Dr Rick

The standard assay for antibodies to HIV is an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) screening assay. A confirmatory Western blot is performed on EIA-positive specimens to exclude a false positive test.

The accuracy of the HIV serologic testing, and especially its specificity, is excellent: In a low prevalence population such as blood donors, the false negative rate is 0.001%, and in the same population the false positive rate is even lower, less than 0.0006%.

This is also completely false. In fact, it doesn't even remotely make sense since AIDS, "full-blown" or otherwise, is not diagnosed by PCR. See scigirls post for the AIDS diagnostic criteria.

Rick

scigirl

References please. I would like to see this list of people who have AIDS but meet the following criteria:
1) No evidence of HIV infection - PCR or antibody titer
2) No history of risky behavior/blood transfusion/mom with HIV.

If HIV does not cause AIDS, then something else does. Right? So, where are these people who have AIDS (see my above post - CD4 count low, specific opportunistic infections and specific cancers) but don't meet 1 or 2?

scigirl

scigirl

Yep, especially Ryan White, that blood transfusion slut.

Actually if you read about the history of AIDS, it took Reagan a long long time to even acknowledge that the disease existed. Pretty strange don't you think if it was a concoction of his administration. I learned about this in my history of infectious disease class, but if you don't believe me I'll try to find the source. A whole bunch of people were talking about AIDS (doctors, CDC people) way way before the gov't even uttered the word.

scigirl

Godless Dave

In other news, it has been found that inhalation of water does not cause drowning.

RoddyM

Sci-girl, they will not list a person as having AIDS unless they have at least tested positive for HIV anti-bodies. (I neglected to type "AIDS" in my previous post.) I am not saying that the Reagan administration concocted "HIV/AIDS" but that when Gallo reported that it was a viral illness they were then able to quickly see that they could use it as a social stick, and at the same time be seen to be caring in a practical and "scientific" way.

Dr. Rick could be right. Often low T-cell counts are used to define full blown AIDS and PCR counts are used with T-cell counts to determine progress or decide future drug treatment. But PCR has indicated high "viral load" in people who have no signs of HIV infection, no "risks" and no HIV antobodies. This is where Mullis has a problem with the way PCR is used in determining outcomes for people with a diagnosis of viral infection.

One thing is for sure. Treatment with anti-retrovials is very often very toxic. It is unprovable but at the same time obvious that people die an untimely death as the result of their treatment. The drugs can also cause the same symptoms as those that are supposedly the symptoms of AIDS. The attitude expressed by the perpetrators of, or apologists for, this treatment is that they are better dead than gay. Or that it is better to be dead than to have ever used "illicit" drugs.

Even if go along with the paradigm, HIV infection is rare. Estimates of specificity are useless if you then go on to diagnose someone on the basis of their supposed risk factors. If you are white and wear a suit you are a false positive. If you are black (and don't wear a suit) or gay or have bad teeth you have AIDS. The stereotypes were more powerful in the 80's than they are now but helped to gain support for the paradigm.

If the authorities wanted to they could demonstrate that they could routinely isolate and photograph the virus in people testing "HIV +ve".

charlie d

I am sorry, but this is a load of bollocks. The life expectancy of HIV positive people in western countries has gone from a few years at best to well over a decade after the advent of combination antiretroviral therapy. That alone proves that a) antiretrovirals are effective drugs and b) indirectly, that some retrovirus is responsible for progression from HIV+ status to AIDS.

Of course antiretroviral therapy is toxic. So is most pharmacological therapy. The point is that its effectiveness can be objectively measured in clinical trials. The net effect of antiretroviral therapy, toxicity included, is that it saves lives.

Finally, as for the general discussion in this thread, Duesberg's main problem was that he failed to understand many of the epidemiological and clinical aspects of AIDS that strongly link it to HIV infection. Most notably:
- that it is possible (despite Duesberg's proclamations) to define AIDS regardless of HIV status (as severe immune deficiency with extremely low - generally <200 - progressively decreasing CD4+ T cell counts, opportunistic infections etc in the absence of other etiologic factors - eg chemotherapy). All individuals with these clinical picture are HIV+.
- that some non-progressing individuals with serological HIV+ status that do not develop AIDS have been shown to be resistant to HIV infection due to genetic factors
- that it has been possible in many cases to trace (and confirm at the molecular level) the epidemiological spreading of the virus from patient to patient, including patients with no other risk factors (such as heterosexual monogamous non-drug-using partners of HIV-infected subjects).

There is currently no ther model that explains the clinical, epidemiological, immunological and pharmacological features of AIDS better than the HIV model. That Duesberg, or any other HIV doubter, never went ahead with their highly publicized but never actualized plans of self-inoculation with HIV tells a lot about the amount of faith they place in their own theories.

RoddyM

AID$ inc. select whatever they want to support their claims. It has never been shown that retroviral "therapy" extends lives. In countries like Australia where doctors are less likely to pander to AID$ inc. less people are sentenced to death by the diagnosis and less people are bullied into taking retrovirals. The result is that their are many people getting around quite happily having tested HIV +ve 15 years ago.

Those that die early are the kind of people that believe anything they are told by authority.

Self inoculation would prove nothing even if it is possible. Besides Duesberg maintains that "HIV" antibody status has nothing to do with the likelihood of a person becoming ill with an AIDS defining illness or even suffering lowered T-cell counts.

MortalWombat

Oh really? According to this report,

charlie d

That's just plain false. There are plenty of clinical trials that show delayed progression and increased life expectancy in HAART-treated patients. Here's one: Changing patterns of mortality across Europe in patients infected with HIV-1. Lancet 1998 Nov 28;352(9142):1725-30 EuroSIDA Study Group. Mocroft A, et alHere’s another one, focusing on opportunistic infections: McNaghten AD, Hanson DL, Jones JL, Dworkin MS, Ward JW, the Adult/Adolescent Spectrum of Disease Group. Effects of antiretroviral therapy and opportunistic illness primary chemoprophylaxis on survival after AIDS diagnosis. AIDS 1999; 13:1687-95.There are dozens of studies like these. Many from countries outside the US – since you seem to suspect just as pervasive a conspiracy for HAART from the American medical establishment as Creationists claim for evolution from the biology establishment. Incidentally, here’s a study from Australia: it looks like HAART is effective there too: Impact of highly active antiretroviral therapy on individual AIDS-defining illness incidence and survival in Australia. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2002 Apr 1;29(4):388-95 Dore GJ, Li Y, McDonald A, Ree H, Kaldor JM, Kaldo JM; National HIV Surveillance Committee. It is truly unfortunate that this kind of lies is propagated freely, when lives are at stake.

scigirl

I also find it amusing that RoddyM and others (I think the Foo Fighters are guilty of this nonsense as well - I guess heroin does affect the brain! ) have claimed that AIDS is a money marketing scam of the pharmaceutical companies.

Hmm - I'd be willing to bet that if companies only sold AIDS drugs, despite their cost, would be operating at a loss for these puppies. I suspect drug companies make a lot more money on Viagra and other such drugs - than they do AIDS drugs - because the research going on right now is very extensive with AIDS drugs - and each clinical trial costs at least 100 million dollars.

THe health care indusrtry as a whole, no doubt loses money to AIDS. I'll have to poke around and see what I can find.

scigirl