ImmunaMax
Research Review
A competent immune system is critical to good health. However, research
continues to show that stress, and many other factors, can weaken the immune
system and the body’s ability to protect itself. Combine today’s weakened
immune systems with more exposure to resistant bugs and you realize that
immune support is a priority health need for us. Now, there is a means of
providing direct support of the immune system with ImmunaMax, a natural
source of immuno-proteins. ImmunaMax is very rich in immuno-globulins.

The identification and understanding of the importance of immunoglobulin has
been known for decades, however it has only been available in a dairy
product called bovine colostrum. Today, a new, improved source of bovine
immunoglobulin is available in a product called ImmunaMax. ImmunaMax
provides high levels of immuno-globulin without the milk fat, lactose and
casein found in colostrum. And, ImmunaMax is in generous supply at a price
that the consumer can afford. ImmunaMax is completely non-dairy as well as
rBST and BSE free. Compare ImmunaMax to colostrum in the table and see why
ImmunaMax is the better choice for immune support.

Immunoglobulin (IgG, IgM, IgA, IgE, and IgD)

lmmunoglobulins, of which there are five classes with different functions,
are specialized proteins produced by the host’s immune system. IgG, IgM, and
IgA are the most common immunoglobulins found in the body. They serve as the
primary specific defense against invasion by bacteria, viruses, and fungi.
lmmunoglobulins are circulated in the body through serum which provides
protection at sites with the greatest exposure to the environment. Immune
cells actively produce and secrete immunoglobulin, about 5 g per day, into
saliva and the digestive tract to protect the body against this route of
invasion. Immuno-globulin is also the primary protective component of breast
milk, which provides about 500 mg IgA per day to an infant. People who are
born with (or develop) an inability to produce immunoglobulin suffer from
chronic infections and other diseases related to an unhealthy immune system.
Immunoglobulin also plays a central role in regulating and modulating the
immune response.

Most people realize that a weakened immune system leads to illness. Many
people may not realize that the immune system itself, when (over)
stimulated, leads to the aches and pains, reduced appetite, tiredness, and
fever associated with an infection. lmmunoglobulin is an important modulator
of the immune response, reducing the symptoms associated with an immune
system challenge. Immunoglobulin is simply nature’s way of defending the
host and harnessing the power of the immune response.

Transferrin
Transferrin is a term that describes a family of iron-binding proteins that
includes lactoferrin. The normal function of transferrin is to transport
iron from the digestive tract to bone marrow for use in the production of
red blood cells. However, transferrin is also considered an acute phase
protein, a protein produced in response to infection. Most bacteria require
iron for growth so the body uses transferrin during an immune response to
regulate and reduce the amount of free iron available to the invading
pathogen. Transferrin, like lactoferrin, is a natural bacteriostatic protein
because of its ability to bind iron.

Growth Factors
TGF and IGF-I are two factors known to promote cell proliferation and
differentiation. These natural factors exert their mitogenic and growth-
promoting effects through their presence in milk, colostrum and serum. These
factors have also been shown to be involved in the restitution of cells
damaged in the digestive tract. The digestive tract is a highly metabolic
system, accounting for 30-40% of the body’s protein requirement. The proper
combination of growth factors is thought to play an important role in
digestive health and nutrient utilization. An increase in the level of IGF-I
in serum has been associated with increases in lean tissue mass and greater
protein efficiency. Although these factors are not thought to be absorbed
when administered orally, improvements in lean tissue mass and protein
efficiency have been reported with the administration of colostrum or serum
(which contains these factors) when compared to whey or soy protein. In
addition, TGF is known to stimulate the secretion of IgA. The levels and
balance of these factors is important for long-term use. The levels and
balance of these factors in ImmunaMax is similar to the level and balance
found in healthy individuals.

For more information:  r…@novaras.com

denialists’ faulty science, visit:
www.niaid.nih.gov/spotlight/hiv00/default.htm.

“These long-term nonprogressors [Hiv+ people who remained healthy] are a
heterogeneous group with respect to viral load and HIV-1 responses…none
had been treated with antiretroviral agents.”

AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses, 12: 585 (1996)
– Harrer, Thomas, et al, Aids Researchers

Most for the ‘AIDS’ fanatics on this board will pass, as hypochondria
positive, with flying colors.

If you test enough, you will find something wrong with you. Real or
hypothesis of some profit hungry drugs company.

