# Forum More Stuff Debate & Technical Discussion  Is HIV real?

## elkangorito

I stumbled across some very interesting info on the web, which suggested the following ideas;  HIV doesn't exist.HIV does exist but is harmless.AIDS exists but is not exclusively caused by HIV (HIV plus cofactors).AIDS exists & is not caused by HIV. 
As a result of my reading, the logical conclusion I hold is that there is something terribly wrong with the current HIV=AIDS=DEATH hypothesis.

----------


## stevoh741

Go to Africa and ask them.

----------


## plum

It's been known for years that you can be HIV pos. and not know it, Aids doesn't develop in everyone.

----------


## elkangorito

It's funny you should mention Africa (South Africa). I looked at some statistics when I was learning about this HIV/AIDS thing. See below. 
UNAIDS, a United Nations division set up to respond to AIDS, which shares some facilities with the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva,
estimated in November 2007 that 22.5 million people are living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa, which UNAIDS claimed has 68% of the worlds total HIV infections and AIDS cases.
That number was released when UNAIDS down-sized its always mysteriously derived calculations of HIV=AIDS worldwide, from about 40 million to 33 million. 
The revision came after India, objecting to the UNAIDS numbers for its population, *dramatically reduced its estimates of HIV-conflated-with-AIDS cases by almost three-fifths in June, 2007, from 5.7 million to 2.5 million,* as shown in the New York times here Health Officials Lower Estimate of India's H.I.V. Cases by Half - NYTimes.com 
Even more mystifying are claims by UNAIDS of purported AIDS deaths in South Africa, where the agency has been cited for most of this past decade as the source for an *annually recycled assertion that 900 to 1,000 South Africans die each day from AIDS*. That purported daily figure is derived from a UNAIDS claim that *over 300,000 die from AIDS annually in South Africa* even though UNAIDS cant disaggregate HIV infection from AIDS cases. 
See this page from UNAIDS' web site claiming *"Deaths due to AIDS" in South Africa in 2009 as 310,000*, estimated from an estimated range of 260,000 to 390,000 (without methodology cited for the estimates.) UNAIDS South Africa here South Africa  *The most damning evidence against the UNAIDS claim comes from Statistics South Africa (SSA)*, the official government collector of mortality and other demographic data in the country. In its "Mortality and causes of death in South Africa, *2006*: Findings from death notification" released 23 October, 2008, *SSA listed 14,783 death registrations for AIDS or "HIV disease"* as it is sometimes called.  http://www.statssa.gov.za/publicatio...P030932006.pdf 
Published in early November 2009 were SSA's death certificates for *2007*, showing a decrease in the number of *HIV-attributed deaths to 13,521* (see Page 25 of the report). http://www.statssa.gov.za/publicatio...P030932007.pdf 
Published 18 November, 2010 were SSA's death certificates for *2008*, showing an increase in the number of *HIV-attributed deaths, to 15,093* (see 
Table 4.5, Page 28 of the report) back to about the 2006 level. http://www.statssa.gov.za/publicatio...P030932008.pdf 
Published on 30 November, 2011, was the report for *2009*, indicating *17,570 deaths from "HIV diseases"* as shown in the chart on page 34. http://www.statssa.gov.za/publicatio...P030932009.pdf 
Statistics South Africa online at Statistics South Africa - Home    *Summary. 
UNAIDS claims that an estimated 310,000 people died from AIDS in 2009.
In 2006, Statistics South Africa indicated 14,783 death registrations for AIDS or "HIV disease".
In 2007, Statistics South Africa indicated 13,521 death registrations for AIDS or "HIV disease".
In 2008, Statistics South Africa indicated 15,093 death registrations for AIDS or "HIV disease".
in 2009, Statistics South Africa indicated 17,570 death registrations for AIDS or "HIV disease". 
It appears that UNAIDS figures are completely wrong & that there isn't any epidemic due to HIV/AIDS, in South Africa.*

----------


## Random Username

Remember that the official death stats are calculated on registered deaths; there are many deaths that go unrecorded/unregistered (especially infant deaths) or are poorly/incorrectly classified due to lack of training, lack of pathology facilities or cultural reasons, or quite simply ignorance and bias (John Smith died; John Smith had a wife, therefore John Smith was not gay; therefore he cannot have died of AIDS, so his death was from TB/pneumonia/diarrhoea).   
Even in Australia something like the suicide stats can be a little on the low side as coroners can be reluctant to classify a death as suicide due to the families religious belief or because the deceased has taken steps to make it seem accidental (this often happens for financial reasons - ie life insurance money clears debts on a farm or house mortgage). 
There's also a lack of South African Government backbone to push for more accurate deaths classification as noted by medical journal The Lancet.  "A study attempting to quantify misclassification of HIV/AIDS deaths, published in _AIDS_  last week and supported by the South African Medical Research Council  (MRC), concluded that for the year 200001, the number of deaths related  to HIV/AIDS was likely to be almost three times as high as that  published in the Government's statistical report compiled from death  certificates. The researchers used a model assessing increases in  cause-specific mortality rates between 1996 and 200001 and related  these to age-specific patterns that followed patterns of HIV deaths.  This model suggests that 80% of the excess deaths in men and 70% in  women attributable to HIV were classified as tuberculosis or lower  respiratory tract infections."
A more accurate picture of AIDS prevalence in South Africa is given by antenatal clinic surveys where AIDS tests are actually conducted - based on its sample of 32,225 women attending 1,424 antenatal clinics         across all nine provinces, the South African Department of Health Study         estimates that 30.2% of pregnant women (aged 15-49) were living with         HIV in 2010.  South Africa HIV & AIDS Statistics 
India's drop was due to new surveys suggesting that that India's AIDS experience is more like western nations - concentrated in high-risk groups - rather than like the  generalized epidemics in southern Africa. (basically India's estimates were extrapolated from samples with a bias towards high risk groups (ie antenatal clinics PLUS prostitutes PLUS truck drivers PLUS STD clinic patients PLUS intravenous drug users PLUS gay males) rather than from samples based on the population as a whole.

----------


## elkangorito

UNAIDS claims that an estimated 310,000 people died from AIDS in 2009. 
The 'mean' number of annual death registrations for AIDS or "HIV disease" in South Africa between 2006 & 2009 was 15,242. *There appears to be a 95% discrepancy between these figures (310,000 vs 15,242). This is not a case of being "a little on the low side".* 
The Lancet study is not applicable to the 2006-2009 SSA figures since it states   

> ...concluded that for the year *200001*, the number of deaths...

  Pregnancy is one of the many conditions said to cause 'false positive' test results. 
I'm sure that avert.org is a higher & better authority on South African statistics than SSA.    
Africa, we are told, is being ravaged by a pandemic of immune deficiency syndrome attributed to HIV, spread heterosexually among black Africans...an outbreak which never occurred among white heterosexuals in the United States, Canada, Europe and other parts of the western world, where HIV seems to be able to determine if you are gay rather than straight, black-or-brown rather than white and which can search out intravenous drug users. 
The pandemic claims for HIV=AIDS in Africa are made, even though only a tiny number of Africans have ever had the tests claimed for identifying HIV antibodies. These tests, which few Africans can afford, are supposed to ascertain that casualties of old immune suppressive diseases like malaria,  tuberculosis and immune compromising conditions like malnutrition and polluted drinking water, are, instead, victims of a human immunodeficiency virus.

----------


## Random Username

> *This is not a case of being "a little on the low side".*

  Please read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. My example was showing how even a country like Australia (with essentially one of the world's better statistical agencies) can have problems with statistics due to political, cultural or religious reasons that are hard to correct for.  See also this article quoted from The Economist about political influence - Economist magazine drops official Argentine inflation figures | RSSeNews 
Statistical agencies in developing/poor countries can be a lot less accurate than you'd expect, especially when there's no political will (or even political animosity) to numbers that are closer to the truth (no political will or funding means you just have to accept whatever figures you get at face value and make no attempt to research or correct for inaccuracies you know exist...or lose your job...or be shot.) 
Thabo Mbeki, president of South Africa from 1999 to 2008, often sought         the opinions of AIDS denialists, including many of them on his         Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel. Both Mbeki and his health minister,         Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, questioned the effectiveness of antiretrovirals, with         the latter infamously promoting beetroot and garlic consumption as a         way of fighting HIV infection. 
The (higher) death rate statistic ties in nicely with other countries in the region (Botswana, Nambia, Zimbabwe, Zambia -  HIV AIDS deaths (per capita) statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Health and http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...HIV_Epidem.png) - if the rates were significantly lower than surrounding countries with relatively open borders then you'd have to hold South Africa up as a treatment model for the rest of the developing/middle income world, which, as far as I am aware, hasn't been done.  (The country that gets that medal is Brazil, which has done quite well at controlling HIV/AIDS.) 
You'll also find that avert.org provides a less bureaucratic and less 'let's not step on anyone's toes' writing style than the UN HIV/AIDS body; however, perhaps you'd prefer the estimates from the World Health Organisation which gives a range of 270,000 to 420,000 for 2007 (latest available figures) WHO | South Africa 
The false positive rate for rapid screening oral tests is somewhere in the region of 2-9 false positives per thousand; the blood tests (according to a study of 290,000 blood donors) had a false positive rate of 0% at the 95% confidence interval.  
The false negative rate is a little higher, so someone is more likely to falsely measure negative than positive.  
If you work the false positive rate of 9 per '000 into the estimates, that brings the numbers down by an immense couple of thousand -  it would then be a range of 267,570 to 416,220.

