AIDS Dissident Scientific Digest

[Guest guest]

News Articles Challenging Popular Paradigms

Journalists Discover the Problems w/ HIV Science

 

AIDS DISSIDENT SCIENTIFIC DIGEST

 

 

Harper's Magazine, March 2006

The AIDS Machine and the Corruption of Science, by Celia Farber

 

 

There's an image of the cover at:

http://www.reviewingaids.com/images/Harpers.jpg

 

There's a short bio of Celia at:

http://www.reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Celia_Farber

 

 

 

Here's the first section.

 

OUT OF CONTROL

 

AIDS and the corruption of medical science

 

By Celia Farber

 

Joyce Ann Hafford was a single mother living alone with

her thirteen-year-old son, Jermal, in Memphis, Tennessee, when she

learned that she was pregnant with her second child. She worked as a

customer service representative at a company called CMC Call Center,

her son was a top student, an athlete and musician. In April 2003,

Hafford, four months pregnant, was urged by her obstetrician to take

an HIV test. She agreed, even though she was healthy and had no

reason to think she might be HIV positive. The test result came back

positive, though Hafford was tested only once, and she did not know

that pregnancy itself can cause a false positive HIV test. Her first

though was of her unborn baby. Hafford was immediately referred to

an HIV/AIDS specialist, Dr. Edwin Thorpe, who happened to be one of

the principal investigators recruiting patients for a clinical trial

at the University of Tennessee Medical Group that was sponsored by

the Division of AIDS (DAIDS)—the chief branch of HIV/AIDS research

within the National Institutes of Health.

 

The objective of the trial, PACTG 1022, was to compare

the " treatment-limiting toxicities " of two anti-HIV drug regimens.

The core drugs being compared were nelfinavir (trade name Viracept)

and nevirapine (trade name Viramune). To that regimen, in each arm,

two more drugs were added—zidovudine (AZT) and lamivudine (Epivir) in

a branded combination called Combivir. PACTG 1022 was a " safety "

trial as well as an efficacy trial, which means that pregnant women

were being used as research subjects to investigative " safety " and

yet the trial was probing the outer limits of bearable toxicity.

Given the reigning beliefs about HIV's pathogenicity, such trials are

fairly commonplace, especially in the post-1994 era, when AZT was

hailed for cutting transmission rates from mother to child.

 

The goal of PACTG 1022 was to recruit at least 440

pregnant women across the nation, of which 15 were to be enrolled in

the University of Tennessee Medical Group. The plan was to assign

the study's participants to one of two groups, with each receiving

three HIV drugs, starting as early as ten weeks of gestation. Of the

four drugs in this study, three belong to the FDA's category " C, "

which means that safety to either mother or fetus has not been

adequately established.

 

Joyce Ann Hafford was thirty-three years old and had

always been healthy. She showed no signs of any of the clinical

markers associated with AIDS—her CD4 counts, which measure the

lymphocytes that are used to indicate how strong a person's immune

system is, and which HIV is believed to slowly corrode, were in the

normal range, and she felt fine. In early June 2003, she was

enrolled in the trial and on June 18 took her first doses of the

drugs. " She felt very sick right away, " recalls her older sister,

Rubbie King. " Within seventy-two hours, she had a very bad rash,

welts all over her face, hands, and arms. That was the first sign

that there was a problem. I told her to call her doctor and she did,

but they just told her to put hydrocortisone cream on it. I later

learned that a rash is a very bad sign, but they didn't seem alarmed

at all. "

 

Hafford was on the drug regimen for thirty-eight

days. " Her health started to deteriorate from the moment she went on

the drugs, " says King. " She was always in pain, constantly throwing

up, and finally she got to the point where all she could do was lie

down. " The sisters kept the news of Hafford's HIV test and of the

trial itself from their mother, and Hafford herself attributed her

sickness and nausea to being pregnant. She was a cheerful person, a

non-complainer, and was convinced that she was lucky to have gotten

into this trial. " She said to me, `Nell'—that's what she called me—

`I have got to get through this. I can't let my baby get this

virus.' I said, `Well, I understand that, but you're awful sick.'

But she never expressed any fear because she though this was going to

keep her baby from being HIV positive. She didn't even know she was

in trouble. "

 

On July 16, at her scheduled exam, Hafford's doctor took

note of the rash, which was " pruritic and macular-papular, " and also

noted that she was suffering hyperpigmentation, as well as ongoing

nausea, pain, and vomiting. By this time all she could keep down

were cans of Ensure. Her blood was drawn for lab tests, but she was

not taken off the study drugs, according to legal documents and

internal NIH memos.

