The quote was not verified.
In volume 339 there are 51 issues of the 1992 Lancet.
A proper citation is needed to refer to the report.
Here are 4 hits from a 1992 Lancet search for "false positives"
55.
False-positive immunoassay for chlamydia in urine * CORRESPONDENCE
The Lancet, Volume 339, Issue 8806, 6 June 1992, Page 1426
E. O. Caul and I. D. Paul
Abstract | Abstract + References | PDF
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6T1B-49K5C94-3Y1-1&_cdi
=4886&_user=1083642&_orig=search&_coverDate=06%2F06%2F1992&_sk=996601193&view=c&
wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkWW&md5=cd69de7d8a1903b9c482ef11f9298a1e&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
159 K
56.
Staphylococcus aureus in urine and
false-positive immunoassay for chlamydia
* CORRESPONDENCE
The Lancet, Volume 339, Issue 8801, 2 May 1992, Page 1110
J. Wollenhaupt, F. Hartmann, H. Zeidler and M. Frosch
Abstract | Abstract + References | PDF
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6T1B-49K58F1-1YG-1&_cdi
=4886&_user=1083642&_orig=search&_coverDate=05%2F02%2F1992&_sk=996601198&view=c&
wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkWW&md5=545c6555918a573e78c61b06a6bf698a&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
164 K
57.
Detection of mycobacterial DNA in sarcoidosis and tuberculosis with
polymerase chain reaction * ARTICLE
The Lancet, Volume 339, Issue 8800, 25 April 1992, Pages 1012-1015
S. A. Saboor, S. A. Saboor, J. McFadden and N. Mcl Johnson
Abstract | Abstract + References | PDF
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6T1B-49K57SB-1DW-1&_cdi
=4886&_user=1083642&_orig=search&_coverDate=04%2F25%2F1992&_sk=996601199&view=c&
wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkWW&md5=7462990ad3ea5ff61cfb72090ea17fc7&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
671 K
58.
False-positive legionella serology in campylobacter infection *
CORRESPONDENCE
The Lancet, Volume 339, Issue 8790, 15 February 1992, Page 429
J. S. Cheesbrough, T. Makin, B. C. Taxman, N. J. Beeching and K. J. Mutton
David Canzi -- non-mailable address - 05 Jan 2005 20:46 GMT
The reference that Paul King/Mark Hanau can't/won't provide is:
Voevodin, A. 1992. HIV screening in Russia. Lancet 339:1548.
I notice that the Liam Scheff article Paul recently posted has a lot
of unusable references, consisting of just a journal name, volume, and
year. If an author doesn't want you to find and check his references,
he's hiding something. There's something there that damages his case.
Look up Voevodin's letter to the Lancet and tell us what you think of
how Paul King and Liam Scheff have (ab)used it.

Signature
David Canzi