars into this $camdemic why Waste their Time with the Truth?

_____________________________________________

We would then compare, among those who develop sustained HIV infection, how many will develop AIDS, with a sample HIV- (from this sample or outside) population.

Wouldn't this be correct scientific proof (appart from ethical issues, of course)?

To do this HIV Must Be Purified and Isolated and then an ACTUAL HIV Test must be Produced and Verified by a Gold Standard (Actual Virus). THIS HASN'T BEEN DONE.

Millions of People are Falsely Told they have HIV this is the BIGGEST Lie Ever Told in the History of Man Kind.

Answer 4

Thank you for finally getting these AIDS denialists to shut the hell up. I have read some of their answers. Do you know where they get thier info from? CWnews.com. That's Catholic World News! (Yeah, that paper doesn't have an agenda...note the sarcasm). And, they get their info from google movies, where anyone can post random things. Oh, and just watch who will give you these answers. It's the same two people who will copy-paste their answer once again, because they do this same procedure every time. Might I also add, that AIDS denialists doctors are few and far between. And, tests similar to the ones you are asking have been conducted, with a slight tweak. There were two groups: One was given HIV drugs, the other was given placebo. The people with the real drugs survived and actually looked and felt healthier. The ones given the placebo quickly fell sick and eventually died. And, these denialists are also going to give you the drivel about hempheliacs will die anyway. That's not true. Hemopheliacs can live a long time, they just have to be careful about not bleeding and taking iron.

PS: They will also claim that Condoms don't work. Can you imagine?! 1) there has been scientific proof that condoms do work and 2) how sexist, "Condoms don't work, that's why I don't wear them." So, now a woman doesn't have a choice. (They are not whores). Oh, and by the way. CWNews is claiming their stuff is scientific, which is where they get their info.

And, another P.S: i am a conservative....But, I'm not stupid. I know better than to get sucked into religious stuff. This is the real world where people make chocies all the time.

And, I keep adding stuff because this q is so interesting. I actually know a few people who are HIV positive. Before their med regimen, they had very low CD4 counts and were sick. Now, the meds have made them feel a lot better and they look healthy and great.

And another P.S.: You want to know where the info is for heterosexual white women getting HIV is at? Check out avert.org and the CDC and AIDS.gov. They will tell you all the info you need.

PPS: I told you the same two people would write the same thing. And, I looked up some of those links. I don't know how these people are reading, but I see that the tests clearly either test for HIV or the antibodies.

additional edit: I have to disagree with Tomas. HIV is a pandemic, not just an epidemic. But, it has never chosen who to infect. Everyone KNOWS that education opens your eyes. So, lets take another STD for example. If we lived in a poor rural area that was essentially closed off from t he rest of the world, and someone came in with gonnorhea and spread to another person. That other person lives in a poor area where its hard to get education, then of course they won't know about the STD because THEY WEREN'T TAUGHT. And, it's no longer a male disease. Women have the highest infection rate and what's the reason why? The vagina has a mucous membrane layer filled with CD4 and it is an area that is susceptible to more rips and tears.

Answer 5

1

Answer 6

I've actually seen a few different biases from these people. Some of them are far-right types who claim (among other things) that condoms are toxic and that all sexual activity is dangerous. Then there's one guy who thinks AIDS is a scare tactic to kep people from enjoying sex, and that everybody should be doing it and not using condoms (because they're toxic). The original HIV denialists were actually gay activists from ActUP (an AIDS advocacy group, which for most part has done a good job of supporting the Poz community), but the ideas have been hijacked by all sorts of crackpot groups.

They do post the same damn thing every time. And the arguments are weak at best. One of their biggest targets is the pharma industry. While pharmaceutical companies do some shady things, it doesn'tm ean they never did anything good. Before 1993 when retro-viral drug cocktails came out, there was clear and fairly finite timeline from infection to AIDS and death. But with drug therapy, deaths from AIDS have decline continuously, and now the medical community says HIV+ people may be able to indefinitely stave off onset of full-blown AIDS if their meds work for them.

Anyway, brace yourself, the trolls will come.