Get real and live your life free of insane fears.

The ‘test’ of sanity is NOT testing, but enjoying life.

Licensed / Approved HIV, HTLV and Hepatitis Tests
http://www.fda.gov/cber/products/testkits.htm
http://google.fda.gov/search?client=FDA&site=FDA&restrict=&oe=&lr=&pr…

How a 99.99% Accurate Test Can Be Wrong Half the Time
By Christine Maggiore
 
“A new article in Popular Science explains how allegedly accurate HIV
tests can be dead wrong when performed on people with no risk factors…”
 
===
 
An article in the July 2002 issue of Popular Science magazine gives
readers some surprising food for thought: the allegedly accurate HIV tests
can be dead wrong when performed on people with no risk factors. Here’s
the text from page 78:
 
"HIV testing is 99.99 percent accurate, a doctor might tell his patient.
That suggests that if you receive a positive result, you almost certainly
have HIV. But this is not necessarily the case. The chance of a straight
man with no known risk factors contracting HIV is roughly one in 10,000.
That is also the rate at which an HIV test returns an incorrect result. So
if 10,000 men in this low-risk group get tested for HIV, an average one
positive will come back from the man with HIV, and another man will test
positive even though he is not infected. Thus, in our statistically
perfect world, only one of the two men who test positive actually has HIV.
50 percent of positive HIV tests in the low-risk group turn out to be
false."
 
The article incorrectly assumes that HIV tests can diagnose HIV infection
and that the claimed accuracy rate of 99.99% has been established through
careful scientific studies. In fact, HIV tests have not been approved by
the US Food and Drug Administration for use in diagnosing actual HIV
infection, and all claims of test accuracy are based on estimates and
assumptions.

CAN YOU REALLY TRUST THE "AIDS TEST"?

By Christine Johnson

HEAL Magazine 1995

The primary evidence offered to substantiate the hypothesis that HIV
causes AIDS is an epidemiological correlation
between HIV and AIDS. It is claimed that all AIDS patients are infected
with HIV, as demonstrated by positive HIV
antibody tests, and that a positive HIV antibody test means that a person
is infected with HIV.

First, it is impossible to claim that HIV has been present in all AIDS
cases. The CDC admits that 43,606 American AIDS
cases have never been tested for HIV. Using the Center for Disease
Control’s (CDC) statistics, Professor Peter Duesberg
of the University of California at Berkeley calculates an additional
18,666 have not been tested, totaling 62,272.[1] In Africa
virtually no one is tested. The resources for HIV antibody tests are
simply not available in most sub-Saharan African countries. Instead,
Africans are diagnosed with AIDS on the basis of a clinical case
definition [2] which consists of
cough, fever, persistent diarrhea, and weight loss of greater than 10% of
body weight. These identical symptoms can be
caused by any number of diseases endemic to African countries. In fact, on
the rare occasions when groups of African
"AIDS" patients have been tested, approximately half of them have been
found to be HIV negative.[3]

Even if all cases throughout the world had been tested and had been found
to be positive, this would still offer no proof that
AIDS patients are infected with HIV, since during the initial development
of HIV antibody tests (and even to this day), the
tests were never verified by an independent gold standard. A gold standard
means that it is necessary to correlate a
positive antibody test with findings of actual virus in the body of the
person being tested and a negative test with findings of
no virus in the body.

HIV antibody tests have been subjected to severe criticism by an
Australian research team headed by Dr. Eleni
Eleopulos [4] for a multitude of reasons. The most important is that an
antibody test is not valid unless it has been
authenticated by use of an independent gold standard which, for HIV
antibody tests, must be the presence of HIV
itself. Dr. Eleopulos’s team thoroughly searched the literature on
antibody testing and found that no researcher had
yet met the requirement of a gold standard. Thus, they conclude that the
relationship between a positive HIV antibody
test and HIV infection has not been substantiated.

The necessity for a proper gold standard cannot be emphasized too much.
Eleopulos explains: "The use of viral
isolation as an independent means of establishing the presence or absence
of the virus is technically known as a
gold standard, and is a quintessential element for the authentication of
any diagnostic test. Without a gold standard
the investigator is hopelessly disoriented since he does not have an
autonomous yardstick against which he can
appraise the test he is aspiring to develop."

