Repeat, the "HIV" antibody tests are not diagnostic 20 October 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos,
Department of Medical Physics, Royal Perth Hospital, Western Australia, 6001,
Valendar F Turner, John Papadimitriou, Barry Page, David Causer, Helman Alfonso, Sam Mhlongo, Todd Miller, Christian Fiala

Send response to journal:
Re: Repeat, the "HIV" antibody tests are not diagnostic

Repeat, the "HIV" antibody tests are not diagnostic

In our rapid response: "The "HIV" antibody tests are not diagnostic", 14 October, we wrote: "(ii) In 1973 the evidence showed that maternal antibody in offspring did not persist beyond nine months.2 In 1993, Parekh3 from the CDC developed "a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)-specific 1gG-Fc capture enzyme immunoassay (1gG-CEIA) to decide the dynamics of HIV-1 maternal antibody decay and de novo synthesis of HIV-1 antibodies in infants". He and his colleagues reported "a rapid decay" of maternal HIV antibody "with decline to background levels by 6 months (T1/2 [half-life] = 28-30 days)", a result identical to that reported two decades earlier. In other words, if the "HIV" antibody test is specific, any child who has a positive "HIV" antibody test beyond 9 months should remain positive for the remainder of his/her life.

In the European Collaborative Study, the only study providing a detailed analysis of post partum loss of infant seropositivity, approximately 23% of children became seronegative between birth and 9 months. However, 59% became seronegative between 9 and 22 months.

Repeat, since the latter cannot be due to loss of maternal antibodies, the only explanation is that either: (i) the antibody test is non specific, or (ii) children managed to clear "HIV" infection without treatment. If the test is non-specific, how can one be certain that the remaining 18% of children will not also serorevert after 22 months? If the test is non-specific in 59% of children one must also question whether such a test can be "extraordinarily accurate""4 when applied to the diagnosis of HIV infection of mothers. Or in fathers and the general population”.

In his rapid response: "Re: The "HIV" antibody tests are not diagnostic", 15 October, Nicholas Bennett wrote: "As regards the post regarding childhood diagnostics, the references the Perth Group used were specific to adults and clearly showed the diagnostic superiority of serology to nucleotide based tests. The fact that they choose to interpret the literature otherwise is not my concern - the spread of misinformation is."

Would Nicholas Bennett please answer the following questions:

1) Is it true that once infected with "HIV", always infected.

Yes or no

2) In 59% of infant seroreversions occurred after 9 months.

Yes or no

3) Infants seroreverting after 9 months cannot be doing so on the basis of loss of transplacentally transferred maternal antibodies.

Yes or no

4) Hence the antibodies that are disappearing must have been generated by the infant and not the mother.

Yes or no

5) If the antibodies are "HIV" specific they can only have been the result of "HIV" infection of the infant.

Yes or no

6) If yes to Q5 since the antibodies disappeared without specific antiretroviral therapy the infants themselves must have eliminated "HIV".

Yes or no

7) If no to Q5 then in at least 59% of infants the "HIV" antigens are reacting non-specifically with antibodies whose genesis cannot be "HIV" infection.

Yes or no

8) "HIV" antibody tests cannot distinguish between sera obtained from infants, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins or indeed any other person.

Yes or no

9) If the "HIV" antibody tests are non-specific in 59% of infants they may also be non-specific in mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins or indeed any other person.

Yes or no

10) The HIV theory or AIDS is predicated on the correlation between a positive antibody test and the presence or development of AIDS defining diseases.

Yes or no

11) If the antibodies are not “HIV” specific in 59% of infants does not this mean that the “HIV” theory of AIDS cannot be upheld.

Yes or no

We would be most grateful if Nicholas Bennett could confine his answers to the questions asked and respond with concise, relevant and documented evidence.


1. Mother-to-child transmission of HIV infection. The European Collaborative Study.

Lancet 1988: ii:1039-43

Note: The graph showing the European study data can be seen at

The Stiehm graph can be seen on page 45 of the Perth Group monograph on Mother to Child Transmission

Competing interests: None declared