Blood transfusions are extremely toxic whether or not any known microbe
is present.  One would be taking whole foreign (non-self) proteins and
other substances injected directly into the blood stream.  This is not
safe and quite toxic.  (Recall Leaky Gut Syndrome.) Yes, it may be life
saving but at a high cost for those that will get ill from the event.
Their illness will not be traced back to the transfusion unless there
is some verifiable entity involved. Otherwise as Duesberg had pointed
out, the percentage of those that died prior to the AIDS creation and
afterwards are the same for blood transfusion of all those having the
procedure.  This is difficult for some to imagine since the
relationship of toxins and disease is primitive at best in the medical
institutions.  Always remember the equation Toxin + Dose + Individual
Constitutional Traits = illness and in some cases death.  Unlike
illness with known infectious agents taking 7-14 days, toxins in the
causation of disease may take much longer via destroying the terrain of
the body.  So, for instance, the association of a pneumonia case a year
after the toxic yet microbe free transfusion may never be made.

Thank you,
George DeCarlo

As for the tests, see www.robertogirlado.com  The following will get
you started:  (for references see
http://www.robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/TestsForHIVAreHighlyInaccurate.html
)

Tests for HIV are highly inaccurate

This article was written in June 2000
and posted during the Internet Discussion
of the South African Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel

For the last 6 years I have been working at a laboratory of clinical
immunology in one of the most prestigious University Hospitals in the
City of New York. Here I have had the opportunity to personally run and
get to know in detail the current tests used for the diagnosis of HIV
status, namely, the ELISA, Western blot and Viral Load tests.

1. The ELISA, Western blot, and Viral Load tests, used for the
diagnosis of "HIV infection" are not at all accurate

There are many arguments against the accuracy of these tests to
diagnose infection by what is known as HIV. For those who want to
search the issue deeper I strongly recommend begin studying the 1993
article in Bio/Technology by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and her group
of researches from Perth, Western Australia (12).

Here are some facts that support that a person who reacts positively on
these tests does not mean that he/she is infected with HIV:

1.1. The definition of AIDS, as developed by the United States Federal
Government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, requires a
positive result on the antibody test for HIV (1). This definition is
accepted worldwide. The importance of HIV in this definition is so
strong that, currently, many AIDS researchers, health care
professionals and lay people, in following the lead of the United
States Institute of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences and most
AIDS researchers now refer to "AIDS" as "HIV Disease" (2-7).

However, AIDS in Africa can be diagnosed without HIV test or any other
laboratory test. This was decided by American public health officials
at a conference in Bangui, in the Central African Republic in October
1985 (WHO's Weekly Epidemiological Record 1986; 61:69-76 and Science
magazine 21 November 1986). This allows health professionals to
diagnosis AIDS in Africa based only on the symptoms and signs that a
patient manifests.

1.2. The tests that are used most frequently to diagnose HIV status are
the ELISA "screening test", the Western blot "confirmatory test" and
the PCR "Viral Load test" (8-11). In the United States the ELISA and
Western blot tests, when done together, have become known as "the AIDS
test". These tests supposedly detect antibodies against HIV. The "Viral
Load" or PCR test is a genetic test that makes copies of small
fragments of nucleic acids that, it is claimed, belong exclusively to
HIV. These are the same tests that are used to check for HIV in
mothers, infants, children, and in the population at large. The problem
with all of these tests is that a positive HIV reaction does not
guarantee that the person is really infected with HIV at all (12-21).

1.3. Currently, a positive result on "the AIDS test" - ELISA and
Western blot antibody tests - is synonymous with HIV infection and the
attendant risk of developing AIDS (8-11).

However, these antibody tests are neither standardized nor
reproducible, with respect to HIV they are themselves meaningless
because they mean different things in different individuals, they also
mean different things in different laboratories and in different
countries (12). They are interpreted differently in the United States,
Russia, Canada, Australia, Africa, Europe and South America (22-27),
which means that a person who is positive in Africa can be negative
when tested in Australia; or a person who is negative in Canada can
become positive when tested in Africa (28). The other problem is that
the same sample of blood when tested in 19 different laboratories gets
19 different results on the Western blot test (29).

1.4. The Western blot antigens, proteins or bands - p120, p41, p32,
p24/25, p17/18 - which are considered to be specific to HIV, may not be
encoded by the HIV genome and may in fact represent human cellular
proteins (12-14,20,30).