----------


## elkangorito

> Statistical agencies in developing/poor countries can be a lot less accurate than you'd expect, especially when there's no political will (or even political animosity) to numbers that are closer to the truth (no political will or funding means you just have to accept whatever figures you get at face value and make no attempt to research or correct for inaccuracies you know exist...or lose your job...or be shot.)

   95% difference between the two figures is not "a lot less accurate than you'd expect". In this case, somebody is extrapolating numbers very incorrectly. 
Your claims about inaccuracies do not make sense. It would be of great financial interest for South Africa to accept the UNAIDS "estimates" but it doesn't accept them.
Obviously, you think that "estimates" are far more accurate than "registered deaths".   

> Thabo Mbeki, president of South Africa from 1999 to 2008, often sought         the opinions of AIDS denialists, including many of them on his         Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel.

  Do these people actually deny the existence of AIDS?   

> Both Mbeki and his health minister,         Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, questioned the effectiveness of antiretrovirals, with         the latter infamously promoting beetroot and garlic consumption as a         way of fighting HIV infection.

  There are two very clear & important facts about ARV drugs...they are dangerous & do not extend life. The side effects, listed by the manufacturers of these chemicals, clearly indicate high toxicity & potentially deadly effects.
Studies are not a good tool for info because one doesn't know who funded the study. Of course, in this case, what has somebody to gain if they oppose the HIV=AIDS dogma? Nothing. What have they got to loose by going against the established order? Everything.
Nonetheless, here's at least one study that refutes the idea that ARV's are "lifesavers". HIV treatment response and prognosis in Europe and No... [Lancet. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI   

> HIV treatment response and prognosis in Europe and North America in the first decade of highly active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative analysis.  *INTERPRETATION:Virological response after starting HAART improved over calendar years, but such improvement has not translated into a decrease in mortality.*

   

> The (higher) death rate statistic ties in nicely with other countries in the region (Botswana, Nambia, Zimbabwe, Zambia -  HIV AIDS deaths (per capita) statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Health and http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...HIV_Epidem.png) - if the rates were significantly lower than surrounding countries with relatively open borders then you'd have to hold South Africa up as a treatment model for the rest of the developing/middle income world, which, as far as I am aware, hasn't been done.  (The country that gets that medal is Brazil, which has done quite well at controlling HIV/AIDS.)

  Nationmaster gets it's statistics from the CIA World Factbook. The CIA World Factbook got it's South African HIV/AIDS mortality figures from UNAIDS. https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/sf.html  

> HIV/AIDS - deaths: 310,000 (2009 est.)

   

> You'll also find that avert.org provides a less bureaucratic and less 'let's not step on anyone's toes' writing style than the UN HIV/AIDS body; however, perhaps you'd prefer the estimates from the World Health Organisation which gives a range of 270,000 to 420,000 for 2007 (latest available figures) WHO | South Africa

  Can you be clear? Which figures do YOU want to use? I want to use SSA's figures. You can't seem to make up your mind between AVERT, UNAIDS or WHO.
The WHO figures approximately reflect the UNAIDS figures, the 'mean' being 345,000.   

> The false positive rate for rapid screening oral tests is somewhere in the region of 2-9 false positives per thousand; the blood tests (according to a study of 290,000 blood donors) had a false positive rate of 0% at the 95% confidence interval.  
> The false negative rate is a little higher, so someone is more likely to falsely measure negative than positive.

   If you wish to argue Bayes Theorem, go for it. These tests have been designed to have a high PPV in people who are deemed as being in a risk group. 
Also, deaths registered for all causes  dropped from 604,110 in 2007, to 595,152 in 2008 and 572,673 in 2009.  During that same period, South African population grew from an estimated  47.4 million in mid-2006 to 49.3 million in mid-2009. 
Who gains from this madness? US Pharmaceutical companies.

----------


## Random Username

Sigh.  *Obviously, you think that "estimates" are far more accurate than "registered deaths".* 
Well, actually, the Medical Research Council of South Africa does:    "In 2006, HIV was recorded as a cause of death in only 14,783 cases.         However, according to researchers from the Medical Research Council of         South Africa (MRC), this figure is a massive underestimate, because the         majority of deaths due to HIV are         misclassified.People whose deaths are caused by HIV are not killed by the virus         alone, but HIV should be recorded as an underlying cause if it         initiated the chain of morbid events leading directly to death. In         other words, if someone contracts tuberculosis and dies from it because         their immune system has been weakened by HIV then HIV should be         included among the underlying causes. The MRC researchers claim that in         many cases, this does not happen; instead, the doctor records only the         immediate cause of death such as tuberculosis or respiratory infection.         This could be because the doctor does not know the deceased person's         HIV status. Alternatively, they may seek to conceal HIV infection to         spare stigmatisation of relatives, or to avoid invalidating life         insurance claims." 
-but we'll ignore them as they are medical researchers, and medical researchers must be funded by pharmaceutical companies. 
And so does the international medical journal _The Lancet_, which has this to say on the topic:  Social stigma associated with HIV/AIDS, tacitly perpetuated by         the Government's reluctance to bring the crisis into the open and face         it head on, prevents many from speaking out about the causes of illness         and deaths of loved ones and leads doctors to record uncontroversial         diagnoses on death certificates.... The South African Government needs         to stop being defensive and show backbone and courage to acknowledge         and seriously tackle the HIV/AIDS crisis of its         people. 
- but the people who edit _The Lancet_ are doctors...who, as we all know, get kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies.  Better ignore them too! 
Or what about the Actuarial Society of South Africa - 
"A computer model made by the Actuarial Society of South Africa, called         ASSA2008 calculated that the number of people who died of AIDS declined         from an estimated 257,000 in 2005 to 194,000 in         2010.  The figure         for 2010 was significantly less than was estimated by the ASSA2003         model (388,000 AIDS deaths). This decline in estimated AIDS mortality         is believed to be due to antiretroviral treatment being more widely         available." 
- but as we all know, Actuaries are just statisticians with better salary packages; and like statisticians, actuaries get sick sometimes, and they go to the doctor and get given pills - you guessed it - made by pharmaceutical companies!  They're tainted too!!   *Do these people actually deny the existence of AIDS?* 
Well, if you are an HIV/AIDS denialist, I think yes, you are denying the existence of HIV/AIDS kinda' by definition HIV/AIDS denialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (and possibly a dictionary to define 'denial'; not to be confused with De' Nile, which is a river at the top of Africa.  Just sayin'.)  "Demographic                      modelling suggests that if the (South African) national government  had used ARVs for prevention and treatment at the same rate as the  Western                      Cape (which defied national policy on ARVs), then  about 171,000 HIV infections and 343,000 deaths could have been  prevented                      between 1999 and 2007. Two key scientific bodies,  the Medicines Control Council (MCC) and the Medical Research Council  (MRC)                      fall under the ambit of the national Department of  Health. Although notionally independent, both have experienced political                      interference as a consequence of their scientific  approach towards AIDS." AIDS and the Scientific Governance of Medicine in Post-Apartheid South Africa  *There are two very clear & important facts about ARV drugs...they are dangerous & do not extend life.*  _The Lancet_ disagrees:
The study shows that ARVs are among the most effective health care interventions. When you compare them, for instance, to anticancer drugs or to anti-hypertensives, ARVs are orders of magnitude better, said Dr Jos Perriëns of the World Health Organizations HIV/AIDS department. The study, published in the Lancet, (2003;362:1267-74), compared disease progression and death rates in the period prior to 1997 to the period between 1999 and 2001, when ARVs were widely available to most, if not all, HIV patients in high-income countries.
(Quoted from The Bulletin of the World Health Organisation, 2003)  _Nonetheless, here's at least one study that refutes the idea that ARV's are "lifesavers"._ HIV treatment response and prognosis in Europe and No... [Lancet. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI  
That's a link to PubMed, which is part of the medical establishment, which is therefore tainted by big pharma - I thought you didn't want to trust them!  But anyway, maybe you won't after reading this part of that article:  "In the first decade of HAART, physicians and patients faced several  challenges, including large pill burdens, worrisome side effects, and  drug resistance, said Gregory Dore, Ph.D., and David Cooper, M.D., of  the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, in an  accompanying comment article. 
While most of those were overcome,  they added, the shifting demographics -- including immigration from  areas where both HIV and TB are raging -- are likely responsible for the  discrepancy between better response to therapy and no apparent  improvement in AIDS or death."  *Can you be clear? Which figures do YOU want to use? I want to use SSA's figures.* 
Well, I want to use the figures that appear to be more robust and make more sense and that don't have charities, medical researchers, statisticians, health organisations - and even the SSA itself - raising eyebrows.   
There have been large increases in the death rates of people in the 25 to 49 year age groups, but little change in the over 55's and the under 20's (in other words, the most sexually active age groups were experiencing higher death rates for reasons that weren't being adequately captured on death certificates) 
"These data show that between 1997 and 2004,         the death rate among men aged 30-39 more than doubled, while that among         women aged 25-34 more than quadrupled. The changes are even more         pronounced when deaths from natural causes only are examined. Over the         same period there was relatively little change in the death rates among         people aged over 55 and those aged 15-20. In their report, Statistics         South Africa call such developments "astounding",         "alarming" and         "disturbing"." 
Normally when you get such unexplained jumps in an important figure, a competent statistical organisation does a review of methodology and provides at least a partial explanation.  When a statistical body flags its figures as "astounding" and "alarming" with no reasons given, it's them saying 'our hands are tied'. 
To put it another way - if you were doing some building and got four quotes - three of them within cooee of each other, and one that was either wildly over or wildly under the other three...which quote would you suspect of being total crap???   *These tests have been designed to have a high PPV in people who are deemed as being in a risk group.* 
Designed how? What are they testing for if not the presence of specific antibodies? Are they testing for dacron fibres in the mouth?  Short fingernails and overalls on women? A tendency to start every sentence with "Duuuude" and have a far-away glazed look? Skin pigmentation?    *South African population grew from an estimated  47.4 million in mid-2006 to 49.3 million in mid-2009.* 
The effects of population growth are removed by looking at mortality         rates per 100,000 people  Mortality rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  Statisticians also age adjust rates, too. Age adjustment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## stevoh741