 

Eight days later, Hafford went to the Regional Medical

Center " fully symptomatic, " with what legal documents characterize as

including: " yellow eyes, thirst, darkening of her arms, tiredness,

and nausea without vomiting. " She also had a rapid heartbeat and

difficulty breathing. Labs were drawn, and she was sent home, still

on the drugs. The next day, July 25, Hafford was summoned back to

the hospital after her lab reports from nine days earlier were

finally reviewed. She was admitted to the hospital's ICU with " acute

and sub-acute necrosis of the liver, secondary to drug toxicity,

acute renal failure, anemia, septicemia, premature separation of the

placenta, " and threatened " premature labor. " She was finally taken

off the drugs but was already losing consciousness. Hafford's baby,

Sterling, was delivered by C-section on July 29, and she remained

conscious long enough not to hold him but at least to see him and

learn that she'd had a boy. " We joked about it a little, when she

was still coming in and out consciousness in ICU, " Rubbie

recalls. " I said to her, `You talked about me so much when you were

pregnant that the baby looks just like me.' " Hafford's last words

were a request to be put on a breathing tube. " She said she thought

a breathing tube might help her, " says Rubbie. " That was the last

conversation I had with my sister. " In the early morning hours of

August 1, Rubber and her mother got a call to come to the hospital,

because doctors had lost Hafford's pulse. Jermal was sleeping, and

Rubbie woke her own daughter and instructed her not to tell Jermal

anything yet. They went to the hospital, and had been there about

ten minutes when Joyce Ann died.

 

Rubbie recalls that the hospital staff said they would

clean her up and then let them sit with her. She also remembered a

doctor who asked for their home phone numbers and muttered, " You got

a lawsuit. " (That person has not resurfaced.) They hadn't been

sitting with Hafford's body long when a hospital official came in and

asked the family whether they wanted an autopsy performed. " We said

yes, we sure do, " she says. The hospital official said it would have

to be at their expense—at a cost of $3,000. " We said, `We don't have

$3,000.' My sister didn't have any life insurance or anything, " says

Rubbie. " She had state health care coverage, and we were worried

about how to get the money together to bury her. " There was a liver

biopsy, however, which revealed, according to internal communiqués of

DAIDS staff, that Hafford had died of liver failure brought on by

nevirapine toxicity.

 

And what was the family told about the cause of Hafford's

death? " How did they put it? " Rubbie answers, carefully. " They told

us how safe the drug was; they never attributed her death to the drug

itself, at all. They said that her disease, AIDS, must have

progressed rapidly. " But Joyce Ann Hafford never had AIDS, or

anything even on the diagnostic scale of AIDS. " I told my mom when

we were walking out of there that morning, " Rubbie recalls, " I

said, `Something is wrong.' She said, `What do you mean?' I

said, `On the one hand they're telling us this drug is so safe, on

the other hand they're telling us they're going to monitor the other

patients more closely. If her disease was progressing, they could

have changed the medication.' I knew something was wrong with their

story, but I just could not put my finger on what it was. "

 

When they got home that morning, they broke the news to

Jermal. " I think he cried the whole day when we told him, " Rubbie

recalls. " My mom had tried to prepare him. She said, `You know,

Jermal, my mom died when I was very young,' but he was just

devastated. They were like two peas in a pod those two. You could

never separate them. " Later on, Jermal became consumed with worry

about how they would bury his mother, for which they had no funds and

insurance. The community pitched in, and Hafford was buried. " I

haven't even been able to go back to her grave since she passed, "

says Rubbie.

 

 

 

[...]

 

 

AIDS GATE

For a detailed, referenced and easy to read summary of what's wrong

with the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, check out the review copies of two new

articles by investigative journalist Janine Roberts. On a 1977

assignment for BBC Channel 4, Roberts began tracing the origins of

AIDS research, never imagining for a moment she would " uncover a

quagmire of flawed, illogical science and serious, unreported fraud " .

 

Roberts' chronicles her journey of discovery in " HIV Gate " ,

http://www.sparks-of-light.org/HIVGATE%20-%20review%20copy.pdf a

forty page report that examines and dissects original claims about

the virus, and goes on to tackle some of the questions that

information raises in " AIDS Gate " http://www.sparks-of-

light.org/AIDSGATE%20-%20what%20caused%20AIDS%20if%20not%20HIV.pdf

another engaging and well-referenced work.

