Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / June 2005
The TRUTH about what what happened at the ICC
|
|
Thread rating:  |
PaulKing - 30 May 2005 01:15 GMT he House That AIDS Built
Liam Scheff
This article deals with pharmaceutical abuse in a children’s home in NYC. This is a most controversial story – l, however, it’s entirely based in fact and good reporting. I hope you’ll find it as compelling and shocking as I did investigating it.
This piece was investigated and written in summer / winter 2003 and published in January 2004.
Liam Scheff. E-mail : liamscheff@yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction:
In New York’s Washington Heights is a 4-story brick building called Incarnation Children’s Center (ICC). This former convent houses a revolving stable of children who’ve been removed from their own homes by the Agency for Child Services. These children are black, Hispanic and poor.
Many of their mothers had a history of drug abuse and have died. Once taken into ICC, the children become subjects of drug trials sponsored by NIAID (National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease, a division of the NIH), NICHD (the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development) in conjunction with some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies – GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Genentech, Chiron/Biocine and others.
The drugs being given to the children are toxic – they’re known to cause genetic mutation, organ failure, bone marrow death, bodily deformations, brain damage and fatal skin disorders. If the children refuse the drugs, they’re held down and have them force fed. If the children continue to resist, they’re taken to Columbia Presbyterian hospital where a surgeon puts a plastic tube through their abdominal wall into their stomachs. From then on, the drugs are injected directly into their intestines.
In 2003, two children, ages 6 and 12, had debilitating strokes due to drug toxicities. The 6-year-old went blind. They both died shortly after. Another 14-year old died recently. An 8-year-old boy had two plastic surgeries to remove large, fatty, drug-induced lumps from his neck.
This isn’t science fiction. This is AIDS research. The children at ICC were born to mothers who tested HIV positive, or who themselves tested positive. However, neither parents nor children were told a crucial fact -- HIV tests are extremely inaccurate.(1,2) The HIV test cross-reacts with nearly seventy commonly-occurring conditions, giving false positive results.
These conditions include common colds, herpes, hepatitis, tuberculosis, drug abuse, inoculations and most troublingly, current and prior pregnancy.(3,4,5) This is a double inaccuracy, because the factors that cause false positives in pregnant mothers can be passed to their children – who are given the same false diagnosis.
Most of us have never heard this before. It’s undoubtedly the biggest secret in medicine. However, it’s well known among HIV researchers that HIV tests are extremely inaccurate – but the researchers don’t tell the doctors, and they certainly don’t tell the children at ICC, who serve as test animals for the next generation of AIDS drugs. ICC is run by Columbia University’s Presbyterian Hospital in affiliation with Catholic Home Charities through the Archdiocese of New York. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean and Dana Newberg are two children from ICC. Their mother used drugs and was unable to care for them properly, so they were raised in foster care, until their great-aunt Mona adopted them. Mona Newberg is a teacher in the New York Public Schools, and has her Master’s degree in Education.
She adopted the children when Sean was three and Dana was six. She was already raising their older brother, who was never given an HIV test or AIDS drugs. He’s now grown, healthy and serving in the Navy.
Their mother used heroin and crack cocaine since she was a teenager. She was given an HIV test in the late 80s and tested positive. “She had three children before Sean and Dana,” said Mona. “Nobody told us that the test cross-reacted with drug abuse, let alone pregnancy. It’s
not a valid test.”
Because of the test result, the doctors at Columbia Presbyterian put Sean on AZT monotherapy when he was 5 months old. Use of AZT monotherapy is now considered malpractice because it can cause debilitating, fatal illness including fatal anemia.
Dana spent her first four years at Hale House, a NY orphanage for children whose parents abused drugs. Hale house was participating in an AZT drug trial when Dana was there. “We can’t get the records from Hale House, so I don’t know what happened there,” Mona said. “I never gave Dana the drugs after I got her, but I know she arrived with a filled prescription for AZT.”