what has all this to do with renovating?

----------


## elkangorito

> what has all this to do with renovating?

  Nothing. That's why it's in the "At the end of the day" section.

----------


## elkangorito

I will address the population & AIDS mortality figures before I deal with HIV tests. 
Again, from SSA (Statistics South Africa);
Population. 
Census 1996 - 40,583,573
Census 2001 - 44,819,778
Census 2007 - 48,502,063  
And from Index Mundi: South Africa - Population - Historical Data Graphs per Year 
2000 - 43,421,020
2001 - 43,586,100
2002 - 43,647,660
2003 - 42,768,680
2004 - 42,718,530
2005 - 44,344,140
2006 - 44,187,640
2007 - 43,997,830
2008 - 48,782,760
2009 - 49,052,490
2010 - 49,109,110
2011 - 49,004,030 
The 2008 USCB figures carried the AIDS assumption but were revised upward by about 5,000,000 (from about 43 million to 48 million) and the AIDS assumption was renewed in slightly mitigated form.    *UNDERREPORTING OF HIV/AIDS DEATHS IN THE DEATH NOTIFICATION FORMS SURVEY.* 
UNAIDS claims that there are 310,000 (2009) AIDS deaths nationwide and yet only about 15,000 show up in the Death Notification Forms survey. 
The excuse has been that 'doctors are reluctant to list HIV/AIDS as a cause of death, to spare the families feelings'. That may be true but the question is to what extent?
There are two studies that put the rate of underreporting in local samples at 53.1% and 58%. 
Using those numbers, the real death represented in the Death Notification Forms would not be 15,000 but 32,000 or 36,000, respectively.
That is a far cry from UNAIDS' 310,000 and with an 80% effective reporting coverage in the DNF surveys, 248,000. Obviously, 32,000 to 36,000 is not 248,000. 
I think this definitively proves that underreporting is not the cause of the absence of hundreds of thousands of HIV/AIDS deaths from the death notification forms survey.    *HIGH BIRTH RATE OUTRUNS HIV DEATHS.* 
The problem is that according to the HIV=AIDS=DEATH model, influenced by the 310,000 a year mortality from HIV/AIDS, South Africa has a much lower birth rate than Nigeria, for instance. See here==> Nigeria, South Africa - Birth rate - Historical Data Graphs per Year 
This claim for why the population growth of South Africa does not appear to be delimited by 310,000 people a year out of 600,000 total deaths nationwide, influencing population growth.    *CONCLUSION.* 
The UNAIDS claim of 310,000 South Africans dying from HIV/AIDS, is shot out of the water by the population growth and Death Notification Forms surveys. The UNAIDS claim is based on the positive rates from the fraudulent Antenatal Clinic Surveys of pregnant women only, using a single ELISA screening test.

----------


## Random Username

Lets see if I have this right...  _You want to:_   *Believe* death certificates as accurate in both cause of death and number (even though these can be completed by "Traditional Leaders" with no medical training or diagnostic tools) and when SSA admits that accuracy and coverage is problematic;   But  *Disbelieve* the antenatal HIV screening tests which are recognised internationally as a reliable source of data by WHO/development organisations/statistical organisations (including SSA)?   _As well as:_   *Accept* figures from Index Mundi for yearly population growth estimates as accurate (as the information is sourced from the CIA world factbook which presumably does some fact and sense checking on information sourced from the UN or from other intelligence related gathering activities).   But  *Reject* figures from Index Mundi for HIV deaths as inaccurate (as the information is sourced from the CIA world factbook which  presumably does some fact and sense checking on information sourced from  the UN or from other intelligence related gathering activities).  
Personally, I'm getting a bit of cognitive dissonance happening with that...

----------


## Farmer Geoff

Crikey!! A few quick thoughts: 
HIV and AIDS are real and people suffer physically, emotionally, mentally and socially.  And people die from AIDS. And from asbestos though the facts and stats of that were also disputed earlier. 
A lot of people who succumb to AIDS by dying of something like pnemonia have their cause of death recorded as pnemonia, etc.  
Agencies wanting to gain attention for a problem will inflate 'estimates' of the size of the problem. That helps gain funding and also provides a high base off which to later show how later estimates 'prove' what a good job the agency is doing. 
A lot of aid funding for all sorts of things is provided by countries within a contract in which the 'fine print' ensures that the funding ends up employing consultants, researchers, goods and services from the donor country. Some of this activity is undoubtedly shonky and self serving and taxpayers end up funding profits, travel and individual ego trips for people and companies who are already well off. 
But some of the aid money actually hits the ground where it's needed. The rest is economic stimulus package back home. 
Some of what we read as apparent fact is nonsense and is put up on the internet for weird and tricky reasons including being placed on obscure websites where there is little or no peer reviewing but which will be found and possibly be believed by naive people doing google searches. 
Better get back to rennovating.

----------


## elkangorito

The statistics in dispute are only related to HIV/AIDS related deaths. The population figures are NOT in dispute. 
Just by saying, "antenatal HIV screening tests are recognised internationally as a reliable source of data", doesn't make the test (ELISA) reliable. 
How do these tests work? What do they detect? Is only one test used to issue a death sentence?   
Anyhow, sit back & relax while Dr James Chin, former Chief of Global HIV Surveillance, WHO, 1987-1992, tells you about the "AIDS numbers".

----------


## woodbe

> The statistics in dispute are only related to HIV/AIDS related deaths. The population figures are NOT in dispute.

  Oh, I had though you were questioning if HIV exists, not the exact numbers of deaths it causes in a third world country?   

> Just by saying, "antenatal HIV screening tests are recognised internationally as a reliable source of data", doesn't make the test (ELISA) reliable. 
> How do these tests work? What do they detect? Is only one test used to issue a death sentence?