 

Beyond AP Headlines with Liam Scheff

Exclusive Interview with NIH Whistleblower

 

Fiercely independent journalist Liam Scheff shares a new take on the

widely reported story of Dr Jonathan Fishbein, the federal employee

who pointed out egregious misconduct in government AIDS research and

paid a price for his integrity. Fishbein discusses the controversial

African AIDS drug trials he exposed, his firing, his eventual

reinstatement, and how medical ethics and the public trust are

violated when profit and politics rule.

 

Click here to read " The Good Man at the NIH "

http://liam.gnn.tv/articles/2058/Exclusive_The_Good_Man_at_the_NIH

one of many powerful and informative AIDS-related articles by Scheff

found at the GNN web site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Media Campaign for HIV Tests

 

 

By Liam Scheff | March 12, 2005

 

Liam Scheff is an investigative journalist whose research was the

basis for the 2004 BBC documentary, " Guinea Pig Kids, " about the

forced use of experimental AIDS drugs in a New York City orphanage.

His email address is: liamscheff and his website can be

found here: http://liamscheff.com/

 

As a journalist who writes about AIDS, I am endlessly amazed by the

difference between the public and the private face of HIV; between

what the public is told and what's explained in the medical

literature. The public face of HIV is well-known: HIV is a sexually-

transmitted virus that particularly preys on gay men, African-

Americans, drug users, and just about all of Africa, although we're

all at risk. We're encouraged to be tested, because, as the MTV ads

say, " knowing is beautiful. " We also know that AIDS drugs are all

that's stopping the entire African continent from falling into the

sea.

 

The medical literature spells it out quite differently. The journals

that review HIV tests, drugs and patients, as well as the

instructional material from medical schools, the Centers for Disease

Control (CDC) and HIV-test manufacturers, will agree with the public

perception in the large print. But when you get past the titles,

they'll tell you, unabashedly, that HIV tests are not standardized;

that they're arbitrarily interpreted; that HIV is not required for

AIDS; and finally, that the term HIV does not describe a single

entity, but instead describes a collection of non-specific, cross-

reactive cellular material.

 

That's quite a difference.

 

The popular view of AIDS is held up by concerned people desperate to

help the millions of Africans stricken with AIDS, the same disease

that first afflicted young gay American men in the 1980s. The medical

literature differs on this point. It says that AIDS in Africa has

always been diagnosed differently than AIDS in the U.S.

 

The Bangui Definition of AIDS

 

In 1985, the World Health Organization called a meeting in Bangui,

the capital of the Central African Republic, to define African AIDS.

The meeting was presided over by CDC official Joseph McCormick. He

wrote about it in his book " Level 4 Virus hunters of the CDC, "

saying, " If I could get everyone at the WHO meeting in Bangui to

agree on a single, simple definition of what an AIDS case was in

Africa, then, imperfect as the definition might be, we could actually

start counting the cases... " The result was that African AIDS would

be defined by physical symptoms: fever, diarrhea, weight loss and

coughing or itching. ( " AIDS in Africa: an epidemiological paradigm. "

Science, 1986).

 

In Sub-Saharan Africa, about 60 percent of the population lives and

dies without safe drinking water, adequate food or basic sanitation.

A September, 2003 report in the Ugandan Daily " New Vision " outlined

the situation in Kampala, a city of approximately 1.3 million

inhabitants, which, like most tropical countries, experiences

seasonal flooding. The report describes " heaps of unclaimed garbage "

among the crowded houses in the flood zones and " countless pools of

water [that] provide a breeding ground for mosquitoes and create a

dirty environment that favors cholera. "

 

" [L]atrines are built above water streams. During rains the area

residents usually open a hole to release feces from the latrines. The

rain then washes away the feces to streams, from where the [area

residents] fetch water. However, not many people have access to

toilet facilities. Some defecate in polythene bags, which they throw

into the stream. " They call these, " flying toilets. "

 

The state-run Ugandan National Water and Sewerage Corporation states

that currently 55 percent of Kampala is provided

 

with treated water, and only 8 percent with sewage reclamation.

 

Most rural villages are without any sanitary water source. People

wash clothes, bathe and dump untreated waste up and down stream from

where water is drawn. Watering holes are shared with animal

populations, which drink, bathe, urinate and defecate at the water

source. Unmanaged human waste pollutes water with infectious and

often deadly bacteria. Stagnant water breeds mosquitoes, which bring

malaria. Infectious diarrhea, dysentery, cholera, TB, malaria and

famine are the top killers in Africa. But in 1985, these conditions

defined AIDS.