Without a gold standard there is no way to be sure that a positive HIV
antibody test indicates HIV infection or what it
indicates. False positives due to cross-reactions have been
well-documented for dozens of different reasons. A crossreaction is when
the test finds an antibody to another microbe or even to some normal
cellular component and
registers it as an antibody to HIV.

Cross-reactions with non-HIV antibodies have been documented in the
presence of the following: any other retrovirus
besides HIV, the flu virus, common cold virus, herpes simplex-2 virus,
hepatitis B virus, all Mycobacterium bacterial
species (including tuberculosis, leprosy, and M. avium [MAC]);
vaccinations such as for flu or hepatitis B; pregnancy
or prior pregnancy, blood transfusions, hemophilia, blood clotting factor,
sperm, a highly oxidized physiological
condition (which occurs with extensive use of drugs or blood products);
autoimmune disorders such as lupus,
rheumatoid arthritis, and Sjogren’s syndrome; cancers such as multiple
myeloma; alcoholic hepatitis, alcoholism,
liver disease; naturally-occurring antibodies such as antibodies to
carbohydrate, nuclear antigens, human T-cells,
mitochondria, and cellular actin; tapeworms and other parasites; malaria,
malnutrition, and others.

The reason members of the AIDS risk groups (gay men, intravenous drug
users, hemophiliacs, and recipients of blood
transfusions) have high levels of positive HIV antibody tests is due to
the fact that all these groups are exposed to a
multitude of foreign antigens and infectious agents and thus have numerous
antibodies to many non-HIV antigens.
Because of these factors, it is to be expected that cross-reactivity with
the HIV antigens in the test kits would be the
rule rather than the exception in these groups. The same holds true for
Africans: Both ELISA and Western Blot tests
are nonspecific in African populations, meaning the tests cross-react with
antibodies to other diseases on such a
frequent basis as to make the results worthless for HIV detection.[5-9]

According to Langedijk, "[a]lmost all reactions, especially in low-risk
populations, represent false positive results."[10] Both on ELISA and
Western Blot. In the general population, it has been generally accepted by
mainstream AIDS
researchers that positive results are likely to be false positives. Many
articles have been written in the scientific
literature expressing concern about this problem.[11-13] As Germanson has
noted, "At some point of extremely low
disease prevalence, it is expected that the positive predictive value
(PPV) of the most powerful assay series will deteriorate to a sub-standard
level of
performance." A low PPV means that a positive result is not likely to
predict infection.

The mathematics of the relationship between test specificity, disease
prevalence, and positive predictive value
consistently predict that in low-prevalence populations almost all
positives are false positives. In the general
population, which the CDC estimates to have a prevalence of HIV infection
of 0.04%, using a test with a specificity of
99.9%, the result is that 71% of all positives will be false positives. At
a specificity of 98.6%, 97% will be false
positives. (Send a SASE to the author for a chart of these calculations.)

The above discussion only scratches the surface of what is wrong with HIV
antibody tests. It is not recommended by
this author to get tested for any reason; to do so is to open a Pandora’s
box of trouble.

References

1. Duesberg, P. 1993. "The HIV gap in national AIDS statistics."
Bio/Technolpgy.- 11:955-6.

2. Gilks, C. 199 1. ‘What use is a clinical case definition for AIDS in
Africa?’ BMJ. 303.1189-90.

3. Duesberg, P. 1992. AIDS acquired by drug consumption and other non
contagious risk factors. Pharmac. Ther.
12. 55:201-277.

4, Papadopulos-Eleopulos, E., Turner, V., Papadimitriou, J. 1993. Is a
positive Western Blot proof of HIV infection?
Bio/Technology— 11:696-707.

5. Hunsmann, G., Schneider, J, Wendler, I. et al. 1985. HTLV positivity in
Africans. Lancet. October 26, 1985.

6. AIDS vaccine efficacy trial sites selected by WHO. 1991. The Blue
Sheet. 34(43):1-3.

7. Weiss, R., Cheingsong-Popov, R., Clayden, S. et al. 1986. Lack of HTLVA
antibodies in Africans. Nature. 319:794795.

8. Biggar, R., Melbye, M., Sarin, P. et al. 1985. ELISA HTLV retrovirus
antibody reactivity associated with malaria
and immune complexes in healthy Aflicans. Lancet. ii:520-523.

9. Kashala, 0., Marlink, R., Ilunga, M. et al. 1994. Infection with human
immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV- 1) and
human T-cell lymphotropic viruses among leprosy patients and contacts:
correlation between HIV- 1 crossreactivity
and antibodies to lipoarabinomanna. J. Infec. Dis. 169:296-304.