  Elisa tests are very common and reliable Background here on wikipedia. and specific HIV test information here: Diagnosis of HIV/AIDS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   

> *Diagnosis of HIV infection* 
>  Tests used for the diagnosis of HIV infection in a particular person require a high degree of both sensitivity and specificity. In the United States, this is achieved using an algorithm combining two tests for HIV antibodies. If antibodies are detected by an initial test based on the ELISA method, then a second test using the Western blot  procedure determines the size of the antigens in the test kit binding  to the antibodies. The combination of these two methods is highly  accurate (see below).

  As far as the death sentence is involved, the prognosis depends on the degree of infection, diagnosis of AIDS and other factors such as access to treatment: HIV/AIDS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   

> After the diagnosis of AIDS, if treatment is not available, survival ranges between 6 and 19 months.[138][139] HAART  and appropriate prevention of opportunistic infections reduces the  death rate by 80%, and raises the life expectancy for a newly diagnosed  young adult to 2050 years.[136][140][141] This is between two thirds[140] and nearly that of the general population.[14][142] If treatment is started late in the infection prognosis is not as good,[14] for example if treatment is begun following the diagnosis of AIDS life expectancy is ~1040 years.[14][136] Half of infants born with HIV die before two years of age without treatment.[122]

  Rather than picking up various statisitics from one of the poorest countries on the planet, perhaps it would be better to consider if HIV is real in a country such as ours that was at the forefront of early action and recognition of the problem. Even with our access to leading medical treatment and government supported pharmacy we still seem to have a problem, even if it it nothing like that experienced in Africa:   
Conclusion: Yes. Obviously HIV exists. 
woodbe.

----------


## Random Username

Well, if we are disputing the deaths related to AIDS, we should go straight to the source and look at the most recent data.   
That'd be the _Mid-Year Population Estimates 2011_ from Statistics South Africa.   
Table eight gives births and deaths estimates for the period 2001-2011:   
You want to use SSA figures?  There they are! 
So, is there anything left?  
SSA figures - tick!
AIDS denialists exist (and have even held political office) - tick!
Effectiveness of antiretrovirals - better than cancer treatments or drugs for high blood pressure - tick!
Tests don't provide false positives - tick!

----------


## elkangorito

> Elisa tests are very common and reliable Background here on wikipedia. and specific HIV test information here: Diagnosis of HIV/AIDS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  In the 2nd link you provided above, please note this,  

> ELISA testing alone cannot be used to diagnose HIV, even if the test  suggests a high probability that antibody to HIV-1 is present. In the  United States, such ELISA results are not reported as "positive" unless  confirmed by a Western Blot.

  The ELISA is non specific but highly sensitive, which is why it used as a screening test in developed countries.
The only way to determine the reliability of any test is to test significant numbers of people deemed "not at risk". This has never been done. 
I do not doubt for a moment that doctors believe the HIV tests are highly specific, meaning that HIV and virtually nothing else is capable of causing a positive result.
There are two reasons for the doctor's belief.  Firstly, he may accept it based on the word of others.  That is, trust in the opinions of colleagues or scientists whose views he accepts because they are the recognised authorities in this area.
No one could ever quibble with this approach because no professional has the time to practise his craft and check up on everything.  However, unless one assumes authorities are always correct, such pragmatism cannot resolve a scientific issue.
All that is guaranteed is that the view of the established experts will prevail. 
The second reason is the doctor has studied the scientific literature himself and has come to the same conclusions as the established experts. As a patient, it is very reasonable to ask your doctor a number of questions in the expectation of obtaining satisfactory answers; When Montagnier and Gallo claimed to have proven the existence of "HIV" in 1983/84 based on its "isolation", how did their experiments support their conclusions?  (This is important for many reasons including the fact that virus constituents are used in the antibody and PCR tests)These researchers also claimed to have obtained "purified virus".  What evidence did they present to back up this claim?Is it possible to obtain the "HIV" proteins and RNA without purification?  (Remembering that viruses and cells are made up of the same biochemical constituents as cells and viruses grow only in cells).Assuming there are such entities as "HIV" proteins and that they have been separated from all the cellular material and proteins in which "HIV" is cultured, does having one or several antibodies which react with these proteins prove they are "HIV antibodies"?If a doctor concedes that cross-reacting antibodies can be a problem with antibody tests, by what means have the established experts proven the tests are highly specific for HIV infection? Where are their data published?*If you live in a part of the world where the diagnosis of HIV infection is performed following two reactive ELISA antibody tests followed by a "confirmatory" Western blot, how can the tests be considered highly specific when the criteria for a positive Western blot vary between countries, institutions and even laboratories in the same city?* In regard to the "confirmatory" Western blot and assuming each country, institution or laboratory is correct, how can a person be infected with HIV in New York City on Sunday and not infected the following Monday in Paris? Or in Sydney Australia on Tuesday? Would he be infected midway across the Atlantic or midway across the Pacific?Would your doctor accept that ECG criteria diagnostic of a recent heart attack vary between hospitals and countries?     *CRITERIA FOR A POSITIVE WESTERN BLOT.* 
There are a total of 10 proteins said to belong to HIV (*GAG* - p18, p24, p39, p55. *POL* - p32, p53, p68. *ENV* - p41, p120, p160) 
In Australia, you need 4 particular bands (reactive to a minimum of 4 proteins) to have a positive Western Blot (HIV positive). If you have 3 bands, it's not a positive result. When you get the 4th band, it is positive, which means that all those bands are due to genuine HIV antibodies but if you only have 3 bands, they're not due to genuine HIV antibodies. 
So, why does the addition of the 4th band make the other 3 bands genuine?
Why can't the 4th band be non HIV as well? Why can't all the bands be non HIV?
Why is it that ALL 10 bands are not required to secure an HIV positive test result? 
Even today there still aren't any internationally agreed criteria as to what constitutes a positive WB. This gives rise to the bizarre situation where, for example, an individual positive in New York City on the CDC criteria would not be positive in Sydney, Australia. Or an Australian positive with p41, p32, p24 and p18 bands would not be positive in Africa. Or an African positive with a p41 and p120 band would not be positive in Australia, parts of the US or Europe.  CDC/ASTPHLD Two bands of : gp41 or gp120/gp160 or p24  US manufacturers (FDA) p24 and p31 and one of: gp41 or gp120/gp160  SFTS France (Unequivocal POS) 
(Probably POS) 
(Probably POS) Two ENV (gp160 and gp120) with GAG or POL 
Env (gp160) and GAG(p24) 
Two ENV bands only (gp160 and gp120)  World Health Organization 
(Used in Africa) Two ENV bands with or without GAG or POL  CRSS 
Pan American Health Organization One band of p24 or p31 and one ENV band  American Red Cross (USA) One band each of GAG and POL and ENV  Paul Ehrlich Institut (Germany) Two bands one must be ENV  China Two ENV (gp160/gp41and gp120) and any GAG or POL  Singapore Two ENV (gp160/gp41and gp120) and any GAG or POL  Australia One ENV and any 3 GAG or POL   
FDA=Food and Drug Administration; CDC=Center for Disease Control; CRSS=Consortium for Retrovirus Serology Standardization;
ASTPHLD= Association of State and Territorial Public Health Laboratory Directors; SFTS=Sanguine Nationale Transfusion Societes, France.  *Source:* Genelabs Singapore and Genelabs Diagnostics HIV Blot 2.2 Western blot assay packet insert. 
This variation is not because different test kits containing different antigens are used in different parts of the world or by different institutions. *The SAME test kit is used all over the world.*  *Would your doctor accept that ECG criteria diagnostic of a recent heart attack vary between hospitals and countries?*

----------


## woodbe

> In the 2nd link you provided above, please note this,
> The ELISA is non specific but highly sensitive, which is why it used as a screening test in developed countries.
> The only way to determine the reliability of any test is to test significant numbers of people deemed "not at risk". This has never been done.

  So, let me paraphrase this. You believe that this Elisa test has never been subject to standard testing methods (ie control testing) for proving that a test actually tests for the antigen it was designed for, and that testing authorities in multiple countries have blindly accepted the test knowing it has never been tested on a control negative group? 
If so, please provide proof for this claim. This is basically nonsense.   