Sean has been on life support twice as a result of the AIDS drug Nevirapine. Dana was put on AIDS drugs in 2002, even though she wasn’t sick. Since being put on the drugs, Dana has developed cancer.
Both children have been taken into ICC and kept there against their will and against Mona’s wishes for one reason – Mona has questioned
the safety of the AIDS drugs AZT, Nevirapine and Kaletra and stopped giving the drugs when they made the children ill. In the summer and fall of 2003, I visited Mona, Sean, Dana and ICC. I spoke with Mona about her experience and her decision. (The names of Sean, Mona and Dana are aliases which they requested to protect their identities, but their stories are accurate and unaltered).
Liam Scheff: What led you to question the safety of the drugs? Mona: When I first got Sean at three years old, he was a vegetable. He’d never eaten solid food. He had a feeding tube that went through his nose into his stomach. AIDS medications change the taste buds. AZT, especially, makes it so kids can’t stand the taste of food and won’t eat. The nurses fed Sean AZT, Bactrim and six cans of Pediasure a day through this tube, which stayed in his stomach for over two years. Nobody ever bothered to change it.
When I got Sean, I continued to give him the drugs as prescribed for about 5 months. But after each spoonful, he got weaker. I thought, wait a minute – this stuff is supposed to be making him better, why is he getting worse?
Sean had night sweats and fevers 24 hours a day. He had no energy. He couldn’t play. He couldn’t get up for ten minutes without lying down. Nurses came regularly to give him blood infusions to manage the AZT anemia. After the infusions, he’d be nearly comatose for two days. He was like a limp doll.
Every time I gave Sean the drugs, he got weaker and sicker. I didn’t know what to do but I didn’t want him to die. So I stopped everything that appeared to be killing him. I stopped the AZT. I stopped the Bactrim. I stopped the nurse from coming to give the infusions.
It wasn’t immediate, but Sean started to improve. His fevers subsided. He could eat. He gained weight. Within a couple months, he was actually running and playing with the other children. Sean was born with a chronic lung condition because of his mother’s drug use, but even his lungs improved. I couldn’t believe it. When Sean was born, the doctors told his mother that he was going to die. They told her to buy a coffin for him. He barely survived. When I took him off the drugs, he was healthy for the first time in his life.
I was so happy, I told everyone - including the doctors and nurses - what had happened. I didn’t know not to. When the hospital found
out I wasn’t giving him the drugs, they contacted Agency for Child Services (ACS). An ACS worker came to my door, and told me I had to register the kids with an infectious disease doctor – Dr. Howard at Beth Israel. I was taking Sean and Dana to a Naturopathic MD, and they were both healthy and strong. I told them that we had a doctor. They said, “Too bad, you have to see Dr. Howard now.”
Howard was terrible for the children. He ignored the only thing that actually bothered Sean – his lung condition, and insisted that he go on a new drug for HIV. He said, “There’s a new miracle drug. It just came on the market. I guarantee if you give it to Sean, you’ll watch the miracle happen”.
LS: What was the miracle drug? Mona: Nevirapine. Howard put Sean on Nevirapine. Sean’s health immediately deteriorated. He got sicker, his lungs congested, he lost weight, his cheekbones sunk, his liver and spleen started to go. Six months after he went on Nevirapine, he had complete organ failure. He was on life support for two weeks at Beth Israel Hospital. Then I did some research on Nevirapine, and found out that it caused organ failure and death. When Sean finally got out of the hospital, Howard discharged him on hospice care. Six months earlier, he was healthy. Now they were telling me to prepare for his death.
Once I got him home, I stopped giving Sean the Nevirapine, and he was able to eat again. He started to gain some weight back. Sean was so weak after being on life support, with all those tubes in him. He’d gotten so thin. But he finally started to recover. When I took Sean to Dr. Howard, he was always surprised to see that Sean was improving. Howard would ask me, “Are you sure you’re giving him the medication, Mrs. Newberg?”