10. Langedijk, J., Vos, W., Doornum, G, et al. 1992. Identification of
crossreactive epitopes recognized by HIV- 1
false-positive sera. AIDS. 6:1547-1548.

11. Weiss, R., Thier, S. 1988. HIV testing is the answer — what’s the
questiong NEJM 319:1010-1012. Meyer, K.,
Pauker, S. 1987. Screening for HIV: Can we afford the false positive rate?
 317:238-241.

13. Germanson, T. 1989. Screening for HIV: Can we afford the confusion of
the false positive rate? J. Clin. Epi.
42:1235-123

Reprinted from Credence Publications November 25, 2000,
http://www.creedence.org
Smart HIV Test is Dumb After All
By Steven Ransom
 
“When the gloss is stripped away, the “100% accuracy” confidently
trumpeted for the new Smart Test is completely untrue. As with any other
rapid test, it might show positive results on patients with other diseases
or with high amounts of non-specific antibodies…”
 
===
 
Inaccurate HIV Test Spells Potential Disaster for Argentina and South
Africa
 
A quick and easy HIV diagnostic tool known as the “Smart Test” is the
latest product being vigorously promoted by World Diagnostics Inc. The
company’s web page (http://www.worlddiagnostics.com/news_f.htm) includes
the following headlines: “WDI’s HIV Tests Approved by Argentine
Government” and “South African Government Validates HIV Rapid Test.”
 
“We anticipate that the [SA] business will add significantly to WDI’s
revenue and growth over the next twelve months… shipments are to begin in
October to supply more than 500 government-run clinics with the rapid HIV
diagnostics test… WDI’s rapid HIV test is a 100 percent positive
predictor,” reports Ken Peters, President and CEO of WDI.
 
Confident corporate statements, these may well be. Privately however, Dr
Martin Muy, the Technical Affairs Vice President of WDI, is not so
confident. And in a series of email correspondences, what he has admitted
to Credence personnel spells potential medical disaster for South Africa
and other recipient nations of the latest Smart Test. Before examining Dr
Muy’s statements in more detail, let us briefly examine the inherent
weakness fundamental to all HIV predictor kits. Let the reader be assured
that a medical background is not necessary in order to grasp the key
elements to the AIDS test controversy.
 
In no instance does any HIV test measure the presence of a virus. The test
measures only raised levels of antibody activity in the blood sample
supplied. Raised levels of antibody activity are a normal occurrence in
the blood, and indicate primarily a well-functioning immune system.
Scientific literature records in excess of 60 separate medical conditions
that can raise sufficient levels of antibody activity in the blood to
trigger a “false” positive reading. These separate conditions include flu,
flu injection, malaria, tetanus injection, Hepatitis A and B, Hepatitis
injections, renal failure, haemophilia (through the introduction of Factor
VIII into the bloodstream), organ transplant, alcohol and drug use, recent
viral infections and even pregnancy. These positive readings are then
misinterpreted by the AIDS orthodoxy as indicating the presence of HIV. As
a result of this misinterpretation, men, women and children across the
world are being wrongly as HIV positive.
 
Quite shockingly, the above anomalies are well known to the major
manufacturers of “HIV test kits,” and all leading brands carry with them a
statutory disclaimer. The Abbott Laboratories AXSYM ELISA test for
instance contains the following wording "At present, there is no
recognised standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies
to HIV-1 and HIV- 2 in human blood.”
 
To make matters worse, these manufacturers advise that confirmation of
their test can be arrived at only by employing at least two other
independent tests, and not their own. This is an excellent example of
passing the buck, transferring ultimate responsibility and potential
litigation difficulties onto a test product conveniently outside of their
own manufacturing stable. To compound the issue, the independent
“confirmatory” tests advised by these manufacturers all carry a similar
disclaimer. Thus, a test admitting that it cannot determine the presence
of HIV is being “corroborated” by two other equally imprecise antibody
detection tests. In simple terms, a positive reading from any of these
tests carries little or no diagnostic value. What comfort then for the
thousands upon thousands of individuals who have been diagnosed HIV
positive via these tests? Their lives have been quite needlessly ruined.
Those who are battling for these simple facts to reach the wider public
domain will know that the inaccurate nature of the HIV test represents
only a small proportion of the inconsistencies in the AIDS and HIV
debate—the global phenomenon that is increasingly becoming known as the
greatest medical fraud of the 20th and 21st centuries.
 