 

Distortion By Omission

 

The public service announcements that run on VH1 and MTV, informing

us of the millions of infected, always fail to mention this. I don't

know what we're supposed to do with the information that 40 million

people are dying and nothing can be done. I wonder why we wouldn't be

interested in building wells and providing clean water and sewage

systems for Africans. Given our great concern, it would seem foolish

not to immediately begin the " clean water for Africa " campaign. But

I've never heard such a thing mentioned.

 

The U.N. recommendations for Africa actually demand the opposite—

" billions of dollars " taken out of " social funds, education and

health projects, infrastructure [and] rural development "

and " redirected " into sex education (UNAIDS, 1999). No clean water,

but plenty of condoms.

 

I have, however, felt the push to get AIDS drugs to Africans. Drugs

like AZT and Nevirapine are supposed to stop the spread of HIV,

especially in pregnant women. AZT and Nevirapine also terminate life.

The medical literature and warning labels list the side effects:

blood cell destruction, birth defects, bone-marrow death, spontaneous

abortion, organ failure, and fatal skin rot. The package inserts also

state that the drugs don't " stop HIV or prevent AIDS illnesses. "

 

Currently MTV, Black Entertainment Television and VH1 are

running " Know HIV/AIDS " advertisements of handsome young couples,

black and white, touching, caressing, sensually, warming up to love-

making. The camera moves over their bodies, hands, necks, mouth,

back, legs and arms and we see a small butterfly bandage over their

inner elbows, where they've given blood for an HIV test. The

announcer says, " Knowing is beautiful. Get tested. "

 

Unreliable Tests

 

A September 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article considered

the " beauty " of testing. It told the story of 59 year-old veteran Jim

Malone, who'd been told in 1996 that he was HIV positive. His health

was diagnosed as " very poor. " He was classified as " permanently

disabled and unable to work or participate in any stressful situation

whatsoever. "

 

In 2004, his doctor sent him a note to tell him he was actually

negative. He had tested positive at one hospital, and negative at

another. Nobody asked why the second test was more accurate than the

first (This was the protocol at the Veteran's Hospital). Having been

falsely diagnosed and spending nearly a decade waiting, expecting to

die, Malone said, " I would tell people to get not just one HIV test,

but multiple tests. I would say test, test and retest. "

 

In the article, AIDS experts assured the public that the story

was " extraordinarily rare. " But the medical literature differs

significantly.

 

The Numbers

 

In 1985, at the beginning of HIV testing, it was known that " 68% to

89% of all repeatedly reactive ELISA (HIV antibody) tests [were]

likely to represent false positive results. " (New England Journal of

Medicine. 1985).

 

In 1992, the Lancet reported ( " HIV Screening in Russia " ) that for 66

true positives, there were 30,000 false positives. And in pregnant

women, " there were 8,000 false positives for 6 confirmations. "

 

In September 2000, the Archives of Family Medicine stated that the

more women we test, the greater " the proportion of false-positive and

ambiguous (indeterminate) test results. "

 

The tests described above are standard HIV tests, the kind promoted

in the ads. Their technical name is ELISA or EIA (Enzyme-linked

Immuno-sorbant Assay). They are antibody tests. The tests contain

proteins that react with antibodies in your blood.

 

False Positives

 

In the U.S., you're tested with an ELISA first. If your blood reacts,

you'll be tested again, with another ELISA. Why is the second more

accurate than the first? That's just the protocol. If you have a

reaction on the second ELISA, you'll be confirmed with a third

antibody test, called the Western Blot. But that's here in America.

In some countries, one ELISA is all you get.

 

It is precisely because HIV tests are antibody tests, that they

produce so many false-positive results. All antibodies tend to cross-

react. We produce anti-bodies all the time, in response to stress,

malnutrition, illness, drug use, vaccination, foods we eat, a cut, a

cold, even pregnancy. These antibodies are known to make HIV tests

come up as positive.

 

The medical literature lists dozens of reasons for positive HIV test

results: " transfusions, transplantation, or pregnancy, autoimmune

disorders, malignancies, alcoholic liver disease, or for reasons that

are un-clear... " (Archives of Family Medicine. Sept/Oct. 2000).

 

" [L]iver diseases, parenteral substance abuse, hemodialysis, or

vaccinations for hepatitis B, rabies, or influenza... " (Archives of

Internal Medicine, August, 2000).

