The accuracy of the HIV antibody tests used around the world to say
someone is infected with HIV has never been properly established, and
there’s no information in the published medical literature showing how
many positive tests occur in the absence of infection with HIV/LAV.
 

The accuracy of an antibody or other surrogate test for a virus can
only be established by verifying that positive results are found
exclusively in people who actually have the virus. This standard for
determining accuracy was not met in 1984 when the first HIV antibody
test was developed.
 
To this day,
positive HIV antibody screening tests (ELISAs) are verified by a second
antibody test of unknown accuracy (HIV Western Blots) or by “viral
load,” another unvalidated test that detects bits of genetic material
(RNA or DNA) that are thought to be associated with the virus.
 

A validation study would prove the ethical and scientific basis for
the practice of telling people who test antibody, DNA , or RNA positive
that they are infected with “HIV”. Without evidence of validation by
direct purification of the virus, a diagnosis of HIV infection rests on
unverified beliefs and unfounded assumptions.
 

Current HIV tests signal the presence of antibodies that react with an
assortment of proteins associated with HIV, however, none of these
proteins are unique or specific to HIV. Without a validation study, no
honest, well-informed doctor can say with any degree of certainty that
someone who tests positive is indeed infected with HIV.
 

“viral load” tests cannot be used to validate HIV antibody tests
because viral load tests are not able to directly detect HIV itself.
Instead, these tests detect only fragments of genetic material (DNA or
RNA) associated with HIV.
 
To date,
there is no study showing that the DNA or RNA attributed to HIV is
found only in people who are actually infected with HIV using direct
isolation as a gold standard to determine true infection. In fact,
viral load tests carry disclaimers stating they are:
 
“not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic to confirm the presence of HIV infection”
 

An antibody test kit cannot verify another antibody test kit as proof
of “HIV Infection” and the rationale for the use of antibody tests is
that the immune system has the ability to detect foreign agents or
viruses and to respond by producing antibodies that react with those
agents or viruses. However, this rationale does not work in reverse.
That is, the observation of an antibody reaction with a particular
agent or virus does not prove that the antibody was produced in
response to that particular agent or virus.
 
The problem with using antibodies alone to indicate infection with a particular agent or virus is twofold:

1. Antibodies can only be associated with a disease after it is shown
that they are consistently generated after exposure to the pure virus.
We are unaware that this has ever been accomplished with HIV.
 

2. Antibodies engage in indiscriminate relationships with a variety of
agents or viruses. One could say that antibodies are “promiscuous,”
that is, antibodies meant for one agent or virus may react with another
agent or virus that is a perfect stranger. Or, to put it technically,
there is ample evidence that antibody molecules, even the most pure
(monoclonal antibodies) are not mono-specific, and that they cross-react
with other, non-immunizing antigens.
 
This means is that people do not necessarily have the virus that their antibodies may appear to suggest they have.
 
Here are some examples of how misleading antibody tests can be:
 

1. People can have positive antibody responses to certain laboratory
chemicals, but this does not mean they are infected with laboratory
chemicals.
 
2. People vaccinated for polio may test positive for antibodies to polio even though they don‚t have polio.
 

3. People exposed to TB may test antibody positive for TB but this does
not necessarily mean they are currently infected with TB.
 

4. The test for glandular fever measures antibody response to red
blood cells of sheep and horses, but a positive test does not mean that
someone is infected with sheep or horse blood, or that animal blood
causes glandular fever.
 
So we can now understand why antibody responses alone cannot determine if someone is infected with a particular virus.
 

Since antibody reactions can come from more than one possible cause,
scientists need more information before they can claim that an antibody
reaction alone means a person is actually infected with a particular
virus.
 
Long before the HIV test was
introduced into routine clinical practice, scientists needed to prove
that a positive test means that HIV itself is present, too. This is
especially important given the profound implications of testing HIV
positive.
 
People’s lives literally depend on the specificity of HIV tests.
 