And in the case of World Diagnostics International, when the gloss is
stripped away, the “100% accuracy” it so confidently trumpets for its
Smart Test is completely untrue. WDI’s 100% accuracy statement was arrived
at by “confirming” their test with the Abbott Axsym system, the Pasteur
Sanofi ELISA system, and then by Western Blot analysis.
 
The Abbott Axsym system we already know about. With regard to the Pasteur
Sanofi product, a Mr Potter from Bio-Rad UK (a subsidiary of the
organisation which has since bought out Pasteur Sanofi) admitted that
illnesses such as malaria, typhoid and TB could show positive on their
tests. He admitted also that their kit should not be used as confirmation
of a positive result. Mr Potter further stated that as yet, no company has
any diagnostic tool that will accurately predict HIVpositive status.
Concerning the validity of the Western Blot test, head of the UK Public
Health Laboratory Services Dr Phillip Mortimer has admitted that this test
is not appropriate for use in confirmatory testing for HIV, and has
abandoned the use of Western Blot.
 
Considering these factors, and the extent to which WDI is now contributing
to world-wide HIV testing procedure, Credence Publications approached WDI
under the assumed name of “Protec Diagnostics,” and posed some delicate
questions with regard to the possibility of false HIV positives being
delivered by their Smart Test. Dr Muy is the Technical Affairs Vice
President of WDI, and a former Senior Product Development Manager for
PharmaCorp, and engaged previously by such companies as BPL (UK), Schering
Plough (USA), Ortman Biomedics (Switzerland) and Epitope (USA). Muy
admitted to us the possibility of false positives, stating “…the
disclaimer ‘false positive’ means that this rapid device—as with any other
rapid device in the market—might show a positive result on certain samples
coming from patients with other diseases, i.e, auto-immune diseases, or
with high amounts of non-specific antibodies as happens in some
diseases.”
 
When we asked how the WDI test could possibly be validated by tests that
in themselves were equally unspecific, Muy could offer no guarantees and
replied “I have to be honest with you; our rapid tests have the same
drawbacks as the ELISA tests.”
 
Dr. Martin Muy, Technical Affairs Vice President of WDI, admitted the
possibility of false positives, stating “…the disclaimer ‘false positive’
means that this rapid device—as with any other rapid device in the
market—might show a positive result on certain samples coming from
patients with other diseases, i.e, auto-immune diseases, or with high
amounts of non-specific antibodies as happens in some diseases.”
 
In their thousands, WDI tests are now headed for parts of the world where
the prevalent illnesses such as TB, malaria, cholera, poor sanitation and
poverty related disease all elicit high levels of antibody activity in the
bloodstream. The potential for misdiagnosis is rife. Simple medicines for
simple illnesses will be overlooked, as thousands are quite falsely
diagnosed HIV positive. These misdiagnosed unfortunates will then be fed
that country’s generic versions of the latest AIDS drugs, in themselves
highly toxic, and having the well-documented capacity to bring about
immune-destroying illnesses and eventual death. More than likely, they
will then go on to die a death that will quite wrongly be catalogued as
“death from AIDS.”
 
We then asked how anyone could accurately and with full peace of mind
pronounce a HIV positive status upon anybody. Dr Muy replied: “Regarding
your question, I personally would not be satisfied with a rapid test nor
with an ELISA test; that comes to a matter of ethics.”
 
So one is bound to ask: where are ethics on the “to do” list at WDI? At
the time of writing, the latest headline on their web page announces an
AIDS catastrophe “set to engulf Russia.” Having calculated the population
of this vast continent, and despite the unnecessary misery, suffering and
death WDI and their naïve purchasers may cause, it seems that World
Diagnostics Inc are now set to clean up North as well as South.
 
When asked how anyone could accurately and with full peace of mind
pronounce an HIV positive status upon anybody, Dr Muy replied: “Regarding
your question, I personally would not be satisfied with a rapid test nor
with an ELISA test; that comes to a matter of ethics.”
 