 

The same is true for the confirmatory test the Western Blot. Causes

of indeterminate Western Blots include: " lymphoma, multiple

sclerosis, injection drug use, liver disease, or autoimmune

disorders. Also, there appear to be healthy individuals with

antibodies that cross-react.... " (ibid).

 

Pregnancy is consistently listed as a cause of positive test results,

even by the test manufacturers. " [False positives can be caused by]

prior pregnancy, blood transfusions... and other potential

nonspecific reactions. " (Vironostika HIV Test, 2003).

 

Inflated Africa Numbers

 

This is significant in Africa, because HIV estimates for African

nations are drawn almost exclusively from testing done on groups of

pregnant women.

 

In Zimbabwe last year, the rate of HIV infection among young women

decreased remarkably, from 32.5 to 6 percent. A drop of 81 percent

overnight. UNICEF's Swaziland representative, Dr. Alan Brody, told

the press that, " The problem is that all the sero-surveillance data

came from pregnant women, and estimates for other demographics was

based on that. " (PLUS News, August, 2004).

 

Flawed Samples

 

When these pregnant young women are tested, they're often tested for

other illnesses, like syphilis, at the same time. There's no concern

for cross-reactivity or false-positives in this group, and no repeat

testing. One ELISA on one girl, and 32.5 percent of the population is

suddenly HIV positive.

 

The June 20, 2004 Boston Globe reported that " the current estimate of

40 million people living with the AIDS virus worldwide is inflated by

25 percent to 50 percent. " It said that HIV estimates for entire

countries have, for over a decade, been taken from " blood samples

from pregnant women at prenatal clinics. "

 

But numbers about " AIDS deaths, AIDS orphans, numbers of people

needing antiretroviral treatment, and the average life expectancy "

are all taken from that one test.

 

I've certainly never seen this in a VH1 ad.

 

At present there are about 6 dozen reasons given in the literature

why the tests come up positive. In fact, the medical literature

states that there is simply no way of knowing if any HIV test is

truly positive or negative:

 

" [F]alse-positive reactions have been observed with every single HIV-

1 protein, recombinant or authentic. " (Clinical Chemistry. 37;

1991). " Thus, it may be impossible to relate an antibody response

specifically to HIV-1 infection. " (Medicine International. 1988).

 

Ambiguous Results

 

And even if you believe the reaction is not a false positive, " the

test does not indicate whether the person currently harbors the

virus. " (Science. November, 1999).

 

The test manufacturers state that after the antibody reaction occurs,

the tests have to be " interpreted. " There is no strict or clear

definition of HIV positive or negative. There's just the antibody

reaction. The reaction is colored by an enzyme, and read by a machine

called a spectro-photometer.

 

The machine grades the reactions according to their strength (but not

specificity), above and below a cut-off. If you test above the cut-

off, you're positive; if you test below it, you're negative. So what

determines the all-important cut-off? From The CDC's instructional

material: " Establishing the cutoff value to define a positive test

result from a negative one is somewhat arbitrary. " (CDC, 2003)

 

The University of Vermont Medical School agrees: " Where a cutoff is

drawn to determine a diagnostic test result may be somewhat

arbitrary….Where would the director of the Blood Bank who is

screening donated blood for HIV antibody want to put the cut-off?...

(UVM: " Diagnostic Testing for HIV Infection " ).

 

Testing the Tests

 

A 1995 study comparing four major brands of HIV tests found that they

all had different cut-off points, and as a result, gave different

test results for the same sample: " [C]ut-off ratios do not correlate

for any of the investigated ELISA pairs, " and one brand's cut-off

point had " no predictive value " for any other. (INCQS-DSH, Brazil

1995).

 

In the UK, if you get through two ELISA tests, you're positive. In

America, you get a third and final test to confirm the first two. The

test is called the Western Blot. It uses the same proteins, laid out

differently. Same proteins, same nonspecific reactions. But this time

it's read as lines on a page, not a color change. Which lines are HIV

positive? That depends on where you are, what lab you're in and what

kit they're using.

 

Different Standards

 

A 1993 review in Bio/Technology reported that the FDA, the

CDC/Department of Defense and the Red Cross all interpret WB's

differently, and further noted, " All the other major USA laboratories

for HIV testing have their own criteria. "

 

The medical literature adds something truly astounding to all of

this. It says that the reason HIV tests are so non-specific and need

to be interpreted is because there is " no virologic gold standard "

for HIV tests.