1.5. 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.
Since HIV has never been isolated as an independent free and purified
viral entity (31), it is not possible to properly define the
sensitivity or the specificity of any of the tests for HIV (12).
Currently, the sensitivity and the specificity of the tests for HIV are
defined not by comparison to purified HIV itself, but by comparison of
the tests in question with the clinical manifestations of AIDS, or with
T4 cell counts (12). Abbott states, "At present there is no recognized
standard for establishing the presence and absence of HIV-1 antibody in
human blood. Therefore sensitivity was computed based on the clinical
diagnosis of AIDS and specificity based on random donors" (32). Since
there is no gold standard for defining the specificity of the tests
used for the diagnosis of HIV infection, all HIV-positive results for
HIV infection must be considered false-positives.

1.6. There are abundant scientific publications explaining that there
are more than 70 different documented conditions that can cause the
antibody tests to react positive without an HIV infection
(12-14,17,19,30). In other words, there are more than 70 scientifically
acknowledged reasons for false positives when testing for HIV. This
fact has been abundantly documented in the scientific literature.

1.7. Of course, it is shocking to find out that a diagnosis of HIV
infection is based on tests that are not specific for HIV. However, the
scientific evidence tells us that a person can react positive on the
test for HIV even though he or she is not infected with HIV
(12-14,17,21,30,33).

1.8. The pharmaceutical companies that make and commercialize the kits
for these tests acknowledge the inaccuracy of them, and this is why the
inserts that come with the kits typically state the following: "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" (32). 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" (34). The insert that comes
with a popular kit to run 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" (35). The
problem is that not only most AIDS researchers, journalists and lay
people but health care workers themselves do not know these facts about
the tests because they do not have access to them. There likewise
appears to be little or no concern on the part of the knowing faculty
of institutions to communicate these facts to physicians, let alone the
general public.

1.9. Since the viral load results are given in copies per ml of plasma
(35) AIDS researchers, health care professionals, and lay people may
think that they represent copies or counts of the virus itself
(12,36-41). However, the viral load test only makes copies of fragments
of nucleic acids. It does not count HIV itself. A positive viral load
test cannot be regarded as signifying the presence of the whole HIV
genome, and therefore the test cannot be used to measure virus.

1.10. Results of the viral load test cannot be reproduced. This can be
seen in the wide range of variability that is accepted in the quality
controls set by the companies that make and commercialize the test
kits. For example, Roche accepts low control having a range between
1,200 and 11,000 copies per ml [Lot # 0047], and high control having a
range between 99,000 and 750,000 copies per ml [Lot # A00246] [Roche,
Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor test Lot # B00985, expiration August 2000]. Most
important of all, the problems with the lack of a gold standard for HIV
infection also apply to the evaluation of the accuracy of the PCR or
Viral load test (12,41,42). As a consequence, the specificity of the
viral load test for HIV has never been defined properly. Therefore, all
viral load positive results are likewise false-positives for HIV.

1.11. The fact that the defenders of HIV as the cause of AIDS, had to
appeal to a genetic trick - the PCR test - is a strong argument
against HIV as the cause of AIDS. To have to amplify tiny amounts of
genetic material in the blood of the AIDS patients to try to identify
HIV, instead of culturing the entire virus, isolate it and purify it,
violates one of the central rules of infectious diseases: in the climax
or maximum state of severity of any infectious disease is when the
patient has the higher amount of microbes in his/her tissues. Is in
those moments when it is easier to isolate and purify the microbes that
are really causing a disease.

1.12. People have the right to make informed choices (43-45). However,
the right of informed choice implies a right to good information. There
is no justification for the fact that most people have not been
informed about the serious inaccuracy of the tests for HIV infection.
Withholding or obscuring these facts is a serious breach of public
trust, violating as it does a person's right to informed consent when
making decisions about their health care. The legal implications of
this situation have been noted (46).

2. Being "HIV-positive" does not mean that a person is infected with
"HIV"

2.1. There are a growing number of scientific publications explaining
in detail that the tests for HIV infection are not specific for HIV
(12-14,47). There are many reasons other than a past or present HIV
infection to explain why an individual reacts positive on these tests.
In other words these tests can react positive in the absence of HIV
(12-14,17-19,30).

