Re: We repeat: “Where is the proof for HIV purification by any method?" 30 June 2003
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
James Whitehead,
Disabled because of toxic prescribed "medicines" for "hiv".
London SW2 2 LA.,
Work with other "effected" people in trying to expose the "hiv/aids" myths

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: We repeat: “Where is the proof for HIV purification by any method?"

We repeat: “Where is the proof for HIV purification by any method?" 26 June 2003

Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Biophysicist Department of Medical Physics, Royal Perth Hospital, Western Australia, Valendar F Turner, John Papadimitriou, Barry Page, David Causer, Helman Alfonso Send response to journal: Re: We repeat: “Where is the proof for HIV purification by any method?"

Email Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, et al.: Barry.Page@health.wa.gov.au

We repeat: “Where is the proof for HIV purification by any method?”

In his rapid response entitled “If it’s Good Enough for RSV, Then it is Good Enough for HIV” (24 June 2003), Tony Floyd wrote:

“It has been posited [sic posted] above [presumably he is referring to our rapid response “Distinguishing between true and “official” HIV infection” 20 June 2003] that:

>an individual positive in New York City on the CDC criteria would not be positive in Sydney, Australia”.

He comments “How extraordinary”. We agree. It’s the same virus and the same test. Who would have ever thought travel or emigration could cure HIV infection? The HIV antibody test is the only test in the history of medicine whose results have one meaning in one country or laboratory and another in another country or laboratory. What is even more extraordinary is that this fact does not seem to worry the HIV experts.

Tony Floyd asks “Is there even one patient that you are aware of that this theory would apply to?”

This is not a theory. It is a conclusion based on published data. In a study entitled "False-Positive and Indeterminate Human Immunodeficiency Virus Test Results in Pregnant Women" published in 2000, the authors from the Departments of Paediatrics and Family Practice, University of Texas wrote: "Under no circumstances should a patient be informed that she is infected unless both the ELISA and WB test results are positive...Testing for HIV is an emotional experience. An HIV diagnosis may lead to depression, fear, anger and suicidal ideation. Family, friends and community may ostracise infected people, and relationships with spouses or partners may be jeopardised. An indeterminate result can cause the same problems if the physician misinterprets the result as being indicative of infection". (1) They also pointed out that "It is possible for serum to be positive by one set of criteria and indeterminate by another" (1).

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx In reply to:

"Tony Floyd asks “Is there even one patient that you are aware of that this theory would apply to?”

( yes several members of the group I attend are having contradictory results to this very day ukhivtreatmentdiscussionforum@yahoo.co.uk) and is Mr Tony Floyd not aware of the following study .

1: Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2002 Jan;9(1):160-3 Related Articles,Links

Indeterminate human immunodeficiency virus Western blot profiles in ethiopians with discordant screening-assay results.

Meles H, Wolday D, Fontanet A, Tsegaye A, Tilahun T, Aklilu M, Sanders E, De Wit TF.

Ethio-Netherlands AIDS Research Project, Ethiopian Health and Nutrition Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

"Between 1996 and 2000, a total of 12,124 specimens were tested for HIV-1 antibodies. Overall, 1,437 (11.9%) were positive for HIV-1 antibody. Ninety-one ( approximately 0.8%) gave equivocal results because of discordant results among the various screening assays and indeterminate WB profiles by the American Red Cross (ARC) criteria. Most (30.4%) of these indeterminate WB results were due to p24 reactivity. However, 12 samples (13.2%) displayed reactivity to p24 and gp41 or to p24 and gp120/160 proteins (positive by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] criteria).

Only two samples (2.2%) were reactive to both env glycoproteins gp41 and gp120/160 (positive by the World Health Organization [WHO] criteria).

Of 31 WB assays initially indeterminate by the ARC criteria and with follow-up samples, 29 (93.5%) became negative when retested subsequently while 2 (6.5%) remained indeterminate for more than a year and were thus considered negative.

Using CDC and WHO criteria, 6 (19.4%) and 2 (6.5%), respectively, of these WB assays would have been considered falsely positive. "

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I have read rather alot of published studies that show that the different criteria's used to define a so-called "positive" Western Blot "hiv antibody test does have dramatic effects on the numbers being "diagnosed" and that it works both ways, vice verca "false-positive"/ "false-negative". Is 19.4% rare ? It is clear that these practices ( widley varing criteria's)represent scientific nonsense at its worst. Please remember that the above percentages represent real people being "diagnosed" or "mis-diagnosed" as the case really is.

Thats before we get onto to the question of how can a test kit (Western Blot "hiv" antibody test kit) be specific to "hiv" when upto 30% of so-called "negative" people have one, two or more supposedly "hiv" specific bands detectable on Western Blot "hiv" antibody test kits ? Does that not strongley indicate that the bands are not specific to "hiv" at all.

By the way the Western blot has been effectlively banned from use in diagnostic settings in England and Wales since 1992 by the UKPHLS. Dr Phillip Mortimors views on this are rather interesting.

Competing interests:   A British Subject "diagnosed" with "hiv" 15 years ago and "aids" in 1998, currently boycotting the NHS and all British doctors. Not sponsored by anybody.