HIV tests shown to be completely bogus

[dearhunter]

Preach it, preacher......just ignore all them dead people.......they were all killed a massive guvment conspiracy.....shhhhh them pill companies are probably watching this threAD.

[Waldo P. Emerson-Jones]

Mr. Bill, I am confused. Are you saying that HIV does not exist? What about AIDS--do you think that is also made up?

[Guest050715-1]

Six minutes into House of Numbers all I heard is there’s a debate about whether HIV exists. There is no debate about the resulting AIDS symptoms that kill people. Then it went to conspiracy. The bottom line is we know what behaviors cause the eventual AIDS. Unsafe sex, unsafe blood transfusions are primary vectors of the disease. I think movies, articles and discussions like this lull people into a false sense of security draw attention away from prevention. I’m cool if people want their conspiracies, but the bottom line is people always die from AIDS. It is irresponsible to try to paint the diseases as non-existent.

[Waldo P. Emerson-Jones]

Also, I read the article. Although the source seems slanted, what I gather from it is that the soldier had recently had a number of vaccinations that could have affected the reliability of the HIV tests. Thus, the defense was able to create a reasonable doubt as to whether the soldier in fact had HIV. Quite a bit away from a general condemnation of all HIV testing.

[acp5762]

Like many of you, I too have read many articles on AIDS/HIV. There is one thing that seems to be quite certain and that is Medical Science is not completely sure of the origin of the AIDS syndrome. I say syndrome because AIDS is not classified as a Disease in and of itself, but rather a syndromatic condition where the bodies natural defense against disease is hindered or totally ineffective. Iam not completely convinced that AIDs or HIV is transmitted from person to person but rather acquired from an environmental source. It's a known fact that a person with a healthy immune system is more dangerous to an AIDS patient than the other way around. Reason being we all carry various pathogens and never get sick because the immune system is at work every minute of our lives engulfing pathogens and rendering them ineffective in causing disease. Our bodies have many backup systems to keep us reasonably healthy. Even if we get an occasional Cold or Flu it usually isn't life threatening or could give rise to more serious conditions. A faulty immune system is more complicated than to fight off disease. It's about total body functioning, for instance Protein synthesis to build Muscle, Skin and other tissue. Blood Hemoglobin which enables Blood to transport oxygen and nutrients to all cells of the body. So to say AIDS/HIV + unprotected sex go hand in hand, thats to easy. I think it's something more. Personally I think Condoms protect from Gonoreha, Syphallis, Chalmydia and of course pregnancy. As far as protection from AIDS/HIV. It seems far to complicated of a condition for something so natural as sex to cause or be a contributing factor.

[Hot to Trot Daphne]

http://folksalert.com/warning-young-...-hiv-positive/

It's real, even if it's not, do you want to gamble on it?

[acp5762]

Originally Posted by Luxury Daphne

http://folksalert.com/warning-young-...-hiv-positive/

It's real, even if it's not, do you want to gamble on it?

I use a Condom with a girl I don't know for the primary reason of pregnancy. Ok so the use of Condoms also takes care of any STD, thats a good thing too. I don't suggest gambling on our health by any means. Iam just saying there seems to be more to the AIDS/HIV question, and I think it goes beyond sexual contact.

[BlackMistress]

Yes, those cheap ass HIV tests at the clinic can be faulty.

Mistakes in the clinical lab happen ALL THE TIME. Never take the first result as fact. Always get retested at another facility that uses a different lab. I do not believe that all insurances pay for first time NAT testing for HIV. I know some public health labs use the cheap test first then use NAT to determine a positive status. Nucleic acid based tests are solid for determining a HIV+ status. You will have to come out of pocket for it.

[Long Ron Silver]

Originally Posted by BlackMistress

Yes, those cheap ass HIV tests at the clinic can be faulty.

Mistakes in the clinical lab happen ALL THE TIME. Never take the first result as fact. Always get retested at another facility that uses a different lab. I do not believe that all insurances pay for first time NAT testing for HIV. I know some public health labs use the cheap test first then use NAT to determine a positive status. Nucleic acid based tests are solid for determining a HIV+ status. You will have to come out of pocket for it.

Ditto, and +1
from someone who has worked at those clinics.
Don't settle for just one test result, and get tested regularly.

[novacain]

Originally Posted by Mr. Bill

Allow me to familiarize readers with the Padian Study.

As part of her 10-year study on HIV transmission, Dr. Nancy Padian enrolled 175 couples, one partner HIV-positive, one HIV-negative. These individuals had sex, vaginal and anal, with and without condoms over the study period. They were continuously tested. Dr*g abusers were kept out of the study to emphasize the role of sex in transmission.