ADDENDUM FOR ZACK: In Thailand, like many countries, AIDS started out as a disease of marginalized people (prostitutes, drug addicts, etc.). AIDS activism didn't become high-profile until the wives of wealthy men became ill with AIDS. These women -- high society types, middle aged, non-smoking, no drugs, otherwise healthy, no risk factors -- contracted HIV from their husbands (who contracted it from prostitutes). There haven't been randomized trials with these people, but I'm just telling the story because these women have been some of the biggest benefactors in the fight against AIDs in the region. Things like this happen, and the effect isn't just in the upper classes. Women (rich, but especially poor!) in India are getting HIV from their husbands (who also contract it from prostitutes as well).

Answer 7

People are talking about using antibodies as part of the HIV test. Wait a second. In our department we use PCR related assays to determine whether a virus is present.

Answer 8

Your methodogy is flawed from several positions. First, these tests do have a propensity to react in people who have a greater likelyhood of developing illness and disease. This doesn't proove that your antibody test is a specific indicator of infection by a retrovirus. It just shows that the person has unusual levels of antibody activity that cause a non-specific reaction. You can't use an antibody reaction to prove the inducing antigen's origin, meaning you can't reason backwards with antibodies. Even monoclonal antibodies are polyspecific.

You wrote
1- The HIV test is an accurate predictor of AIDS

If these tests light up more often in those at risk it means they are at heightened risk for having many antibodies to many things. That IV drug users had false-positive reactions to antibody tests from other STD's without actually being infected was known way back in the 1970's. It meant they were profoundly unhealthy people and as a result had lots of antibodies to lots of things. Indeed, in Africa a reactive test is predictive of many diseases outside of 'AIDS', and they're often not predictive of a clinical diagnosis of 'AIDS'. It's also been known since the early 90's that antibodies generated as a result of mycobacterial infections have a tendency to also react to the proteins in the 'HIV' tests.

As far back as 1988 it was known that 83% of patients with suspected AIDS were HIV positive, but so were 44% with malaria, 97% with herpes zoster, 43% with pneumonia, 67% with amoebic dysentery and 41% with carcinoma. In another study 42% of women with recurrent abortions, 67% with vaginal ulcerations and 33% with haemorrhoids had a positive HIV antibody test. In 2001 Ghosh reported that of 2/33 (6%) of patients with “Severe P. falciparum malaria” had a false positive HIV ELISA, considered to be caused by “intense, non-specific immune stimulation”.
It's also known that antibodies generated as a result of accute measles infection cross-react to the 'HIV' antibody tests:

Serum antibodies to HIV-1 are produced post-measles virus infection: evidence for cross-reactivity with HLA.1

"While 16% (17/104) of control sera displayed reactive bands to a variety of HIV proteins, 62% (45/73) of convalescent sera demonstrated immunoreactive bands corresponding to HIV-1 Pol and Gag, but not Env antigens. This cross-reactivity appears to be the result of an active measles infection."

I know it's hard for people to believe that these tests are anything but highly specific but there is plenty of evidence that they react non-specifically yet more often in people who are sick or have risk factors for illness.


2- HIV transmission is now hitting population which in general does not engage in recreational drugs, ie married women.

Where is this evidence? Where in the Western Hemisphere are middle-class white heterosexual women as an example coming down with AIDS? Where is the epidemic of heterosexually acquired AIDS? Somehow there can be 750,000 to 1 million unwanted teenage pregnancies each year yet 'HIV and AIDS' can't seem to touch this sexually active population of heterosexuals. In 2005, the CDC estimated all of 466 AIDS cases among 15 to 19 year olds. In fact, teenagers in the United States have one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the developed world. Every year, roughly nine million new sexually transmitted infections (STIs) occur among teens and young adults in the United States.2

Yet all of 466 'AIDS' cases across a population as large as the United States. Yet somehow 'HIV' is said to infect large populations of Africans through heterosexual sex. Which of 'HIV's nine genes tells it to preferentially infect gay men and IV drug users in the West and heterosexual Blacks in Africa, yet avoid heterosexual teenagers and adults who don't use drugs in the West?

Let me be clear about this, lest we be called 'denialists' yet again. We are not in denial that people are or have become sick. We don't doubt that in Africa there are many, many people who have actual illnesses and diseases that contribute to high mortality rates. What we dispute is that a retrovirus is the cause of these varying and disperate illnesses.

Answer 9

I have slept with over 300 women , I have been tested several times over the years, to get insurance, for curiousity, and becuz a few of those women were not ideal, I have always got a clean bill of health. I always wore a condom if I didnt know them well enough or if they were a whore. those condoms arent very fun ,but I'm not going to be stupid and get infected either. it's just common sense! Wrap it or Die!