HIV Tests a Farce? False HIV Positives Produced by Western Blot Tests

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Recently
by Mike Adams: WHO
List Reveals Flu Advisors With Financial Ties to Pharma, VaccineManufacturers

Did you or
someone you know test positive for HIV? If so, they probably weren’t
told that they might test negative if a different test were used…
or even if the same test were conducted in another country. HIV
tests, as you’ll see here, are a wishy-washy, pseudoscientific gimmickry
that has unfortunately ensnared many innocent victims into a false
AIDS diagnosis.

This is now
being revealed in some rather shocking video footage released by
Brent Leung, creator of the House of Numbers documentary
(HouseOfNumbers.com)
which tears apart the inconsistencies and dogmatic non-science found
in the conventional HIV / AIDS industry.

Watch
the footage yourself right now
.

There, you’ll
see world-renowned scientists discussing the so-called “western
blot,” a highly subjective test that is now being used around the
world to falsely diagnose people with HIV and, subsequently, AIDS.
This western blot, as you’ll learn below, is a spectacularly laughable
test that seems to have been designed to make “positive” criteria
as loose as possible in order to label perfectly healthy people
as having AIDS.

“I don’t think
the western blot is a useful diagnostic test. I don’t think it’s
worth doing,” argues Dr Robin Weiss in the video clip.

Val Turner,
an MD from Australia, adds, “It’s ludicrous that you can be [HIV]
positive in one country and not positive in another.”

Neville Hodgkinson,
the Medical and Science Correspondent for The Sunday Times
(London) adds, “Some people argue that we have a confirmatory test
in some western countries, and that repeated testing can lead you
to a safer diagnosis. But if the very basis of the test is faulty,
then nothing works in fact. …Because of the different criteria
that apply in different countries, you can test HIV positive in
one country and be given an AIDS diagnosis as a result of that,
whereas in another country you won’t test HIV positive and you won’t
be given an AIDS diagnosis.”

A full-blown
AIDS patient will almost always show nine different “bands” on an
HIV test. But in the 1980’s, only one band was required – P24 –
to diagnose someone as HIV positive (and subsequently having AIDS).
The problem is that perfectly healthy people can also test positive
for P24
, even if they aren’t HIV positive.

“In the early
days, people developed criteria that were too much like a screening
test. So if you had just P24 [band], they might have called it a
positive,” said Robert Redfield MD, Director, Clinical Care and
Research, Institute of Human Virology.

Doctor Val
Turner adds, “Many people were diagnosed using these criteria, and
then it was realized that forty percent of people who are completely
healthy have one or more western blot bands, most commonly a P24
band.”

A few years
later, the FDA changed its diagnosis criteria for HIV, upping the
requirement beyond a single P24 band. But people who had already
been diagnosed as having AIDS were never re-tested!

Dr Val Turner
explains, “We don’t know how many thousand people were testing using
that western blot criteria before 1987, but … shouldn’t they all
have been tested when the criteria changed in 1987 in case they
were no longer positive? So there are probably people out there
who would not be positive under the criteria which developed subsequently.
Using the FDA criteria which existed before 1993, only 80 percent
of AIDS patients had a positive HIV test, which means 20 percent
were not positive.”

HIV tests
depend on personal opinion, not rigorous science

Even today, HIV
tests are conducted in a wishy-washy, non-scientific manner where
the results depend largely on the opinion of the lab technician
reading the test results! (It’s absurd, of course, but this is what’s
happening right now.)

In House
of Numbers, Brent Leung visited Claudia Kcherer, MD, a Molecular
Biologist at the Robert Kock Institute in Berlin. There, he recorded
this conversation:

Brent: “When
you’re looking at this western blot, how do you determine what is
a positive [result]?”

Claudia: “You
need a certain number of bands being present. It depends a little
bit on the producer of the test.”

Brent: “It
depends on the manufacturer?”

Claudia: “Yes”

Brent: “Is
there a different criteria for what might be a positive?”

Claudia: “Yeah,
there are different criteria from the manufacturer.”

Manufacturers
of the HIV test, in other words, differ in how they define a
“positive.” You might be “HIV positive” on one test, but negative
on another. And the decision on which manufacturer’s test to use
is based on the opinion of the clinic, hospital or doctor ordering
the tests.

Astonishingly,
this House of Numbers footage also includes a scene featuring
two different HIV test lab technicians working in the same lab
who disagree on the criteria for a positive HIV test result. While
one lab workers says two bands are needed for a positive diagnosis,
another worker says three are required. And they work in the same
lab!

Watch
this footage yourself right here
.

Western blot
HIV test called into question

But some scientists
feel the western blot is not just a good test, but a great one! Robert
C Gallo MD, Director of the Institute of Human Virology, says
“This has a margin of error if done properly that’s extremely low.
In other words, it’s one of medicine’s better tests.”

One of medicine’s
better tests? Really? And yet it can be interpreted in different
ways by different lab technicians, different definitions in different
countries, different manufacturers and different medical opinions?

The HIV tests,
it turns out, is more a matter of opinion than scientific
fact. And if you or someone you know has tested positive for HIV,
maybe they should get a second opinion.

Why not make
the test more accurate?

So why doesn’t
the industry tighten up its guidelines and require five, six or even
all nine bands to show up before diagnosing someone as HIV positive?
No one seems to know.

I do, though.
Isn’t it obvious? The AIDS industry is much like the cancer industry
in that it’s focused on diagnosing as many patients as possible
whether or not they actually have the disease. More patients equals
more profits and a bigger “scare story” to feed the media propaganda
machines.

We already
know that the AIDS industry fabricated evidence to try
to exaggerate the scope of the AIDS scare
. So it’s not surprising
they would be promoting a “loose” test that potentially has already
ensnared potentially tens of thousands of innocent people into a
false AIDS diagnosis.

Once a person
is diagnosed with AIDS, you see, they become a profit-generating
machine for Big Pharma
. AIDS pharmaceuticals are extremely expensive,
and because they are protected under an FDA-enforced monopoly, they
can be sold at practically any asking price.

Even better,
once innocent “healthy” people start taking AIDS drugs, they
begin to show AIDS symptoms such as compromised immune systems.
These side effects are caused by the drugs, of course, not by the
disease, but in the minds of doctors and patients, the emergence
of these scary symptoms proves that “they really had AIDS.”

It’s all just
loopy, circular logic with a single purpose: To earn more money
for Big Pharma at the expense of human suffering.

Now, I’m not
saying there’s no such thing as a genuine person with immune deficiency.
Thanks mostly to our toxic environment, there are certainly people
who suffer chronic immune system malfunctions. But it is in the
AIDS industry’s interests to convince even healthy people that they
are ill and need pharmaceutical intervention to survive. And, by
sheer coincidence (not!), today’s HIV tests are specifically designed
in a way that produces a disturbingly high number of false positives.

See the complete
collection of exclusive
clips
from House of Numbers at NaturalNews.TV.

Reprinted
with permission from Natural
News
.

Mike Adams is a natural health author and award-winning
journalist. He has authored and published thousands of articles,
interviews, consumers’ guides, and books on topics like health and
the environment. He is the editor of Natural
News
.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare