=========================================
What are PPVs? Positive Predictive Values
=========================================

What is it and how can and does this statistical formulae effect the
cummulatively estimated 'HIV' tests conducted world-wide?

The following is taken from UNAIDS and World Health Organisation(WHO)
"Operational characteristics of commercially available assays to determine
antibodies to hiv-1 and/or hiv-2 in human sera" Report 9/10 Geneva 1998.
Distribution limited.

Page 11 WHO/UNAIDS: "The PROBABILITY that a test will ACCURATELY DETERMINE
the TRUE infection status of a PERSON being tested VARIES with the
prevalence of HIV infection in the POPULATION from which the person
comes." How can 'prevalence' of "hiv infection" in the population at large
be determined in the first place and then, by mathmatical extrapolation to
the individual from whom which the formulae was circularly and selectively
based er biased?

By other indirect, socalled surrogate markers, "hiv"
[non-specific]antibody positivity + PPV formulation + High Risk group
information ie: "status" or "membership." To restate, how was this
Positive Predictive Value [PPV] or the individuals socalled "high risk"
status calculated/determined/verified ? By other indirect "hiv" antibody
test kits + PPV + High Risk Group Information or selective classification
or bias, circular and self-fulfilling by designation?

Page 11 continued: WHO/UNAIDS/Geneva/1998/Report9/10: "In general, the
higher the prevalence of HIV infection in the population, the greater the
PROBABILITY that a person testing positive is truly infected (i.e., the
greater the positive predictive value {PPV}). Thus, with increasing
prevalence, the proportion of serum samples testing-false-positive
decreases; conversely, the likelihood that a person showing negative test
results is truly uninfected (i.e., the negative predictive value [NPV]),
decreases as prevalence increases. Therefor, as prevalence increases, so
does the proportion of samples testing false-negative."

There’s another FUNDAMENTAL FLAW here that means UNAIDS/WHO's
Positive Predictive Values [PPV] selectively bias gay men. Some Dissidents
say there is abundant evidence that ALL the High Risks groups are far more
likely to test "false" positive because they are far more likely to be
exposed to one of the 70+ conditions that can generate "hiv" antibodies in
the absence of "hiv" such as Africans may have TB (a very large number of
"aids" cases in Africa are TB or malaria cases and TB and malaria causes
so-called "false" positives and/or malnutrition, wasting) or gay men
exposure to recreational drugs or anally deposited semen. Other
Dissidents, such as myself, maintain there is insuficient evidence that
these socalled "hiv high risk groups" represent uniformely any inherent
health risk due to gender identity, racial classification or sexual
orientation. Whereas, the predonderance of "hiv positivity" or "aquired
immune deficiencies" in these groups are not comparable or correlative to
the general population because they are selectively biased. Therefore, if
you put any group under a microscope and said, we found these microbes,
germs, bugs, cooties, etc. and didn't really compare these socalled 'high
risk' groups, especially gay men which do not have any monolithic life or
healthstyle contrary to popular cultures' heterosexist conjecture, with
the general population, you wouldn't know what if any correlation existed
and whether that established causation. So even if there was a correlation
between 'HIV' positivity and gay men, showing they were far more likely to
be exposed to one of the 70 agent/conditions/diseases known to cause
so-called "false" positivity, it can only be said to mean they are more
likely to be viewed, determined, "interpreted" as a "true" positive
because you were selectively biased as 'high risk' because of the inherant
flaw or circular construct the 'HIV=AIDS' theory is entirely reliant upon.
While it was true that the original subset of gay men who were diagnosed
at the start of the socalled 'epidemic' were all sick, they did not have
any direct sexual connection to one another, and all shared certain health
style factors that were ignored as co-causal agents of their illnesses. It
was then extrapolated to say all gay men were inherantly 'at risk' because
of the assumption that an outbreak of reported illnesses in gay men must
be sexually transmissed. Many of these men were diagnosed as having STDs
but also took prophylactic or on-going, regular antibiotics which are
known to have immune suppressive side-effects.    
   
I don't know if there are a disproportionate number of antibodies in
selectively biased 'high risk' groups, specifically excluding gay men who
have no single life or health style in common, or if they have controlled
for the disproportionate number of tests done on them. About 40% of 'HIV'
tests in the US are done on gay men, which only represent about 5% of the
US population. But then this information is transmitted to the lab and
doctor and the tests are interpreted as positive more often if you are
preselectively biased as 'high risk.' So, it seems sort of a circular
construct. And the evidence of the lack of any heterosexual epidemic after
20 years in the West where they actually do the 'HIV' tests, unlike most
African 'AIDS' cases, does not fulfill the infectious model or it would
have spread to the 95% majority heterosexuals by now. The original
sub-group of gay men did have certain health styles in common, but then
the initial socalled 'AIDS' cases was not confined to those 'health risk'
groups with many known co-causal factors ignored, but it was extrapolated
to include all gay men, regardless of life or health style. This is why I
say that the mindset of 'SAME-SEXUAL=SIN=SICKNESS' lead to the
unquestioned acceptance of 'HIV=AIDS=DEATH.' It was just ten years before
the announcement of 'HIV' as the cause of 'AIDS' that homosexuality was
removed as a psychiatric disorder by the APA because of cultural and
religious prejudices which lead to scientific presuppositions,
predeterminations.    
   

