Send response to journal:
Christopher Noble continues to makes the naive assumption that a positive
antibody test is synonymous with infection by 'HIV'. Perhaps he could sell to
doctors his magic antibody decoder ring for use as a gold standard (since one
does not exist) so doctors can once and for all know
which antibodies reactive in the Western Blot are 'HIV' antibodies, and which
are cross-reactive ones; and not only this, but his decoder ring could divine
which band patterns are the result of 'true' infection, and which are simply
Although to his credit he does say that a positive antibody test does correlate with the development of the clinical syndrome AIDS. This is no great surprise when one considers these tests are calibrated against the clinical syndrome AIDS, and NOT 'HIV'. In other words, AIDS is the gold standards against which the 'HIV' antibody tests have been 'validated'. The dog-chasing-its-tail reasoning is indicated on the Abbot ELISA test kit insert, saying, 'Specificity is based on testing of random blood donors and hospitalized patient populations', who are ASSUMED to be negative, and not based on the actual presence or absence of 'HIV' itself (1). One must wonder why this is.
As I said in my previous post, 'If one considers the wide array of conditions known to cause the 'HIV' tests to be positive, this is no great mystery (2).' Our dispute does not surround the antibody test and its association with AIDS in those who belong to a risk group, but rather the claim made that it proves 'HIV' infection. Since it's already known that a positive antibody test imparts to a person (within in a risk group) an increased risk of death from diseases classified as 'AIDS' (and even from non-AIDS defining illnesses ), then showing that within this group decreased glutathione levels predict morbidity and mortality doesn't prove 'HIV' is the causal factor. This is why the Stanford researchers wrote, 'low GSH levels predict poor survival in otherwise indistinguishable HIV-infected subjects." Besides, a person who developed illness as a result of depleted glutathione levels, but has a negative antibody test wouldn't, by defintion, be considered an 'AIDS patient'. It's a contrivance. Illness without a positive test is simply that illness.
As I also mentioned in my previous post, those in the 'HIV' negative control group who had similar GSH levels would not have had the bias towards increased mortality created by taking 'antiretroviral' (AZT, etc.) medications. One could say a positive 'HIV' test predicts the likelihood of poisoning by AZT (and isn't it interesting that in those 'small groups of non-progressors' a common factor they share is avoidance of antiretrovirals?).
This raises the question why Christopher Noble continues to evade my questions regarding the usage of AZT in groups of people within whom depletion of glutathione is a predictor of illness and death. For now I'll remove the confounding condition of insufficient triphosphorylation as part of the question to make it easier for him to answer this query.
Competing interests: None declared