2.2. Some of the conditions that cause false positives on the so-called
"AIDS test" are: past or present infection with a variety of bacteria,
parasites, viruses, and fungi including tuberculosis, malaria,
leishmaniasis, influenza, the common cold, leprosy and a history of
sexually transmitted diseases; the presence of polyspecific antibodies,
hypergammaglobulinemias, the presence of auto-antibodies against a
variety of cells and tissues, vaccinations, and the administration of
gamma globulins or immunoglobulins; the presence of auto-immune
diseases like erythematous systemic lupus, sclerodermia,
dermatomyositis and rheumatoid arthritis; the existence of pregnancy
and multiparity; a history of rectal insemination; addiction to
recreational drugs; several kidney diseases, renal failure and
hemodialysis; a history of organ transplantation; presence of a variety
of tumors and cancer chemotherapy; many liver diseases including
alcoholic liver disease; hemophilia, blood transfusions and the
administration of coagulation factor; and even the simple condition of
aging, to mention a few of them (12-14,17,18,30).

2.3. It is interesting to note that all of these conditions that cause
the "HIV tests" to react positive in the absence of HIV, are conditions
which are present with varied distribution and concentration in all of
the conventionally recognized AIDS risk groups in the developed
countries, as well as in the vast majority of inhabitants of the
underdeveloped world. This means that in all probability many drug
users [including mothers], certain gay males, and some hemophiliacs in
the developed countries, as well as the vast majority of inhabitants in
most countries of Africa, Asia, South America and the Caribbean, who
have positive reactions to the tests for HIV, may very well do so due
to conditions other than being infected with HIV (12-14,30,48).

2.4. Further, it is well known that people with or at risk for AIDS
have high levels of antibodies - immunoglobulins - as a consequence of
having been exposed to significant quantities of a variety of foreign
substances such as recreational drugs, semen, factor VIII, blood and
blood components, sexually transmitted infections and other infections
(12-14,49). All these substances are oxidizing agents that cause
oxidative stress (47,50,51).

2.5. Recently I had the opportunity to carry out an experiment by which
I was able to demonstrate that all blood react positively on the ELISA
test when run the test with neat or non-diluted serum. This could
indicate that everybody has antibodies against what is supposed to be
HIV. The ones that only react positively with straight or neat serum
would have fewer amount of antibodies than the ones that continue
reacting positively even when the serum is diluted 400 times (88). This
possibility has been confirmed by Yugoslavian and Italian researchers
(90)

2.6. There is also a great deal of scientific data indicating the
widespread presence of non-specific interactions between what are
considered to be retroviral antigens and unrelated antibodies
(12,52-54). It is then possible to conclude that the tests for HIV
react positively in the presence of those antibodies; in other words,
that a positive result on an antibody test for HIV may be the result of
previous antigenic over-stimulation, rather than a result of an HIV or
any other retroviral infection (12-14).

2.7. Finally, it has been proposed that antibodies against HIV are
surrogate markers for recreational drug use in the United States and in
Europe (55,56).

2.8. On the other hand, even if "the AIDS test" were able to detect
antibodies to HIV, it would not be logical to say that the presence of
those antibodies indicate an active infection. The presence of
antibodies to any virus simply means humoral immune response to that
virus and not necessarily that the virus is still active and pathogenic
(48,58). One can have antibodies against many germs without those germs
being active, pathogenically active or even present at all (58,59). In
most instances, antibodies against viruses indicate immunity. This is
the very basis of vaccination against viral diseases (48,58,60). Even
if the tests were specific for antibodies against HIV, the question
would then be the following: Why is it that only in the case of AIDS
the presence of antibodies indicates the presence of disease, rather
than protection against it?

2.9. There is no justification for the fact that both patients and the
general public have had all of the preceding facts withheld from them.
Without the merits and demerits of the tests for HIV, people cannot
make informed decisions.