The results 10 years later: At the end of the study, not a single individual who had tested negative became positive, after repeated sexual intercourse with their HIV-positive partners. This equates to 1,750 years of sex, and still, no transmission of the phantom HIV virus was recorded.

Another example:
In the following video you can watch as Robert E. Willner MD Phd injects himself with a man's blood who had been diagnosed HIV positive. Dr. Willner never contracted HIV nor did he ever develop AIDS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQCKb1JV-4A

So if HIV is not transmissible by sex, or even by direct blood infusion, how then is it contracted? Answer: by a massive, multi-billion dollar campaign of fear designed to instill ignorance in the population and compliance to the demands of the pharmaceutical dr*g cartel. And whether knowingly or unwittingly, doctors and clinicians are simply facilitators of this enterprise.


.

Ok, how can either of these examples be valid? You have stated several times in this thread that the HIV virus is a scam and can not be tested for or found in a persons system. So how could either of these tests be valid, since both claim that either a person was infected with HIV(as you claim no valid test for it) or that the blood used had the HIV virus in it( once again no valid way, according to you to be sure the blood has HIV)?

[Guest070818-1]

The HIV virus is personally the last thing on my mind. True or false. Disease or not.

I'm more fearful of contracting ignorance and stupidity. Those are the most deadliest viruses of all.

[Tiffani Jameson]

Originally Posted by Mr. Bill

You can't argue with people like JD; unfortunately they are stuck on stupid and seek every justification to avoid the facts. I wouldn't doubt that soon he will again be down on his knees begging the mods to close this thread.

The purpose of this thread is to inform people who would otherwise unwittingly destroy their lives and their families lives by succumbing to a fake HIV test and subsequent death by chemical poisoning. I certainly agree one must be cautious about contracting real STDs, though HIV is not one of them.

.

So, the disease is real, but you want to dissuade people from finding out? You want them to wait until their dicks and pussies fall off?

What you have failed to do in this tirade is to offer a solution to this problem. That's the reason people feel like you bring this up to start trouble. Its unreasonable to convince people that an article you found is correct when you call them stupid for not believing an unsubstantiated article. Unless you wrote it yourself, or you're a doctor that has some REAL knowledge that the tests give false positives, or you know of a lab that makes people pay for fake tests, or something like that, people will probably stick with the status quo.

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

was your friends 2nd, 3rd & 4th result positive? was he sick?

Yes, my cousin is HIV positive. He was NOT sick when he was being tested. But there have been a couple of times where he has gotten sick, and it was from not taking the meds. He has had pneumonia twice, but has done better since his last episode of feeling sorry for himself.

If the test was prejudiced, I don't know, but it was accurate. The TEST didn't give my cousin HIV.

Originally Posted by Mr. Bill

How typical, how pathetic - you're using intimidation to dissaude anyone from replying to this thread - and you're attempting to denigrate Eccie staff for allowing a peaceful discussion on an important topic.

Allow me to reinterate an important point...

...with regard to JDNorthface and his ilk, similar to the government which has taken away freedoms and liberties in the name of security, they (denialists) would have truth about HIV suppressed in the name of saving you.

People have the right and also the ability to decide for themselves without your intervention. If you're going to get down on your knees like JD, do something more helpful while you're down there.

.

Darling, JD is NOT the government, and nothing like them. We ARE making the the decision not to listen to you. You didn't just find an article. Something has happened to you. Did you have an AIDS scare?? I mean, be honest. I'm putting myself in your shoes, and I'm trying to understand your headspace as you came across this article. The only reason it would be of any importance to me is if I have had a positive test, and felt that it was unsubstantiated and wrong.

But more importantly, I'm trying to understand why you bring this HERE, where people are probably having sex with random individuals, and SOME people UNSAFELY so, and tell them, "hey guys, if you just barebacked a provider and think you have HIV, don't even worry about getting tested, because the test will PROBABLY tell you that you do because they're inaccurate."

You are screaming "I barebacked a provider, and went to the free clinic to get tested and I got a false positive, and I confessed to my wife what I did and she left me, but turns out I didn't have AIDS after all, but she wouldn't take me back."

Originally Posted by brownsugarbaby

The HIV virus is personally the last thing on my mind. True or false. Disease or not.

I'm more fearful of contracting ignorance and stupidity. Those are the most deadliest viruses of all.

Girl, if they only made you take tests for that before letting you post...

