HIV tests can give false positive results for many different infections.

By Penn Xarwalyczha

The Natal Witness 16 June 2000

In 1998 I witnessed my partner being told she was HIV-positive. As any person who has experienced it will know, the death sentence that we have been taught to expect from such news comes as the shock of your life. From that moment on, whether healthy or not, the profound shock and sickening worry cause many victims' health to go on a rapid downhill plunge.

Such is the gravity of being told you are HIV-positive and such is the misery and death that it leads to that most doctors, health professionals and AIDS workers could be forgiven for presuming that the accuracy of the HIV test is beyond question - infallible even. Not so. If only they checked the scientific and medical literature, they would discover a great reservoir of evidence that amounts to a damning indictment of the tests.

I am not mincing words here, for thousands are being condemned to death by these meaningless tests every day - and yes, the test kits discussed below are the exact same ones used here in South Africa. In writing this I hope to inform the reader of scientific facts about the HIV test (a test upon which your life or death may hinge) which are routinely ignored by the mainstream media - and which your doctor or AIDS counsellor will never tell you

We are told that HIV tests give positive results on detecting antibodies to HIV in human serum. Medical researchers say otherwise. In 1998, a team headed by AIDS researcher Roberto Giraldo MD, a specialist in infectious and tropical diseases who has worked with HIV test kits in the U.S. for the past six years, published a paper in Continuum, vol.5 no.5, UK, in which he analysed the testing procedure in great detail. He concludes, " there is no scientific evidence that the Elisa test (the HIV test) is specific for HIV antibodies". Six months later he published another paper in the same journal, drawing a similar conclusion. "There are many reasons other than a past or present HIV infection to explain why an individual reacts positive on these tests."

Looking deeper, we find that even a manufacturer of the most popular HIV test kit openly acknowledges their redundancy, stating in their own literature, "False positives can be expected with any test kit Falsely elevated results have been observed" Indeed they even go further, " there is no recognised standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV in human blood." (source: Abbot Laboratories, manufacturer of HIV test kits, May 1998)

Then last year another paper appeared in vol.5 no.6 of Continuum. It states, "With respect to HIV, they (the tests) are themselves meaningless because they mean different things in different individuals They are interpreted differently in the U.S., Russia, Canada, Australia, Africa, Europe and South America, which means that a person who is positive in Africa can be negative when tested in Australia The other problem is that the same sample of blood when tested in 19 different laboratories gets 19 different results on the western blot tests."

But this information is hardly new. In May 1994, the Journal of Infectious Diseases carried a report by a team headed by Dr Max Essex of Harvard University, a highly respected AIDS expert. The team studied 57 Zairian leprosy patients, 70% of whom gave positive results on the Elisa HIV test.

Another form of HIV test known as "western blot" told a slightly different story; 85% were HIV-positive. Laboratory investigations, however, revealed that just two of the 57 were, in fact, HIV-positive. They further revealed that, far from picking up antibodies to HIV, the test kits had singled out proteins from the leprosy bacteria, mistaking them for HIV antibodies, thus giving false positive results.

Indeed, the evidence can become overwhelming. In July 1993, the respected science journal BioTechnology carried a damning report on the tests, in which a team of Australian scientists declared, "there is no proof that people labelled as HIV-positive are infected with such a retrovirus." The London Sunday Times went even further. Citing the work of the scientists, it stated, "The 'AIDS test' is scientifically invalid and incapable of determining whether people are really infected with HIV. Many people who appear to be infected with HIV, say the researchers, can be suffering from other conditions such as malaria or malnutrition that produce a positive result in the test. Even 'flu jabs can produce the same effect."

If that is not sufficiently alarming, I will end by returning to the work of Roberto Giraldo. Last year he published a paper listing some of the conditions which the "HIV test" wrongly interprets as the presence of HIV antibodies. I quote " past or present infection with a variety of bacteria, parasites, viruses and fungi including TB, malaria, 'flu, the common cold, leprosy and a history of sexually transmitted diseases; the presence of polyspecific antibodies; vaccinations; the administration of gammaglobulins; the presence of autoimmune diseases, rheumatoid arthritis; pregnancy; multiparity; rectal insemination; addiction to 'recreational' drugs; several kidney diseases; renal failure; organ transplantation; the presence of tumours; cancer chemotherapy; many liver diseases; haemophilia; blood transfusions, and even the simple condition of ageing"

Shocked? You have every right to be. And you now know the trickery behind Africa's sky-high "HIV" statistics.