> I do not doubt for a moment that doctors believe the HIV tests are highly specific, meaning that HIV and virtually nothing else is capable of causing a positive result.
> There are two reasons for the doctor's belief.  Firstly, he may accept it based on the word of others.  That is, trust in the opinions of colleagues or scientists whose views he accepts because they are the recognised authorities in this area.
> No one could ever quibble with this approach because no professional has the time to practise his craft and check up on everything.  However, unless one assumes authorities are always correct, such pragmatism cannot resolve a scientific issue.
> All that is guaranteed is that the view of the established experts will prevail.

  A doctor is trained to understand medical science and to apply it to his practice. Any doctor can pull the literature backing the diagnosis and history of any disease at will from their reference libraries and online resources, as well as testing methodologies, differential diagnoses, treatment, etc. etc. Claiming that doctors run blind when they strike a disease such as HIV/AIDS in their practice is a pretty long stretch - if the disease is outside their experience and expertise they would most likely be making a referral to specialists in any case, and those specialists would be very well versed and experienced in the medical basis of the disease.    

> The second reason is the doctor has studied the scientific literature himself and has come to the same conclusions as the established experts. As a patient, it is very reasonable to ask your doctor a number of questions in the expectation of obtaining satisfactory answers; When Montagnier and Gallo claimed to have proven the existence of "HIV" in 1983/84 based on its "isolation", how did their experiments support their conclusions?  (This is important for many reasons including the fact that virus constituents are used in the antibody and PCR tests)These researchers also claimed to have obtained "purified virus".  What evidence did they present to back up this claim?Is it possible to obtain the "HIV" proteins and RNA without purification?  (Remembering that viruses and cells are made up of the same biochemical constituents as cells and viruses grow only in cells).Assuming there are such entities as "HIV" proteins and that they have been separated from all the cellular material and proteins in which "HIV" is cultured, does having one or several antibodies which react with these proteins prove they are "HIV antibodies"?If a doctor concedes that cross-reacting antibodies can be a problem with antibody tests, by what means have the established experts proven the tests are highly specific for HIV infection? Where are their data published?*If you live in a part of the world where the diagnosis of HIV infection is performed following two reactive ELISA antibody tests followed by a "confirmatory" Western blot, how can the tests be considered highly specific when the criteria for a positive Western blot vary between countries, institutions and even laboratories in the same city?* In regard to the "confirmatory" Western blot and assuming each country, institution or laboratory is correct, how can a person be infected with HIV in New York City on Sunday and not infected the following Monday in Paris? Or in Sydney Australia on Tuesday? Would he be infected midway across the Atlantic or midway across the Pacific?Would your doctor accept that ECG criteria diagnostic of a recent heart attack vary between hospitals and countries?

   I'm don't know where or how you formed this opinion, but it reeks of someone trying desperately to deny that HIV/AIDS exists. That was the 1980's, we're a long way past that. It exists, it's real.  
Regarding Q 1-5, Isolation of viruses and creation of testing procedures and materials is a well known and well practised science. It's often not an easy task as evidenced by HIV/AIDS and recent viral outbreaks such as Hendra and Bird Flu. Do you think that Hendra and H1N1 exist? 
Regarding Q6-8 You might like to consider that you can get fined for speeding when driving across the border from SA to Vic without changing your speed. How is it that you can be guilty of speeding in one state when the same speed is acceptable in another state?  *    
			
				CRITERIA FOR A POSITIVE WESTERN BLOT.
			
		  *   

> There are a total of 10 proteins said to belong to HIV (*GAG* - p18, p24, p39, p55. *POL* - p32, p53, p68. *ENV* - p41, p120, p160) 
> In Australia, you need 4 particular bands (reactive to a minimum of 4 proteins) to have a positive Western Blot (HIV positive). If you have 3 bands, it's not a positive result. When you get the 4th band, it is positive, which means that all those bands are due to genuine HIV antibodies but if you only have 3 bands, they're not due to genuine HIV antibodies. 
> So, why does the addition of the 4th band make the other 3 bands genuine?
> Why can't the 4th band be non HIV as well? Why can't all the bands be non HIV?
> Why is it that ALL 10 bands are not required to secure an HIV positive test result?

  IMO your questions demonstrate a lack of understanding of the scientific basis for the test and the reasons behind the methodology of selecting a positive/negative result from the test. 
woodbe.

----------


## Random Username

Essentially, there are different standards because they are in different countries and the social and economic conditions that each country operates in are different.   
The test looks for the presence of a range of individual proteins.  For the Western Blot test, the negative test (no HIV) is the absence of any positive indications (bands) whatsoever.  If there are a few bands, the result is indeterminate and requires retesting; if there are all the bands (as defined by the relevant medical dudes) present, then it's positive. 
This is where social and economic conditions come in - one country might say they need indications in bands X,Y and Z* rather than A and B, because the laboratory reagents for testing X,Y and Z cost $10 a litre while the reagent for A is $250 per 100ml; or they might say that they need to see A and X, because both those reagents have an unlimited shelf life even at 65 degrees, which means they can be transported and stored without refrigeration.   
They might say it's A, B and X, because those reagents are all in common usage while Y and Z would have to be obtained specifically for the test, or they might want A, Y and Z because Y is sensitive to proteins from the immature form of the virus so you can get an indeterminate or positive result even if infection only happened a few days previously. Or you might want A and B as the lab test with these is idiot proof and can be done by the same type of disinterested teenager who says 'Ya like fries with that?' at McDonalds.  Or you might go for A, Y and X as while it's excellent at detection, it's prone to false positives which you are happy to live with because it's what you test the Red Cross blood supply with. 
Think of it like buying petrol at a service station - it's tweaked for the region in which it's sold. Petrol has anti-sniffing agents if you are buying in some areas of the NT, it has cold weather additives if it's down in Jindabyne in winter, it has anti-rust additives if it's E10, it has stabilisers if it is destined for SA in summer... but at the end of the day the varieties all do the same thing, it's just that they are being optimised for different environments.  
*Using X, Y, Z, A and B because phrases like "precursor protein p160 which is cleaved to p120 and p41/p45" are way too long!

----------


## elkangorito

> So, let me paraphrase this. You believe that this Elisa test has never been subject to standard testing methods (ie control testing) for proving that a test actually tests for the antigen it was designed for, and that testing authorities in multiple countries have blindly accepted the test knowing it has never been tested on a control negative group? 
> If so, please provide proof for this claim. This is basically nonsense.

  The burden of proof lies with the people who claim that the tests are good etc. The only way to verify that these antibody tests are true is to have a *'gold standard'*, which would be the actual virus (HIV) in this case. Not only must the virus be shown to exist & by Koch's Postulates, shown to be infectious, the proteins used in the antibody tests must be proven to be unique to HIV.
Neither of these things has been done. 
Dr Kary Mullis, awarded the Nobel Prize (chemistry) for inventing PCR (Polmerase Chain Reaction), which is now used for many purposes, including HIV testing, talks about why he (& several others) began to question the current HIV hypothesis.      

> I'm don't know where or how you formed this opinion, but it reeks of someone trying desperately to deny that HIV/AIDS exists. That was the 1980's, we're a long way past that. It exists, it's real.

  Wishful thinking doesn't make anything "real".    

> Regarding Q 1-5, Isolation of viruses and creation of testing procedures and materials is a well known and well practised science.

  Consensus does not make something correct. It is not scientific.    

> Regarding Q6-8 You might like to consider that you can get fined for speeding when driving across the border from SA to Vic without changing your speed. How is it that you can be guilty of speeding in one state when the same speed is acceptable in another state?

  If you did get fined for doing this, it would be because you have broken the law. Are you trying to say that diseases must obey the law? 
IMO, your comments demonstrate a lack of understanding of the scientific basis for the test and everything else about HIV/AIDS.

----------


## elkangorito

> The test looks for the presence of a range of individual proteins. For the Western Blot test, the negative test (no HIV) is the absence of any
> positive indications (bands) whatsoever. If there are a few bands, the result is indeterminate and requires retesting; if there are all the bands (as defined by the relevant medical dudes) present, then it's positive.

  Can you possibly be vaguer? Hopefully, the HIV Testing clips below will help you understand reality. The people in the clip are predominantly proponents of HIV=AIDS.

----------


## elkangorito

More on HIV Testing.

----------


## woodbe

> The burden of proof lies with the people who claim that the tests are good etc. The only way to verify that these antibody tests are true is to have a *'gold standard'*, which would be the actual virus (HIV) in this case. Not only must the virus be shown to exist & by Koch's Postulates, shown to be infectious, the proteins used in the antibody tests must be proven to be unique to HIV.
> Neither of these things has been done.