[Carl]

There are several types of HIV test. There are the ELISA (Enzyme Linked ImmunoSorbent Assay) and Western blot which detect the patient's antibodies to HIV. They can yield false positives, especially when there is a massive infection to something other than HIV which generates a massive antibody response (the bacteria responsible for Lyme disease as an example).

There are also tests which detect the presence of the HIV particles themselves. There is the p24 antigen test which detects a protein (called p24) found only on the surface of the HIV membrane. It used to be used to screen the blood supply until a more effective tests came along.

One is the Reverse Transcriptase - Polymerase Chain Reaction Test (RT-PCR). It detects the enzyme (reverse transcriptase) produced by the virus to create a DNA copy of it's RNA (HIV is a retrovirus which uses RNA as its genetic material instead of DNA) so that DNA copy can be inserted in the infected cells and begin multiplying.

Another is the branched DNA test also know as the Quantiplex bDNA test. It uses small DNA molecule segments, called oligonucleotides, which specifically bind to the viral RNA and hold it open and in place. A second set of oligonucleotides, also specific binders to the HIV RNA, is added which contains an attached enzyme that causes a color change reaction when the oligonucleotide/enzyme complex binds to the viral RNA. If the clear solution changes color, it quickly indicates the presence of the virus and the depth of the color change indicates the degree of viral load.

[badbottom]

Mr. Bill,

I applaud you on the courage of your convictions. Prove to us all that we are suckers, lulled into complacency by a massive conspiracy. Head down to your local HIV/AIDS clinic, find a volunteer and have them inject their blood in you, document it all on video, and put the video on Youtube. Follow this up with tests by medical professionals every 3 months on Youtube. If you can go a year without being infected, I will personally apologize and buy you your adult beverage of choice and toast your showing us all we were wrong.

Failing that, stop spreading misinformation and conspiracist lies. Next thing you know, you'll be saying that it only takes 3 licks to get to the center of a Tootsie roll pop, 9/11 was an inside job, Kennedy was assasinated by the military/industrial complex, the moon landing was faked, Ivory Soap is satanic (look at the label in a mirror!), the Holocaust was a jewish conspiracy, Picard was a better captain than Kirk, Miracle Whip is the better mayonnaise than Hellman's, and the Holy Grail is actually a hidden bloodline of which you are the descended One True King, just need to find that lake to get Excalibur and give the Capitalists the ole whatfor and bring back the Round Table to jolly old England.

I apologize for feeding the troll, but couldn't stay silent on this one. I've had too many friends die from this epidemic and lies of this nature do nothing but bring us back to the fearmongering of the 80's.

[catonic]

This thread is a sad example of the confusion over this HIV/Aids issue and the ignorance (dishonesty?) that is so widespread in this whole area.
Aids and HIV are two different things and need to be clearly distinguished.
Aids is real, can be properly scientifically tested for and shown to exist and has killed many people. It is highly dangerous and can be transmitted from person to person.
HIV however has no scientific basis and has never been shown to actually exist either in a person (living or dead) or in a lab.
As Mr Bill correctly points out, the so-called HIV test does NOT show that someone has HIV, it attempts to show that they have antibodies to one of the over 30 diseases that have been lumped together and called HIV.
If you have a cold or pneumonia and are tested for HIV you may well be shown to be positive because you have cold / pneumonia antibodies in your body and the so-called HIV test detects their presence.
Because you have a cold or pneumonia (or any other of the 30 odd diseases that have been associated with Aids deaths) it does not mean that you have HIV.
The most unfortunate and saddest part of this whole issue is that people who are not sick and have nothing wrong with them have been falsely tested positive to HIV and taken the prescribed medication which seriously damages their immune system and can make them ill, in some cases seriously so.
If anyone wants to know more about this issue I recommend that they check out http://www.gnosticmedia.com/ and search for Aids and then you can decide for yourself about Aids/HIV.
If anyone here believes that HIV is real then let them scientifically show that it actually exists, either in humans or in a lab.
They can then step up and receive their Nobel Prize for Medicine for having achieved something that no other person on earth has been able to do ever since Aids was first detected.
All other viruses such as chicken pox, measles, Aids etc can be shown to actually exist, as well as the antibodies to those viruses.
With HIV there are only the antibodies to over 30 listed diseases, NO actually virus. That is one of the reasons why they (the true believers) call it a retro virus because one day they retrospectively hope that they can show that the virus actually exists.
Anyway, all the best to everyone and I hope you stay healthy, safe and happy.