Steven Ransom.
Credence Publications

Reprinted from Continuum Magazine Vol 3 No 5; Revised June 2004
Testing, Testing… Is a Positive Antibody Test Proof of HIV Infection?
By Valendar Turner, MD
Department of Emergency Medicine,
Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Western Australia
 
“An antibody test, even if repeated and found positive a thousand times,
does not prove the presence of a viral infection. The failure to verify
the antibody tests against the gold standard of virus isolation is a
serious omission of scientific method…”
 
===
 
What evidence authenticates a positive HIV antibody test as proof of HIV
infection? This question has greatly interested me since those of us
working in Emergency Medicine spend a considerable part of our lives
exposed to other people’s blood and body fluids, a circumstance that
according to the experts places us under constant threat of AIDS. If the
experts are right, the life we save may cost us our own. Given this ironic
and sobering circumstance, some of us have pursued the question of proving
HIV infection to the very limits.
 
From the early days of AIDS I was fortunate to collaborate with Eleni
Eleopulos, a Biophysicist at the Royal Perth Hospital, John Papadimitriou,
Professor of Pathology at the University of Western Australia, and other
colleagues. In one of our papers published in June 1993 in the journal
Bio/Technology [1], we were compelled to confront many unsettling
conclusions about the HIV antibody tests, none of which accord with
current wisdom, and some of which I share in this article
 
The HIV antibody tests do not detect a virus. They test for any antibodies
that react with an assortment of proteins experts assure us are unique to
HIV. As almost everyone agrees, HIV is a retrovirus and the cause of AIDS
[2].
 
When you take an HIV antibody test, what happens is this: A sample of
blood serum is incubated with a mixture of these proteins in a test called
an ELISA, an acronym for Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay. The ELISA is
positive if the serum solution changes colour. A color change indicates a
reaction between the proteins in the test kit and the patient’s
antibodies. However, according to many experts, the ELISA is not specific,
meaning it may react in the absence of HIV infection.
 
In response to this, testing authorities have developed strategies such as
repeat testing of all positive ELISAs and following up those twice
positive with a third but different antibody test known as the Western
Blot. In the Western Blot, the "HIV proteins,” about ten of them, are
located at discrete spots in a paper strip rather like the one your doctor
uses to perform multiple tests on your urine. Serum is added and wherever
there is a reaction a colour change occurs which shows up as a dark band.
The test is read by noting which bands show up, in other words, which
proteins react. Certain combinations of bands are defined as a positive
test.
 
It is enigmatic that the location and number of bands required for a
positive Western Blot varies around the world. They may even vary between
laboratories within the same city. In Australia, four bands are required.
In Canada and much of the United States, three bands suffice, while in
Africa, two will do. In the US Multicenter AIDS Cohort prospective study
involving several thousand gay men, just one "strong band” was deemed
sufficient to earn a positive result.
 
If each of the above criteria indicates HIV infection, then HIV must cause
different populations of antibodies to appear in different places. I don’t
know about you, but to me that sounds very odd. At the least it gives some
Africans a way out. All an African has to do is have a test in Australia
because two bands would not be considered positive here. Nevertheless, in
spite of lack of standardization and other problems such as
reproducibility, the Western Blot is accepted to be in excess of 99.9%
specific and if positive is regarded as synonymous with HIV infection. In
some countries, similar claims are now made for the HIV ELISA without
“confirmation” by  Western Blot.
 
The rationale for the use of antibody tests is as follows: The immune
system has the ability to detect foreign agents and to respond by
producing antibodies that react with those agents. However, this does not
work in reverse. By that I mean the observation of an antibody reaction
with a particular agent is not automatic proof that the antibody was
produced in response to that agent.
 
The problem is that antibodies indulge in casual and indiscriminate
relationships. They are in fact promiscuous. Antibodies meant for one
agent may react with another agent, a perfect stranger. Or, if you want it
put technically, there is ample evidence (some of the best in fact comes
from the Pasteur Institute) that antibody molecules, even the most pure
(monoclonal antibodies) are not monospecific and cross-react with other,
non-immunising antigens.
 
Here are some examples to illustrate this most crucial fact. Firstly, in a
study of 1.2 million applicants for US military service [3], of the 1% or
12,000 who had first time positive HIV ELISAs, only 2000 were ultimately
shown to be also WB positive and thus, according to the authors, HIV
infected. That left 10,000 positive ELISAs which must have reacted for
reasons other than "HIV antibodies", a fitting testimonial to the problem
caused by cross-reacting antibodies.
 