RETHINKING SOCALLED 'SAFE-SEX'
SLIDE EFFECTS AND CONDOMANIA [INDEX OF PAPERS]
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/safesex.htm

A LINK TO THREAD WITH OTHER ARTICLES, PAPERS  ["CONDOMNATION"]
http://groups.msn.com/dissident-action/condomnation.msnw

INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND SUMMARY: [MORE RESEARCH NEEDS TO BE DONE AND A
SMALL BOOK ON THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE PRODUCED]

1) Many heterosexuals engage in anal sex, yet are not selectively biased
under the PPVs or Positive Predictive Values formulary labeling gay men as
'at risk' for who they love. Prevention education programs focused on
testing and retesting of all gay men which 5% population represented about
40% of all 'HIV' tests given. If they heterosexuals are tested, their
results are more likely to be interpreted as cross-reactive or
indeterminant because they are not in a 'high risk' group, so even if they
would just as frequently test 'HIV' antibody positive they are not being
tested proportionately. The 'HIV' non-specific antibody tests do not
measure 'HIV' infection and with over 60 known cross-reactors, do not
establish probable cause to live and love in fear.

2) Semen may cause minor antigenic stimulation or even immune supression,
which also occurs, byt the way, in women who develop morning sickness upon
conception to allow furtilization of the egg. It has not been established
by Scientists as to the quantity or quality of semen that may be more or
less antigenic stimulation or immune suppressive and this deserves further
study. Human contact and certainly human physical and sexual intimacy is
never 'safe' by nature. Yet gay men have been having anal sex throughout
history, and most gay men who do practise anal sex are not testing 'HIV'
non-specific antibody positive, yet with the added stress upon an
emerging
gay subculture and the widespread use of street drugs in the late 1970s,
and other health-style factors that are important in all illness/wellness
equations-- combined to contribute to aquired immune deficiencies among a
certain sub-set of gay men. Yet, all gay men were assumed 'at risk' by the
CDC in the 1980s because 'AIDS' was assumed to have a homosexual pathology
or sexual transmission, even though there were many known health-style
factors of the original sub-group of gay men, originally described as
'GRID'[Gay Related Immune Deficiency]. This, even though all of the CDC's
official 29 'AIDS' defining conditions occur in those diagnosed 'HIV'
negative and all have well documented causes and treatments unrelated to
'HIV/AIDS.' KS is one of the original defining condition, originally
called the 'gay cancer' was first described in the literature in the
1800s
and is seen today among middle eastern men. Today, KS is rarely seen in
'AIDS' patients and remains confined to gay men diagnosed with 'AIDS'
though Gallo, the alleged 'co-discover' of the putative 'HIV' and other
mainstream researchers admit KS likely has been correlated to amyl
nitrites or "poppers" used by some gay men and another virus
associated with it, HHV-8.

3) Anal health and hygiene, colon hydrotherapy, colonics, fasting, diet
all are important illness preventives including reconsidering certain anal
sex practises, fisting or rough, "unsanitary" sex. This might include the
pull out method or accessing your partners general health while taking
steps to sustain your own general health. Anal retentive focus on "bugs"
or hypochondriacal sex-negativity are anathma to a holistic or
multi-factorial, 'many-cause, many-courses' wellness promotion strategy.
Where is the evidence that anal receptive partners or "bottoms" are the
gay men testing socalled positive and the anal insertive partners or
"tops" are the ones testing negative? This is the major impediment to the
statement by even some AIDS Dissidents who propose anal receptive sex,
without controlling for the amounts and quality of semen or seminal fluid
which might be inherrantly immune suppressive.

4) Latex condoms and chemically carcingen-containing lubes role in immune
suppression and the astronomical increase in anal cancer rates, from
allergic to immunologic and even death, particularly among gay men. These
products were never studied for internal (anal) use, were never approved
for such and indicate for *topical use only* on package inserts.

5) Many STDs are not alleged to be spread through semen or seminal fluid,
but sores and saliva. Condoms have not been shown effective in preventing
most common STDs. Even if one 'contracts' these bugs, approximately 80-90%
of those are said to be 'carriers' who do not develop chronic symptoms in
their lifetimes, clear it from their bodies naturally after a short course
of conventional antiboitic treatment or preferably through the more
prophylactic use of alternative, non-toxic immune enhancing therapies--
thus calling into question the significance of the bug-seed versus the
human host or organizms' role in immune sufficiency and sustainability.