HIV TESTS CANNOT DIAGNOSE HIV INFECTION
(Gallo et al 2006).
1. Several false statements regarding HIV testing by Gallo, Geffen, Gonsalves, et al. (Gallo et
HIV TESTS CANNOT DIAGNOSE HIV INFECTION
(Gallo et al 2006).
1. Several false statements regarding HIV testing by Gallo, Geffen, Gonsalves, et al. (Gallo et al 2006).
2. Pharmaceutical companies acknowledge that HIV tests are not specific for HIV infection.
3. HIV has never been either isolated or purified in a scientifically acceptable manner.
4. So-called HIV-proteins are not specific markers of HIV.
5. So-called HIV-RNA is not a specific marker of HIV.
6. False positive reactions on HIV tests.
7. The real meaning of being “HIV-positive” or “seropositive.”
8. Experiments proposed during the South African Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel.
9. Conclusions and recommendations.
1. Several false statements regarding HIV testing by Gallo, Geffen, Gonsalves, et al. (Gallo et al 2006).
On March 4, 2006, Robert Gallo, together with pro-antiretroviral HIV activists from the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa, the Gay Men’s Health Crisis in the USA, the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, also in the USA, and others (Gallo et al 2006), released an alleged rebuttal of an article by Celia Farber in the March 2006 issue of Harper’s Magazine: “Out of control: AIDS and the corruption of medical science” (Farber 2006).
Regarding HIV testing, Gallo and his co-authors assert that (Gallo et al 2006):
“HIV tests were highly accurate from the time they were developed in 1984 and have become much more accurate over time as the underlying technology has evolved. HIV tests are amongst the most accurate available in medical science.”
“A PCR test for the presence of the virus itself can accurately determine a child’s HIV status.”
“An AIDS diagnosis cannot be considered definitive without an HIV test.”
“Farber’s comment about hopping on a plane from Uganda to Australia to change HIV diagnosis is simply silly hyperbole.”
“The risk of a false positive HIV test in Africa, as elsewhere, is very small if the correct protocol is followed. Some HIV antibody tests have been tested in Africa and found to be very accurate. These are the ones generally used. For example, the Abbott Determine rapid test used widely in South Africa has a specificity of at least 98% (and in some studies has achieved close to 100%). When this test is combined with a second rapid test or an ELISA test to determine HIV status, the risk of a false positive is negligible. The contribution of TB and malaria to false positives on today’s tests is also negligible.”
“A properly conducted HIV-test protocol (which involves at least two HIV tests) has very small chance of giving a false positive, irrespective of pregnancy status.”
However, available scientific data do not validate these statements. Several established scientific facts supporting the contention that HIV tests cannot diagnose HIV infection are as follows:
2. Pharmaceutical companies acknowledge that HIV tests are not specific for HIV.
The primary tests for the diagnosis of HIV infection are two antibody tests, the ELISA and Western blot, and a genetic test, the PCR or “Viral Load” test. However, the ELISA and Western blot tests only detect antibodies against what are erroneously accepted to be HIV proteins or antigens. Similarly, the PCR or Viral Load test for HIV only detects copies of fragments of RNA that have arbitrarily been regarded as the nucleic acid of HIV. None of these tests detect the HIV virus itself, nor do they detect HIV particles.
The pharmaceutical corporations that manufacture and commercialize these test kits acknowledge the inaccuracy of the tests. This explains the seemingly surprising statement included in the kit inserts: "Elisa testing alone cannot be used to diagnose AIDS, even if the recommended investigation of reactive specimens suggests a high probability that the antibody to HIV-1 is present" (Abbott 1997).
The insert for one of the kits for administering the Western blot warns: "Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection" (Epitope Organon Teknika).
In like manner, the insert that accompanies a very frequently used test for PCR Viral Load warns: "the Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection" (Roche 2003).
Therefore, the pharmaceutical drug manufacturers acknowledge the fact that neither the ELISA, nor the Western blot, nor the Viral Load tests for HIV are specific to diagnosis HIV infection.
Interestingly, the only valid method of establishing the sensitivity and the specificity of a diagnostic test in clinical medicine is to compare the test in question with its gold standard. The only possible gold standard for the HIV tests is the human immunodeficiency virus itself, HIV. Since HIV has never been isolated as an independent, free and purified viral particle, it is not possible to properly define either the sensitivity or the specificity of any of these tests. Currently, the sensitivity and the specificity of the tests for HIV are arbitrarily defined, not by comparison to purified HIV itself, but by comparison of the tests in