LS: In times of improvement, he suspected that you weren’t giving Sean the Nevirapine? Mona: Right. He only worried when Sean wasn’t sick! AIDS doctors always think there’s something wrong if you’re not dying.
After that Howard started keeping Sean in the hospital for longer periods of time for the lung problems we used to treat at home. Howard kept Sean for 25 days and fed Sean the Nevirapine himself. Sean ended up back in intensive care with organ failure. He was placed on life support for two weeks. He got a hospital staph infection because Howard wouldn’t let him leave. He was eight years old, and just wanted to come home.
A month later, the hospital finally discharged him. Then ACS called me for a meeting. The ACS worker told me I should put Sean into Incarnation Children’s Center until he was stronger. They told me that ICC was this wonderful place. They said in four months he’d be strong enough to come back home. ICC took Sean off the Nevirapine and put him on Viracept, Epivir, Zerit and Bactrim. Sean improved off the Nevirapine, but the new drugs definitely made him sick – just not as badly. He had trouble walking, and his arms and legs got even thinner.
I visited Sean at ICC for five months. Then, when I wanted to bring him home, they said, “We don’t recommend that Sean leave here. You have a reputation for not giving meds.”
LS: ICC refused to let Sean come home? Mona: Right. They kept him for a year and a half. I had to get a lawyer to get him out.
LS: What was it like for Sean at ICC? Mona: There were children in wheelchairs, on crutches, with deformations.
There were AZT babies. Their heads have a different shape, with the eyes spaced wide and sunken in. The drugs cause severe developmental problems. Many children have misshapen, weak limbs and distended bellies. Many are learning disabled. The kids at ICC are constantly medicated with all kinds of drugs. When children refuse the drugs the nurses hold them down and force feed them. Sean wanted to get the hell out of there.
During my visits I noticed that many children at ICC were walking around with tubes hanging from their undershirts, and I wondered what they were. Then one day, I saw the nurse come in with a whole tray of medications and syringes, and I watched her inject this medication into the tubes coming out of their stomachs. I couldn’t believe it. I thought, my god, what’s going on here?
Every child who had a stomach tube took their medication that way, from the three-year-olds to the teenagers. It horrified me. I couldn’t understand it. When I found out what was being done, I thought, surely this must be illegal. There’s no way they could be doing this legally.
I expressed my concerns to Sean’s ACS case worker. I said, “Do you know what they’re doing to those kids in there? This reminds me of Nazi Germany.” He said, “They’re doing wonderful things for these children.” I called Albany, the state capital, and talked
to Dan Tietz at the New York State Department of Health’s AIDS Institute.
He said, “What are we going to do if these little children refuse to take
the medication? How are we going to save their lives if we don’t perform this operation?”
LS: Who performs this operation? Mona: The children are sent to Columbia-Presbyterian for the operation. The surgeons there do it.
I was at ICC one day, and saw a fourteen-year old boy named Daniel refusing the pills. I actually saw him run from the nurse when she came to give him his medication. He said, “The medication makes me sick and I don’t want to take it.” His aunt was there, and she said, “The medication makes him very ill.”
The ACS case worker, Wendy Wack, came in, and said to the aunt very clearly, “Daniel has refused to take his medication. We’ve changed it three times and he’s still refusing. Now, the only thing left is the operation.” She said, “If you refuse the operation, we’ll call Agency for Child Welfare – and take Daniel away from you.” His aunt signed, and they took Daniel away. When he came back a few weeks later, he had a tube in his stomach.
LS: Does Sean have the tube? Mona: No. He doesn’t want that tube in his stomach. He’s been there long enough to know you get the tube if you say no to the medication. He’s terrified, so he never refuses the drugs.
The children at ICC who don’t have the tubes tend to be a whole lot healthier and live a whole lot longer than the ones with the tubes.