3. The so-called "AIDS virus", HIV, may not even exist

Biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and her group of researchers
at Royal Perth Hospital in Perth, Western Australia, were the very
first scientists in mentioning the fact that HIV has never been
isolated (12). For several years Papadopulos-Eleopulos and coworkers,
have been publishing papers where they have described in detail, the
scientific facts that support the assertion that the so-called AIDS
virus, HIV, may not even exist (12-14,20,30,31,47,50,61-64):

3.1. The correct procedures (31) employed for over half a century to
achieve isolation of a retrovirus are: a) to find in infected cell
cultures particles with a diameter of 100-120 nM that contain the
so-called condensed inner bodies or cores and that have surfaces
studded with projections - spikes, knobs - b) In sucrose density
gradients the particles band at a density of 1.16 gm/ml; c) At the
density of 1.16 gm/ml there is nothing else but particles with the
morphological characteristics of retroviral particles; d) The particles
contain only RNA and not DNA, and the RNA consistently has the same
length [number of bases] and composition no matter how many times the
experiment is repeated; e) When the particles are introduced into
secondary cultures they are taken up by the cells, the entire RNA is
reverse transcribed into cDNA, the entire cDNA is inserted into the
cellular DNA, and the DNA is transcribed back into RNA which is then
translated into proteins; f) As a result of e the cells in the
secondary cultures release particles into the culture medium; g) The
particles released into the secondary culture medium have exactly the
same characteristics as the original particles, that is, they must have
identical morphology, band at 1.16 gm/ml and contain the same RNA and
proteins (31).

None of these procedures have been achieved in the case of HIV
(12,14,31,47).

3.2. None of the researchers who claim to have isolated HIV have shown
the presence of particles with the morphological characteristics of
retroviruses banding at 1.16 gm/ml (31).

Even the word "isolation" as used by the most noted researchers (65-67)
is incorrect and misleading since neither Montagnier, Gallo nor Levy
isolated HIV particles, particles of any other human retrovirus, or
even virus-like-particles at all (12-14,30,31,47,61,68-74).

3.3. Since no "retroviral particles" [retroviruses] have ever been
isolated from any culture (12-14,31,47,61-63,69-75), the existence of
HIV has been established indirectly: by the presence in blood cultures
of AIDS and "HIV-positive" individuals, proteins/glycoproteins such as
gp 160/150, gp120, gp41/45/40, p34/32, p24, and p18/17, each claimed to
belong to HIV; by the presence of enzymes such as reverse transcriptase
that supposedly belongs to HIV; and by the presence of RNA or DNA
fragments that supposedly belong to HIV (12-14,31,47,61-63,69-75).

However, none of these substances have been proven to belong to HIV at
all (12-14,31,47,61-63,69-75). How can anybody prove that the
substances found in those cultures belong to a viral particle that has
never been found at 1.16 gm/ml? To prove that those substances are part
of a retrovirus named HIV, it is absolutely necessary that the
retroviral particles have been previously separated - isolated - from
everything else. This has never been done with HIV (31).

3.4. It is interesting to note that the substances listed in 6.3. are
claimed to appear exclusively when one co-cultures supposedly infected
blood with abnormal cells from leukemia patients, or from umbilical
cord lymphocytes (31). The problem is that the same substances can be
obtained from the same cultures in the absence of the supposedly
HIV-infected blood (31).

3.5. The cultures where the above substances have been found are
cultures that have been heavily stimulated with substances such as
phytohemagglutinin, IL-2, antiserum to human interferon, and other
agents (31). These culture stimulants are oxidizing agents (31,47). The
problem is that the same type of material can be observed in stimulated
cultures of lymphocytes from healthy persons (31,76).

It is interesting to note than in the presence of antioxidants, no HIV
phenomena can be observed in culture; nor can HIV substances be found
(12,64,76).

3.6. The substances listed in 6.3. are not specific to HIV at all (31).
For instance, it is currently known that reverse transcriptase can be
found associated with entities other than retroviruses, including
eukaryote cells, some animal and plant DNA viruses, and even some
introns (77).

Gallo and co-workers have claimed that the cell-free supernatants from
"infected" cultures have HIV-DNA (78,79). They forgot that by
definition retroviruses are infectious particles that contain only RNA.
When retroviruses enter a cell the RNA is reverse transcribed into DNA,
which is then integrated into cellular DNA as a provirus, which means
that "HIV DNA" will be present only in the cell and no where else (31).

There is also ample evidence that any RNA or DNA present in the
supernatant of the cultures is there as an effect of stimulation by
polycations and oxidizing agents, rather than as an effect of the
presence of a retrovirus (31).

"HIV cloning" is likewise misleading. Without isolating a retroviral
particle containing RNA inside its core, the cloning of that "specific
HIV-RNA" is not possible (31).

3.7. To date nobody has presented evidence that the so-called HIV
proteins or antigens [gp160/150, gp120, gp41/45/40, p34/32, p24,
p18/17], are constituents of a retrovirus particle or even
retrovirus-like particle let alone a unique retrovirus, HIV (31).

