No medical diagnostic test for any disease is 100% accurate 100% of the
time. So for fatal diseases such as HIV the medical community creates many
different tests aimed at diagnosing HIV infection. The goals that these test
makers have for there test very due to the intended use of the test. For
example if you wanted to make an inexpensive test that is meant to be used
on millions of patients as a screening test for HIV, your test design would
need to create a test that was optimized to NOT produce false negatives but
be less concerned with false positives. Such a test would be 99.9999%
accurate if the test returned a negative finding, but less accurate if it
produced a positive finding.

So now that the screening test exists the test makers need to design a test
to confirm the results of the screening test this test by design would be
optimized to not produce false positives and less concerned with false
negatives. So again this test would be 99.9999% accurate if the result is
positive and not as accurate if the result is negative. So if a doctor first
uses the in-expensive screening test and you test positive he then uses the
confirmation test to make sure the screening test is not returning a false
positive which would be discovered by the second confirming test.

There will always be a very small number of patients who due to some factor
or another will be difficult to diagnose but with the dozens of different
diagnostic tests now available to detect HIV even those patients can and do
receive a definitive diagnosis it may only take 2 tests or it may take up to
6 or more, but again these difficult to diagnose cases are very rare and
also very obvious to the labs who analyze the tests. If a patients blood is
reacting to the tests in ways that do not clearly follow the normative
patterns that test result stands out and the patient is flagged for more
through/different testing methods.

No it is not that simple nor are other diseases that simple there are many
types of growths on the human body that look to be cancerous but upon more
intense testing turnout not to be. There are many types of pneumonia some
bacterial some viral yet they present with very similar symptoms. Some
people can get a smallpox vaccination shot and have absolutely no side
effects yet a small percentage of people who get the exact same shot will
die from it. The same can be said about other vaccines and other medicines
some people can use them with no ill effects others can go from having a
mild rash to organ failure and death in reaction to the exact same
medicines.

Well testing is the same the vast majority of people can be accurately
diagnosed as to their HIV status after just two different tests but a few
people will need more testing in order to get an unambiguous result either
negative or positive.

Which point out of the hundreds of their objections do you find persuasive.
In my humble opinion they are the last place I would go for information on a
virus. The reason for that is that not a single member of the Perth group
has any training in virology or viral research. They have conducted NO
research of there own which if one purports to follow the scientific method
one should conduct the research that you use to back up your theories or
hypothesis. The Perth group on the other hand simply states that they have
declared a particular method of viral isolation to be the gold standard and
claimed that no one has met that standard. Neglecting the fact that no such
gold standard exists nor is the one they purpose in any way more accurate or
definitive then the alternates that are currently being used by tens of
thousands of virologists around the world, it is a fact that HIV has in deed
been isolated using numerous methods all of which have withstood peer review
and the tests of time. Even Professor Duesburg a Nobel Prize wining
virologist who did the pioneering work in early retro-virus research and who
is a dissident confirms that HIV exists and has been isolated per the Perth
groups so called gold standard.

No HIV is not made in the lab and Duesburg never claimed that. It is
cultured in labs (grown from known cell lines) and yes these exact cell
lines are not necessarily seen in the wild. However HIV infected cells from
an HIV infected person can be and are cultured in the lab and the virus
isolated from those cells are the same HIV as what is in that individual.
This can be shown by gentically comparing the lab cultured virus to that
taken directly from the patient. The genome of the various types of HIV has
been fully mapped which is even more convincing as a proof of HIV's
existence then is the Perth Groups so called gold standard of viral
isolation.

I do not now the state of science as to if they can create a new virus
without using existing viral strains as a starting point or not. But they
can certainly genetically alter virus A in such a way that what results as
virus B would be a new and different virus.

There are hundreds of drugs that can be referred to as chemo therapy but
Mustard Gas is NOT one of them. Mustard Gas was created during the First
World War as a weapon used to kill enemy soldiers not as a therapeutic
medicine. The use of the words 'Chemo Therapy is most commonly used when
referring to the drugs used to treat various types of cancer. But there are
some very strong Antibiotics that are also considered Chemo Therapy, the
dictionary definition is as follows "The treatment of disease using chemical
agents or drugs that are selectively toxic to the causative agent of the
disease, such as a virus, bacterium, or other microorganism".

Gary Stein