  I guess I'm at risk here of feeding the troll, but: 
1. A virus will not be accepted as 'real' unless there is evidence. Even here in Australia, there is evidence of HIV infection and resulting deaths. You can call it something else if you like, but it does exist. Your argument is in the margins at best, not the mainstream. 
2. A test will not be accepted unless it gives some worthwhile indication of in this case contact with HIV. Not only is the test tuned for HIV it has shown in the field that individuals returning positive results are at risk.  
3. Again, show your proof that testing has not been done. Have you ever tried to get an Elisa test registered and accepted for use in public health?   

> Consensus does not make something correct. It is not scientific.

  Another nonsense. We're not dealing with consensus here, we are dealing with human disease. It is scientific, and practicalities are involved in terms of economics and feasibility of access to reagents. This has already been described in this thread but ignored.   

> If you did get fined for doing this, it would be because you have broken the law. Are you trying to say that diseases must obey the law?

  Again, you miss the point. We are talking about differences in legislature and accepted practices in diagnosis that varies depending on state or country. There is no reason that every state must be lock-step on either issue. Each state must make their own decisions and regulations based on the realities of their situation, and it is perfectly reasonable that one state may have tighter tolerances for defining an individual as infected with a disease or driving at excessive speed. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> The burden of proof lies with the people who claim that the tests are good etc. The only way to verify that these antibody tests are true is to have a 'gold standard', which would be the actual virus (HIV) in this case. Not only must the virus be shown to exist & by Koch's Postulates, shown to be infectious, the proteins used in the antibody tests must be proven to be unique to HIV.
> Neither of these things has been done.

  This information is not hard to find if you care to look. For instance:                                                     Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Calypte Biomedical Corporations Cambridge Biotech HIV-1 Urine Western Blot  (PDF)   

> Three studies were conducted to evaluate the performance of the Cambridge Biotech HIV-1 Urine Western Blot Kit. The performance was evaluated by comparing the results of urine specimens to the results of paired serum specimens tested with a licensed HIV-1 Western Blot Kit.  
>                      One study (Study 1) evaluated 696 archived urine specimens. The specimens were from low risk (N=200), high risk (N=37) and HIV-1 positive (N=377) populations. The HIV-1 positive populations included patients symptomatic (N=55) and asymptomatic (N=87) for HIV-1 infection, AIDS patients (N=115) and HIV-1 positive subjects from foreign sites (N=120) whose clinical status was unknown. Other specimens (N=82) were obtained and evaluated from subjects with medical conditions unrelated to HIV-1 infection that might result in antibodies cross-reactive with HIV-1 proteins. 
>                      The Cambridge Biotech HIV-1 Urine Western Blot results compared to serum Western Blot results are presented in Table A. Two additional studies (Study 2, Study 3) evaluated 1,240 prospectively collected urine specimens. Study 2 evaluated specimens from subjects whose HIV-1 clinical status was unclassified (N=197), subjects who were HIV-1 negative but at high risk of HIV-1 infection (N=51) and subjects with non-HIV related medical conditions (N=1). Study 3 evaluated low risk (N=315), high risk (N=303) and HIV-1 positive (N=175) populations, including AIDS patients. The HIV-1 positive populations included patients symptomatic (N=38) and asymptomatic (N=36) for HIV-1 infection and AIDS patients (N=101). Other specimens (N=198) were also obtained from subjects with unrelated medical conditions that might result in assay interference.  
>                      In the three studies combined, 1,936 paired urine and serum specimens collected from multiple geographical locations within the United States and from foreign sites were evaluated at four testing laboratories throughout the United States. The status of the subject was based upon the paired serum result or documented clinical status of the subject. 
>                      Two additional special studies were conducted using specimens from Study 3 to assess the performance of the Cambridge Biotech HIV-1 Western Blot kit. One evaluation involved Western blot testing of urine specimens paired to serum EIA non-reactive Western blot indeterminate specimens (N=109). The second evaluation involved urine Western blot testing of urine EIA repeatedly reactive specimens paired to serum EIA non-reactive specimens from uninfected individuals (N=114). [...continues]

  Clearly, these tests have been clinically trialled using both HIV negative and HIV positive patient data. 
woodbe.

----------


## Random Username

I'm not quite sure what you see as vague... 
No bands = no signs of HIV, please come back in a month for a re-test to confirm findings. 
A few bands = indeterminate = you might have been recently infected, we might have contaminated the sample by accidentally dropping a Big Mac in it, other stuff in your system may be giving a false reading, please come back again in a month for a re-test.   
Positive = "Dude, we need to have a talk"   
Western blot test results - first two bands are controls (Negative, then positive), the bands after that are the actual patient results. 
Nearly all people with indeterminate Western Blot findings subsequently test positive when retested, and indeterminate results happen in about 1 in 5000 tests in low risk populations.  
In areas such as southern africa however, they don't have the luxury of knowing that they can get a person back for a re-test in a months time (subsistence farming, poverty, long distances, no roads, travel on foot, that sort of thing) so - and this is that socio-economic thing I was talking about - they lower the bar on the tests to be on the safe side.   
Basically, it's better to progress on the occasional false positive than to have people going around thinking they are HIV negative when they are not ("Hey, honey, I'm home...we can throw the condoms away!") 
Now, in the "Extended unedited interviews from the HIV testing featurettes" video (which aren't unedited, by the way - there's a jump cut at about 6:00-6:02 minutes, and there's no intro or outro to the individual interviewees, and there's also no dates mentioned, and some seem to be at least from last century, and the whole thing is a random jumble of inteverviews [or segments of interviews - Niel Constantine appears three+ times - so much for unedited!] often without hearing the question. 
What I take out of that Today-Tonight jumble (cue spooky music in a minor key) of unedited (but edited), extended (but incomplete) interviews is (in order of interviews, each number refers to a new clip, text in brackets is my comment):    The antibody test was developed in 1984; antibodies often only reflect an exposure to a virus, not an infection that is still there, however for retroviruses it *does* indicate the presence of the retrovirus as they don't clear in the way that viruses do.A Perth doctor is having a grumble based on a paper written by him in 1993 which casts doubts on HIV existence.  (If he applied the same purification criteria to smallpox, measles, mumps and influenza, they wouldn't exist either...so that flu you got last winter was all in your head).ELISA is an initial screening test that is used by the American Red Cross as although it can have a higher false positive rate, it is considerably cheaper than Western Blot especially when you are doing 15 million tests a year.How to read Western Blot test results, what an inconclusive result is, and the difference between result types.People who have tested positive by ELISA sometimes don't understand that it is a screening test and needs confirmation by a more sensitive test such as Western BlotSome chick from a low risk group known to a GP in Uganda tested positive to (an unstated test) but three years later tested negative (no treatment is mentioned, no test type is mentioned)Dude from 3. again.  We will always make mistakes which is why we do follow up testing"More than 60 conditions can cause you to test positive" to this "new disease" - it's not clear what test is being talked about or when the interview was done (or, to push a point, what the disease being talked about is!).Tests are very sensitive and there is no tick mark black and white answer (see pic of WB test).Aha! it's the 60 conditions guy 8. again, and he mentions the ELISA test, so that's what he's on about. Seems to be complaining that ELISA is a test that can indicate if you are at risk of AIDS but sometimes it is thought of as a test telling you you have AIDS and that the test doesn't validate that you have the AIDS virus (just that you need to now have a more specific test)We came up with better testing as ELISA wasn't specific enough.  "And did a superb job."Rapid test kits haven't been tested against a 'gold standard' (whatever that means), just against other test results (so your rapid test kit finds appropriate positives and negatives, and has an acceptable false positive/false negative rate given the immediacy of the results...and the problem is....?)'Investigative journalist' states figure 'between 2% and 98% depending on the population, depending on the sample, would be reactive' (Test type not mentioned, but probably ELISA. The 'sample' is not defined, so if the sample is "gay males with Karposi's Sarcoma" a 98% indication of possible AIDS would not be surprising, and if it's 'American blood supply' then 2% would not be surprising, either.)The Austrian/Ugandan GP from 6. says doctors should read the package inserts for instructions (like duhhhhh)Dude from 11. - "Western Blot determines with enormous accuracy"Dude from 3. "Almost everybody responds with a full antibody profile after 3-4 weeks"  Explains that virus variants can produce slightly different results in the Western Blot, and you can get partial profiles if the patient is in the process of seroconversion. This dude (at 28 1/2 minutes and onwards) gives a very good answer to how the Western Blot works and why you might want to use different bands for indication and drawing the line for positive/indeterminate results.Boring.Boring.Journo from 8. with the positive in one country, negative in another bit. Test he is talking about is not mentioned, presumably ELISA.  He is apparently not aware that that this 'indeterminacy' only exists for a few weeks, and after that it ceases to be an issue.  (like that NSW/Vic border speed limit thing - it's only an issue for the split second that the car is crossing the border and is half-in, half-out of each state; once the car is wholly in Vic, there's no doubt that the Vic limits apply).Boring.Dr from 2. again.  Positive in one country, negative in another. Not clear what test he is talking about, but presumably its Western Blot.  Mentions that South Africa needs only two bands, while Australia needs four (again, it's only a status that happens while the patient is seroconverting, and I can guess that the bands that SA needs are ones that tend to indicate early, while Australia can be more laid back and say 'we need you to come back for a re-test in a month').Guy talking about polywhatsits.  TL; DRGuy from 4. Says they can have differences of opinion on whether a WB test is positive or inconclusive.  (how unsurprising given the nature of the test and the fact that this will resolve in a few weeks after another test)Guy from 3. again IFA testing provides an even better level of positive confirmation, but the test is more complicated and interpretation is more subjective and requires an expensive fluorescent microscope.Dude from 11. wonking on about a mythical 'gold standard' and how comparing your non-FDA approved tests to other non-FDV approved tests doesn't magically give you an FDA approved test.  (Don't really see the point here)Oh god, more spooky musicDude saying that an indeterminate test needs a follow up a month later.Chick talking about a woman in childbirth who had her 'indeterminate' test bumped up to 'positive' due to her past history as an intravenous drug user.  Woman  got sterilised and gave up her child for adoption based on this, was later found to be negative. (Was found negative years later as part of testing during a drugs trial.  Hospital probably needs to review its patient counselling or get patients who listen and understand what is being said)  
 At this point I got bored, as it was all on rapid testing kits for the third world.  The whole interview is a mish-mash, the questions asked to the interviewees are rarely heard, there's no indication of when the interviews happened or what, specifically, they are talking about (the interviewed journalists are particularly bad in this respect). 
Lets take a broad approach - even if HIV is not responsible for the illness and is simply a harmless marker virus that that happens to be common in an 'at risk' group, why do people given antiretrovirals for HIV live longer than those who don't receive them?