What is specificity?
 

In this case, the formal, mathematical definition of specificity is
the number of negative tests in a large group of individuals who do not
have HIV infection. If 100% of 1,000 people who do not have HIV
infection also test antibody negative, the specificity of the antibody
test is 100%. If one uninfected person tests antibody positive, the
specificity of the test is reduced to 99.9% (999/1000) due to the
single false positive result. A high specificity is desired when
screening to make sure that very few false positives occur.
 
The specificity of HIV tests has not been established in this very necessary scientific manner.
 
What is sensitivity?
 

The formal, mathematical definition of sensitivity is the number of
positive tests in a large group of individuals who actually do have HIV
infection. If 100% of 1,000 people who have HIV infection also test
antibody positive, the sensitivity of the antibody test is 100%. If one
infected person tests antibody negative, the sensitivity of the test is
reduced to 99.9% (999/1000) due to the single false negative result. A
high sensitivity is desired when you don’t want any gold standard
positives to slip through undetected.
 
Is specificity the same as accuracy?
 

A study that establishes the sensitivity and specificity of an HIV test
would provide a scientific basis for claims of accuracy.
 
How is the accuracy for an HIV test determined?
 
Sensitivity + Specificity = Accuracy
 
How did HIV experts arrive at the specificity of the HIV antibody test kits used today?
 

According to the medical literature on “Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome”, the specificity of HIV antibody tests has been evaluated by
testing healthy individuals such as blood donors and because these
individuals are healthy, it’s assumed that negative antibody test
results mean they don’t have HIV, and because few if any of these
people test positive, HIV experts use this information to claim that
the antibody tests are highly specific.
 
This evaluation is the wrong type of experiment from which to draw such conclusions for two reasons.
 
First,
healthy people do not have a large number or a variety of antibodies
to react with the test, so there are not enough antibodies available to
measure the propensity for unwanted reactions. Second, good health
cannot be used as a substitute measure for the absence of HIV infection
any more than good health can be used as a substitute measure for the
absence of kidney stones, pregnancy, cerebral aneurysms, pathogenic
bacteria or coronary artery disease.
What is the correct solution to the problem of distinguishing who is and who is not HIV infected?
 

According to Dr Valendar Turner (http://www.theperthgroup.com), a
medical doctor who has examined the problems with HIV tests, “The
solution is obvious, scientifically speaking. You have to use HIV
itself to validate the tests.
 
To do
this, you must take two samples from each person in a study and divide
the two blood samples from each person in two groups: One sample to
test for the antibody reactions and the other to try to directly
isolate HIV. To know what the HIV antibody tests tell you about HIV
infection, you then compare the reactions (positive tests) with what
you are trying to find or measure (actual virus). The only way to
distinguish between real reactions and false reactions
(cross-reactions) is to use direct isolation of HIV as an independent
yardstick or gold standard.”
 
The results
of such an experiment would show how many of an appropriately chosen
group people from whom HIV cannot be isolated have a positive antibody
reaction anyway. This would tell us how many positive antibody tests
occur in the absence of HIV infection.
Without
validation by direct isolation of the virus from the fresh, uncultured
fluids or tissues of people who test positive, HIV/AIDS experts cannot
know what positive and negative test results actually indicate.
 

There appears to be no published (peer reviewed)data establishing the
accuracy of HIV tests is particularly concerning given that people who
test positive are said to be infected with a fatal, incurable virus and
treated as if this were an indisputable truth.
 
Searching
the vast published medical literature, there appears to be no evidence
showing that popular interpretations of the significance or “accuracy”
of HIV test kits are scientifically valid or correct.
“HIV” tests are better than 99% accurate……BUT there’s a catch!https://www.facebook.com/notes/charles-rich/hiv-tests-are-better-than-99-accurate/161882967210448

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This expert taken from Alive & Wells $50,000 fact finder award that nobody claimed, even Professor Duesberg.

~Badger