Secondly, there is the tantalising data reported in 1990 about dogs.
Writing in the journal Cancer Research, Strandstrom and colleagues
reported that 72/144 (50%) of dog blood samples "obtained from the
Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital, University of California, Davis"
tested in commercial Western Blot assays, "reacted with one or more HIV
recombinant proteins (gp120–21.5%, gp41–23%, p31–22%, p24– 43%" [4].
Assuming California dogs are not infected with HIV (as did the authors),
one must conclude these data are further proof of antibody cross
reactivity to many of the "HIV proteins.”
 
What all this means is that you’re not necessarily infected with what your
antibodies appear to tell you. This can be brought home by two further
examples. Firstly, some AIDS patients have antibody reactions with
laboratory chemicals but no one claims AIDS patients are infected with
laboratory chemicals. Secondly, as an example removed from AIDS, the
antibody test for glandular fever relies on the fact that patients with
glandular fever make antibodies that react with the red blood cells of
sheep and horses. But these patients are not infected with animal blood
and animal blood does not cause glandular fever. Bearing all these
examples in mind it is painfully obvious we cannot pronounce someone
infected with what is regarded as a lethal human retrovirus merely because
we observe an antibody reaction. Before we pronounce any such reactions
indicative of HIV infection and long before we introduce the test into
routine clinical practice, we must exact solid proof of precisely why
these reactions take place. In doing we must not forget that biology is
not mathematics and despite our clever technology, in biology still we
must stoop to the relative ignominy of empirical proofs. Or, as Plato
said, "experiential data must always be interpreted in the light of what
Nature has revealed".
 
In science, we must constantly resist the temptation to stray beyond our
data, and in that spirit I put it to you there are only two pieces of
information that can be gleaned from an antibody test (for mathematical
purists, it’s only one piece of information). Either you see a reaction or
you don’t. That’s all. You don’t see antibodies with labels attached
saying what produced them. You cannot construe the genesis of antibodies
by observing changing colours in a test-tube. The cardinal problem
scientists face when ascribing meaning to a set of antibody reactions is
how can they tell whether the reaction is caused by a real antibody or an
imposter? One whose proper partner is something else? In this context it
is proper for a disinterested scientist to allow for the possibility that
there are no real HIV antibodies whatsoever, that they’re all pretenders.

When the only information is a reaction, and that reaction has more than
one possible cause as is the case with an antibody test, you need extra
information before you can ascribe a particular outcome. So, if you want
to claim an antibody reaction signals a particular outcome such as HIV
infection, first you have to prove it. And just before we get to crunch
time, consider this little morsel: AIDS patients are exposed to many
foreign agents are known to have antibodies reacting with dozens of
different substances and it makes perfect sense that the more antibodies
there are the more chance there will be some that will spoil the test.
What this means is that in the very patients you suspect of harboring a
virus there exists the precise circumstances, lots of potentially cross
reacting antibodies, which make it imperative to sort out what is really
going on.
 
What’s the solution or, more to the point, what’s the problem? The problem
is how do you know when you witness an antibody reaction, that is, a
positive test, that HIV itself is present, too? After all, that’s what you
really want the test to tell you and the question on the patient’s lips is
bound to be "Is HIV infection the only cause of a positive test? If it’s
something else I’d rather have that, thank you very much". In technical
terms the patient’s hopes are hanging on the specificity of the test.
 
Let me explain specificity and what is meant by 100% specificity. One
hundred per cent specificity means that positive tests only occur in HIV
infected people. That’s the same as saying positive tests never occur in
uninfected people. And that’s the same as saying all uninfected people
have a negative test. This leads us tothe formal, mathematical definition
of specificity. Specificity is the number of negative tests in a
…