----------


## johnc

Fellas, there is no point trying to argue with or enlighten someone to stupid to see what is in front of their eyes. Anyone who siezes on a bit of bull they read on the internet and then sets their mind in stone on the subject really isn't worth the oxygen. Isn't it time to stop feeding the troll, the avatar says it all really.

----------


## elkangorito

In parting, allow me to introduce Dr. Luc Montagnier, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2008 for the discovery of HIV.     
In the documentary below, some doctors & physicists in Perth reveal how HIV has never been isolated or purified, & therefore has never been proven to exist.  The Emperors New Virus? - An Analysis of the Evidence for the Existence of HIV (Documentary) - YouTube

----------


## Random Username

So is that a call for "Pics or it didn't happen" that I hear????.   
Are photos of the virus good enough proof of its existance??   
Or will you still be demanding proof levels (Kotch's Postulates)  that haven't been met for smallpox, measles and influenza either??? (or don't they exist, too??) 
Try this: 
It is unfortunate that so many workers blindly followed the rules,  because Koch himself quickly realized that in certain instances all the  conditions could not be met. . . . Thus, in regard to certain diseases,  particularly those caused by viruses, the blind adherence to Kochs  postulates may act as a hindrance instead of an aid..." 
...Many viruses do not cause illness in all infected individuals, a  requirement of postulate #1. An example is poliovirus, which causes  paralytic disease in about 1% of those infected. Further compromising  postulate #1 is the fact that infection with the same virus may lead to  markedly different diseases, while different viruses may cause the same  disease. Postulates #2 and #3 cannot be fulfilled for viruses that do  not replicate in cell culture, or for which a suitable animal model has  not been identified."  _from Kochs postulates in the 21st century_    
Scanning electron micrograph of HIV-1 budding  (in green) from cultured lymphocyte. This image has been coloured to  highlight important features; see PHIL 1197 for original black and white  view of this image. Multiple round bumps on cell surface represent  sites of assembly and budding of virions.  1984.  
HIV-1 particles assembling at the surface of an infected macrophage.  _Reconfirming the Traditional Model of HIV Particle Assembly._ Gross L, PLoS Biology Vol. 4/12/2006, e445. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040445  
Annnnnnddddd - please answer this question - even if HIV is not responsible for the illness and is simply a harmless  marker virus that that happens to be common in an 'at risk' group, why  do people given antiretrovirals specific for HIV live longer than those who don't  receive them? 
And...could you please tell me why the 'uncut original footage' of Dr Luc has the noddies (cut-aways to the interviewer) through it?  This is kinda the 180 degree opposite to what 'uncut' means....  
See also: Debunking denialist myths | AIDSTruth.org

----------


## woodbe

> Annnnnnddddd - please answer this question - even if HIV is not responsible for the illness and is simply a harmless  marker virus that that happens to be common in an 'at risk' group, why  do people given antiretrovirals specific for HIV live longer than those who don't  receive them?

  +1 
Each time one of the 'questions' is answered our questioner throws another question. It's like the moon landing denial all over again. 
Good info Random Username! 
woodbe.

----------


## watson

I particularly, am a bit over this form of debate.
I can cut and paste anything off the web............except an ugly AFL footballer's wife or girlfriend  :Biggrin: ,  so raise the game or quit.

----------


## PhilT2

The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS
The link shows a different view of Koch's postulates 4 Nobel Prize Winners Who Were Clearly Insane | Cracked.com
This link has a different view one of the commenters Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The background of the leader of the Perth group
Random Username did a lot of work there to debunk the ideas put foward; I'm way too lazy to do that much work. It took two minutes to find enough to cast doubt on the first few statements by Mullis, another minute to find evidence that some of his beliefs are odd to say the least, then a few more minutes to find that many of the HIV denialists lack real qualifications in the field eg Papadopulos.
I recommend Bryce Courtney's book "April Fool" about the death of his son from Aids following a blood transfusion. Life is too short for this s**t.

----------


## johnc

> I particularly, am a bit over this form of debate.
> I can cut and paste anything off the web............except an ugly AFL footballer's wife or girlfriend , so raise the game or quit.

  One of the advantages of debate is that points can be discussed in an article, however when we get stuck with the school boy version which we have in the past we get something quite different. That is the endless posting of statements taken from the web from dubious and often unqualified commentators that do nothing but cloud the issue. It is the schoolboy version of debate simply because the poster of this type of commentary seldom bothers to even respond to inconsistencies raised and just goes on to post some other dubious piece of misinformation, showing perhaps they lack the intellectual capacity to reason and test their own ideas.  It is an endless and fruitless smokescreen that achieves nothing.  
Whats next? probably a thread on why we should not get vacinations based on more concocted "facts" dreamed up by someone with a  weird view of the world. 
Perhaps it would be best if a renovation forum was left to renovations and we develop a whole new forum for those who wish to post crap and discredit experts in their field of endevour. We could call it "Bogans Unite" and let them go for it.

----------


## Random Username

Bit like the climate change/global warming thread, really... 
(And I love some of the articles at Cracked.com...a humour site that seems to do more research than some newspapers!)

----------


## Ashore

Don't know why you even bother to reply to his threads, he obviously can't get any more bites on his " so called electrical expertise" so now his into aids. As the good DR ( watson ) said anyone can cut and paste and all it's doing is waisting space  :No:

----------


## ToneG

And the lesson is: 
Any thread starting with   

> I stumbled across some very interesting info on the web ...

  is probably going nowhere  :Wink:

----------


## shauck

> And the lesson is: 
> Any thread starting with   
> is probably going nowhere

  unless it's about renovating and comes from almost any other subforum here

----------


## Marc

There is no point in debating someone that does not have a point.
What's kangorito's point? AIDS does not exist? HIV does not exist?
Those are non debatable opinions. They are based on belief.
 Does God exist?
Does St Anthony perform miracles? 
If I rub a Budda statue do I have a better chance at lotto? 
A much more interesting debate is the origin of the HIV and how it spread and who did it.
Buy the way if someone needs reassurance that HIV does not exist in order to have guiltless
Unprotected sex think again and visit the infectious desease ward at the nearest hospital

----------


## elkangorito

Have a rest from tedious diversionary tactics & switch off the cognitive dissonance while Dr Henry Bauer, the author of The Origin, Persistence and Failings of the HIV/AIDS theory and the new paper HIV Tests Are Not HIV Tests, talks about the difference between HIV and AIDS statistics, particularly with regard to race and gender.  Episode 18: Dr. Henry Bauer at How Positive Are You   
There doesn't appear to be any cognitive dissonance in the U.S. legal system. 47 cases of dismissed HIV charges: http://www.omsj.org/innocence-group   

> Eneydi, T. - faced 30 years  walked with five days of unsupervised probation (Oct 2009).
> Magdalena, M. - all HIV-related charges dismissed (March 2010).
> Bartholomew, L.  all HIV-related charges dismissed (May 2010).
> unnamed  prosecutors could not prove a significant risk of harm (May 2010).
> Jose, P.  all HIV-related charges dismissed (May 2010).
> Valerie, S.  prosecutors dropped all HIV-related charges (Aug 2010).
> Andrea, D.  no HIV-related criminal charges filed (Aug 2010).
> Pamela, S.  all HIV-related charges dismissed (Sep 2010).
> Michael, S.  Admitted to spitting at cop  HIV charges dropped (Sep 2010).
> ...