 

The meaning of this statement, from both the medical and social

perspective, is profound. The " virologic gold standard " is the

isolated virus that the doctors claim to be identifying, indirectly,

with the test.

 

Antibody tests always have some cross-reaction, because antibodies

aren't specific. The way to validate a test is to go find the virus

in the patient's blood.

 

You take the blood, spin it in a centrifuge, and end up with millions

of little virus particles, which you can easily photograph under a

microscope. You can disassemble the virus, measure the weight of its

proteins, and map its genetic structure. That's the virologic gold

standard. For some reason, HIV tests have none.

 

In 1987, the New England Journal of Medicine stated that " The meaning

of positive tests will depend on the joint [ELISA/WB] false positive

rate. Because we lack a gold standard, we do not know what that rate

is now. "

 

No Recognized Standard

 

In 1996, JAMA reported: " the diagnosis of HIV infection in infants is

particularly difficult because there is no reference or 'gold

standard' test that determines unequivocally the true infection

status of the patient. "

 

In 1997, Abbott laboratories, the world leader in HIV-test production

stated: " At present there is no recognized standard for establishing

the presence or absence of HIV antibody in human blood. "

 

In 2000 the Journal AIDS reported that " 2.9% to 12.3% " of women in a

study tested positive, " depending on the test used, " but " since there

is no established gold standard test, it is unclear which of these

two proportions is the best estimate of the real prevalence rate… "

 

If we had a virologic gold standard, HIV testing would be easy and

accurate. You could spin the patient's blood in a centrifuge and find

the particle. They don't do this, and they're saying privately, in

the medical journals, that they can't.

 

That's why tests are determined through algorithms above or below

sliding cut-offs; estimated from pregnant girls, then projected and

redacted overnight.

 

By repeating, again and again in the medical literature that there's

no virologic gold standard, the world's top AIDS researchers are

saying that what we're calling HIV isn't a single entity, but a

collection of cross-reactive proteins and unidentified genetic

material.

 

AIDS Without HIV

 

But the fact is, you don't need to test HIV positive to be an AIDS

patient. You don't even have to be sick.

 

In 1993, the CDC added " Idiopathic CD4 Lymphocytopenia " to the AIDS

category. What does it mean? Non-HIV AIDS.

 

In 1993, the CDC also made " no-illness AIDS " a category. If you

tested positive, but weren't sick, you could be given an AIDS

diagnosis. By 1997, the healthy AIDS group accounted for 2/3rds of

all U.S. AIDS patients. (That's also the last year they reported

those numbers).

 

In Africa, HIV status is irrelevant. Even if you test negative, you

can be called an AIDS patient:

 

From a study in Ghana: " Our attention is now focused on the

considerably large number (59%) of the seronegative (HIV-negative)

group who were clinically diagnosed as having AIDS. All the patients

had three major signs: weight loss, prolonged diarrhea, and chronic

fever. " (Lancet. October, 1992)

 

And from across Africa: " 2215 out of 4383 (50.0%) African AIDS

patients from Abidjan, Ivory Coast, Lusaka, Zambia, and Kinshasa,

Zaire, were HIV-antibody negative. " (British Medical Journal, 1991)

 

The terms, " Non-HIV AIDS, " " HIV-negative AIDS, " and " No Virologic

Gold standard, are never seen in an HIV ad. But even if you do

test " repeatedly " positive, the manu-facturers say that " the risk of

an asymptomatic [not sick] person developing AIDS or an AIDS-related

condition is not known. " (Abbott Laboratories HIV Test, 1997).

 

Warning Label Needed

 

If commerce laws were applied equally, HIV tests would have to bear a

disclaimer, just like cigarettes:

 

" Warning: This test will not tell you if you're infected with a

virus. It may confirm that you are pregnant or have used drugs or

alcohol, or that you've been vaccinated; that you have a cold, liver

disease, arthritis, or are stressed, poor, hungry or tired. Or that

you're African. It will not tell you if you're going to live or die;

in fact, we really don't know what testing positive, or negative,

means at all. "

 

==

 

 

VIRUSMYTH DISCUSSION FORUM ON DELPHI

http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous

 

REFUSE AND RESIST THE INFECTIOUS MYTH-CONCEPTION!

 

Healthfully and Hopefully,

 

Kelly Jon Landis

1317 Euclid St., #9

Santa Monica, CA 90404

kjlandis

310-663-3895 [cell]