3.8. The proteins or antigens derived from stimulated cultures form the
basis for the ELISA and Western blot HIV antibody tests (31,73).
Fragments of RNA from stimulated cultures form the basis of the HIV
viral load test (31,73). This is the main reason why the current tests
used for the diagnosis of HIV are not specific for it (12-14,31,61,62).

3.9. In the January 1997 issue of the journal Virology, two independent
groups of researchers published experiments claiming to isolate HIV.
Now and for the first time in the history of HIV, the researchers
followed the internationally accepted procedures to isolate retroviral
particles. Not surprisingly, in the sedimented bands at 1.16 gm/ml of
sucrose, where retroviruses are known to be located, nothing was found
but cellular debris. At 1.16 gm/ml there was nothing that even looked
like a retroviral particle (80-81). They could not have isolated HIV
simply because HIV was not there to be isolated.

It has been proposed that all those substances that indicate the
existence of HIV are nothing more than non-viral material altogether,
induced by the agents to which the AIDS patients and cultures are
exposed (31). When found in people, these substances would be seen as
regular products of the stress response (82), secondary to exposure to
chemical, physical, biological, mental, and nutritional stressor agents
(48,51,57,83-87).

3.10. It is therefore possible to conclude that the entire model of
AIDS as an infectious and transmissible viral disease has its basis on
a non-existing organism. The foundation stone for the HIV-AIDS model
then, is a ghost.

4. The real meaning of being HIV-positive

4.1. Above considerations allow one to propose that the reactivity on
the ELISA, Western blot, and PCR tests is caused by multiple, repeated,
and chronic exposure to chemical, physical, biological, mental, and
nutritional stressor agents. The degree of reactivity would be
proportional to the level of exposures to immunological stressor or
oxidizing agents (12-14,20,30,31,63,88,89).

Positive results on ELISA and Western blot tests, can also be
understood as the consequence of the presence of high levels of
polyspecific antibodies, due to a state of chronic polyantigenic
stimulation (52-54). The reactivity on the three main tests for HIV
-ELISA, Western blot, and PCR or viral load - would be simply the
result of the stress response (82,88,89,91-94).

4.2. Being "HIV-positive" - reacting positive on the tests for HIV -
would then mean simply that the person has been exposed to many
antigenic and toxic challenges, i.e., to many oxidizing agents
(47,50,89). His or her immune system has been responding a lot to these
immunogenic and immunotoxic challenges (51,57,89). The immune system of
these "HIV-positive" individuals would be debilitated - oxidized -
after it has been over-stimulated and intoxicated. Therefore, their
risk for AIDS is higher than those who are "HIV-negative"
(12,13,49,51).

4.3. Undoubtedly, there is almost a perfect correlation between the
reactivity on the so-called "tests for HIV" and AIDS.

Exposure to immunological stressors makes the tests to react
positively. At the same time, the exposure to immunological stressors
or oxidizing agents is the cause of the mild to moderate levels of
immune suppression present in all non-symptomatic individuals who react
positively on the "tests for HIV." If the exposure to immunological
stressor is not stopped, and if the individual is not disintoxicated,
it is very probably that the non-symptomatic "HIV-positive" individual
will worsen his/her immune suppression, and will develop the clinical
manifestations of AIDS.

What we know as HIV has not causative role in AIDS. By the contrary,
the HIV phenomenon is one of the effects of the stress response to
multiple repeated, and chronic exposures to chemical, physical,
biological, mental, and nutritional stressor agents.

5. Possible trial to find out the real meaning of the tests for HIV

To take blood from four groups of people and run the tests highly
diluted, undiluted and at a wide spectrum of dilutions in between. a)
The first group would be a group of healthy people of many age groups,
b) the second group would be a group of people from the conventional
AIDS risk groups, c) the third group would be a group of people with
clinical conditions unrelated to AIDS, and d) the fourth group would be
a group of patients with full manifestations of AIDS.

All groups would be subjected to both ELISA and Western blot tests.
Additionally, all blood samples could be subjected to the viral load
test for HIV.

The result of such experiment could determine whether these tests
measurements bear any relationship to an individual's level of
exposure to stressor or oxidizing agents. If so, the tests could be
salvaged as a measure of individual's level of intoxication.