----------


## Random Username

*There'll probably be a whooshing sound as these fly overhead, but anyway... * Read this and understand why getting a conviction can be a long and expensive process...* 
Level of proof:* 
It might appear that proof is a straightforward issue, but proving that         an individual has transmitted HIV can be exceedingly difficult.     Firstly it needs to be proven that the accused (let's call them A) was         definitely the source of the accuser's (B) HIV.   
This would involve a         range of evidence including sexual history, testing history and         scientific evidence in the form of phylogenetics. This compares the DNA         of the virus that A and B are infected with. If they are         completely different then it means B almost certainly did not acquire         HIV from A, and the case would probably be thrown out.  
If the strains         are very similar, however, it is possible, though not conclusive, that         A infected B. Phylogenetics cannot reliably estimate the direction of         transmission and therefore it is possible that B infected A.  
        Furthermore, both could have been infected by the same third party, or         different third parties who shared similar strains of HIV.  *Consent:* 
The majority of criminal convictions involving sexual transmission         involve an HIV positive person not informing their negative partner         about their status. In some cases, the positive person may have         actively lied in response to a direct question in order to persuade         their partner to have unprotected sex. In others, they may simply not         have mentioned their status.  
A prosecution involving deception might         carry a more severe penalty than a simple failure to disclose, because         it affects a person's choice to consent to sex. 
Consent is an important issue in all criminal prosecutions. If the         accused had simply not mentioned they are HIV positive, then the         prosecution would probably argue that they had been reckless by not         disclosing their status and not informing their partner of the risks         involved in intercourse.  
However, the defence could well counter this         by saying that the balance of responsibility is 50:50, and that by         agreeing to having unprotected sex, the victim         effectively consented to all the risks involved, including that of HIV.  *Assumed status:* 
Disclosing HIV status to an intimate partner can be extremely         difficult. Asking about someone else's status can be hard         because of the risk of offending them, or 'spoiling the moment'. In         such circumstances, many people choose to make assumptions instead. 
This is particularly true in high-prevalence areas or among         high-risk groups where virtually everyone has heard of HIV. A positive         person who engages in casual sex with a negative person may, for         example, assume that by failing to suggest the use of a condom or         failing to ask about status, the negative partner is either already         positive themselves or does not care about the risks of HIV. Likewise,         a negative person may assume that by not using a condom and not talking         about status, their partner must be negative too.  
You'll notice there's nothing debating the actual existence or accuracy of HIV or HIV testing.  Plenty of room, then for an ex-cop (who got off on a charge of assault on a technicality) to create his HIV Innocence Group to advise others of how to game the system...   
And...wow.  Just...wow. You are really pulling out the big guns now...how can _anyone_ possibly hope to compete with Dr Bauer??? 
Dr. Henry Bauer - that is, I presume, the Dr Henry Bauer who is an ardent believer in the Loch Ness Monster???  And UFOs??? (He spoke at the MUFON (Mutual UFO Network) conference in 2008) - really a top notch pseudoscientist!!!  (He should be - he was the editor of the _Journal of Scientific Exploration_, which publishes on dowsing, astrology, psychic phenomenon, ufology and similar...errrr... fringe topics)  
And is that also the Dr Bauer who says this in his memoirs - "I regard homosexuality as an aberration or illness, not as an equally  valid life-style or whatever the current euphemism is."  He must be an unbiased commentator! 
But I do acknowledge that that HIV Innocence Group relies on Dr Bauer's writings as their medical guidance. 
As for the HIV Innocence Group's supposed successes - here's a quick examination of some (number 32 to 37 inclusive) of them: 
Darren C - case rested on the definition of sexual intercourse
Cpl RL - military incompetence (testing procedure, chain of custody)
Jason Y - guilty plea was not an admission of guilt, but was but merely an  admission that he wanted to benefit from the prosecutors plea  agreement.
Sierra L - ummm - "Last year, Sierra Launer, of Bloomington, Indiana, was also found guilty of having unprotected sex while being HIV-positive".  So that was a win for the HIV Innocence group??  What?  Being found guilty is generally not a win for the guilty party.
Albert D - the HIV Innocence Group says "HIV related charges not filed" - the article they link to says "Rape suspect to be tested for HIV, STD"
Bob B - Case dismissed, says HIV Innocence Group, "Man with HIV charged with attempting to bite officer" says their link. 
In none of those cases is the non-existence/existence of HIV mentioned as leading to the dismissal of the charges.  Nor is the accuracy of HIV tests (the closest to that was the military one...where the military doctor failed to provide a required level of chain of custody evidence and a successful prosecution rested on proving 'intent'.) 
Really, all I am looking for in those 'successes' is a gold standard of evidence that the testimony/evidence provided by HIV Innocence Group directly lead to the accused party being acquitted of HIV related charges....so that means I wouldn't count letters from the accused party's solicitor saying "Thank you for your offer of assistance in this case, but the matter has been withdrawn" as a win for the HIV Innocence Group (they seem to think it is)...that's just a 'nah, we don't need youse, we got dis, fo' shiz' letter.   
Nope. I  want to see letters that say "Dear Mr HIV Innocence Group, your expert testimony and witnesses were pivotal to our defence, and without you, our client would have certainly been incarcerated."   Can you point me to a few of those???? 
So I think I'm fairly safe in saying that the HIV Innocence Group are quite capable of believing that they catch a UFO to their office, and that the UFO is driven by the Loch Ness Monster who asks them for _tree fiddy_  for bus - err UFO - fare!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> A much more interesting debate is the origin of the HIV and how it spread and who did it.

  Given what is already known about much of this...how would debating it help?  Apart from promoting some equally mindless and puerile stances... 
Learning more about it is something I have no problem with because it will assist with the process of risk mitigation even a solution.  But debating it...especially given the standard of debate about most things in this place to date...is trollfully laughable. 
As to the OP's original question...it's real enough.

----------


## Random Username

*Crickets chirping* 
*Crickets chirping* 
*Crickets chirping* 
I'm still waiting on a list of the cases where the HIV Innocence Group *actually* provided expert testimony leading to acquittal or dropping of charges due to the non-existence of HIV or the inaccuracy of the tests (as opposed to cases where they *_might possibly_* have had as much involvement as phoning the accused party's solicitor and offering to provide their expertise). 
For chri'sake, there's 47 cases in their list - surely there is one or two where they have a 'thank you for your winning assistance" letter! 
And I wonder if Dr Bauer gets airsick from riding in UFOs???

----------


## Marc

I wonder if the avatar used by Mr Kangurito is a mirror and "You are a retard" refers to himself?
In that case it should clarify "No offense intended I am the retard in question". 
 If not, I find it offensive and request it to be removed.

----------


## plum

> I wonder if the avatar used by Mr Kangurito is a mirror and "You are a retard" refers to himself?
> In that case it should clarify "No offense intended I am the retard in question". 
>  If not, I find it offensive and request it to be removed.

  I have never agreed with Marc on his views, but this one, totally agree, I too find it offensive and it should be removed.

----------


## METRIX

What a waste of server space this entire post is, I thought this forum was about renovation, not conspiracy theories ?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I thought this forum was about renovation, not conspiracy theories ?

  Nothing wrong with renovating a few conspiracy theories from time to time...mind you I've not seen too many such renovations that have produced a sensible, aesthetic and long lasting result.  Too many owner builders, perhaps?   :Blush7:

----------


## watson

Well.......I'm over it.

----------