Hidden Facts and Dangers of HIV Tests
What’s in the Fine Print
Remarkable information about HIV tests including the fact that no HIV test
has ever been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the
actual diagnosing of HIV infection.
Few doctors, clinics, journalists, or AIDS organizations know that all
current HIV tests are approved only as screening tests, prognostic tests
(for predicting a possible future outcome) or as "an aid in diagnosis" and
are not intended to be used for determining if a person actually has HIV.
The FDA’s lack of such approval speaks to the fact that no HIV test can
directly detect or quantify HIV or determine the presence of specific HIV
antibodies in human blood.
Recent changes in the fine print of the test kits acknowledge this little
known data and seem to indicate a change of thought with regard to the
role of HIV in AIDS.
From 1984 until last year, test literature contained the very certain
statement that "AIDS is CAUSED by HIV." Then in November of 2002, a new
test kit started what now seems to be a trend toward rethinking the causal
link between HIV and AIDS. It states, "AIDS, AIDS related complex and
pre-AIDS are THOUGHT TO BE CAUSED by HIV." (OraQuick Rapid HIV-1 Antibody
Test, OraSure Technologies, Inc)
Now it appears we’ve gone from "HIV is thought to cause AIDS," to
something even more uncertain: "Published data indicate A STRONG
CORRELATION between the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and a
retrovirus REFERRED TO as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)."
This last quote is found in the package insert for a new ELISA test
(Vironostika HIV-1 Plus O Microelisa System) the FDA approved in June
2003.
The entire package insert can be downloaded from
http://www.fda.gov/cber/pma/P020066.htm
According to Alive & Well advisor Dr Rodney Richards, a chemist and
co-creator of the very first HIV test, as of June 2003, the number of FDA
approved tests that contain the term HIV or LAV (the old school term for
the so-called virus) have risen to 36. Of these, 13 have been approved in
just the last three years.
Richards points out that "despite the increased number of HIV tests, there
is still no manufacturer that claims their test can be used to diagnose
infection with HIV. All of the RNA based tests for viral load and
genotyping clearly state they are ‘NOT intended for use in diagnosing HIV
infection.’
Instead of an indication for use in detecting or quantifying the actual
virus, these tests are approved only for prognosis or monitoring therapy
for people who doctors assume are infected.?
Richards is working on a document to clarify what HIV test manufacturers
mean by the terms "prognosis," "monitoring of therapy," and "aid in the
diagnosis of HIV." His report will focus on what the tests cannot do
(diagnose HIV infection) and what exactly they can.
At first glance, the rapid tests may appear relatively benign since the
manufacturers clearly emphasize that "preliminary positives" must be
confirmed with follow up testing.
This emphasis is due to the fact that the accuracy of the rapid tests? is
widely known to be more questionable than the already dubious HIV ELISA or
Western Blot. But the notion that medical personnel will await
confirmation of results before insisting patients take action is entirely
misguided since the true market for rapid tests is pregnant women in
labor
Incredibly, the recommendation to misuse rapid tests for women in labor
comes directly from the Deputy Commissioner of the FDA himself, Dr. Lester
M Crawford.
The good doctor says "OraQuick will be a great help in identifying
pregnant HIV-infected women going into labor who were not tested during
pregnancy so that precautionary steps can be taken to block their newborns
from being infected with HIV." (FDA News, November 7, 2002)
These precautionary steps include IV infusion of the toxic chemotherapy
AZT during labor, C-section delivery, six weeks of mandatory AZT treatment
for the baby regardless of their own HIV status, and orders to the mother
not to breastfeed.
Even though chemotherapy, surgery and denial of normal feeding are based
on preliminary results from a test never approved for detecting HIV
infection, a mother who declines such intervention risks losing custody of
her child.
Perhaps more remarkable than official calls for misuse of rapid tests is a
disclosure by the manufacturer of the OraQuick that 7% of women with a
history of prior pregnancy will score falsely positive on their test.
Further, the manufacturer of the newly approved Reveal test didn’t even
evaluate their product in multiparous women.
Worse still, as Dr Richards points out, the rapid tests may soon be
routinely administered to women tested negative before labor. "Based on
the erroneous belief these tests can actually diagnose HIV infection,
doctors may want to retest women in labor who?ve previously come up
negative just to be sure they haven’t seroconverted in the mean time."
Another lucrative market for the rapid tests is among healthcare workers
who experience accidental needle sticks or other unintentional contact
with patient fluids. As Richard points out, this opens a Pandora?s box of
potential life-altering situations.
"Imagine a nurse sticks herself with a used needle. Ora-Sure gives her the
impression she can find out quickly if that needle is contaminated with
HIV. Should the needle score positive, she would then be urged to start
prophylactic chemotherapy right away.
Of course, if the needle scores positive, hospitals would most likely feel
an ethical responsibility to
inform the patient and to urge them to also start ‘saving their lives’
with AIDS meds. Since there are 600,000 to 1,000,000 accidental needles
sticks in the US annually, this is a huge market for both the test and
treatment manufacturers."
The great influence of drug and test manufacturers on public health
policy, media presentations and among AIDS activist groups may mean that
the hidden dangers of rapid tests will remain unknown.