I was talking to a boy named Amir. He’s 6. His stomach was so swollen. He said, “My stomach is swollen, it got big.” He said, ”They cut me,” and he showed a little cut on his side. He’s had a tube for a long time. Amir was an AZT baby. His face has that wider shape. He also has lypodystrophy from the drugs. He has huge fat lumps on his back and neck. They’ve taken him away for surgery twice but the lumps grow back.
Sean’s little friend Jesus just died. He was 12. He had a tube. He had a stroke from the drugs. There was a little girl, Mia. She had a tube. She had a stroke and went blind. She died recently too. Carrie, a 14-year-old girl died last year. She had a tube. There’s a three-year-old, Patricia. She’s had a tube since she arrived. She’s going home with it in her. I don’t think she’s going to make it.
I used to talk with the child care workers about the drugs. I got to know all of them and they were all very friendly with me. I said, “These drugs are killing the children.” They said, “We know.”
LS: They agreed with you? Mona: Yes, but what can they do, they just take care of the kids. The doctors and nurses give the medication. Telling the doctors that the drugs make you sick doesn’t do anything. They just stare at you blankly. They don’t care. Compliance is the main goal of ICC. All the kids in ICC come from families who’ve failed to comply with the drug regimen.
LS: ICC is part of a national program running AIDS drug trials. Have you ever signed a waiver permitting them to use your children in a drug trial? Mona: No, never. But ACS has signed for me when I didn’t want to give Sean drugs. When I said, “No,” the ACS case worker grabbed the form and said, “I’ll sign it. You don’t need to.” They’re always switching medications – they never ask me if it’s okay.
Right now, most of the kids at ICC are on Kaletra. Kaletra was on fast-track approval. It was released before testing was complete. But they do know something about Kaletra. It causes cancer. It says on the label, that this drug causes cancer in test animals.
I fought for a year to get Sean home. ICC wanted to put him in a foster home where someone would be paid to feed him the drugs every day. I got a lawyer and we finally got Sean out of there. My lawyer was able to get Sean’s ICC medical records. He told me, “Sean was tortured at Incarnation.
He was tortured.” ------------------------------------------------------------------------
GMCarter - 30 May 2005 12:20 GMT >he House That AIDS Built > >Liam Scheff Unreliable source! LOL. This guy is almost a big an idiot as Gina Kolata.
PaulKing - 30 May 2005 21:42 GMT This source was the one that brought the story to the New York Post, British Broadcasting Corporation and the many others and resulted in an official investigation.
To excuse child torture and murder is so shocking I cannot even you could take such a position.
You are a criminal and a really disgusting example of mankind.
PURE HUMAN FILTH - CHILD KILLER
GMCarter - 31 May 2005 00:24 GMT snip...
>You are a criminal and a really disgusting example of mankind. LOL. You really are a wreck, ain't ya?
PaulKing - 01 Jun 2005 00:36 GMT No. You are a child killer or at least one who supports them.
David Canzi -- non-mailable - 31 May 2005 02:07 GMT >To excuse child torture and murder is so shocking I cannot even you could >take such a position. > >You are a criminal and a really disgusting example of mankind. > >PURE HUMAN FILTH - CHILD KILLER There was a time when, if somebody was accused of being a witch, anybody who doubted or questioned the accusation would also be accused of being a witch. Fortunately those days are behind us... I think.
(Aside to George: I advise you to fill your pockets with rocks so you'll be sure to weigh more than a duck.)
 Signature David Canzi
PaulKing - 01 Jun 2005 12:04 GMT "Fortunately those days are behind us... I think."
Actually we now have worthless tests for a myth called 'AIDS' instead of worthless tests for a myth called demon possession.
Possession is now called infection but the insanity is much the same.
Call it 'HIV' or the Devil it has the same puritan roots and the same blind hysteria driven emotional appeal.
David Canzi -- non-mailable - 01 Jun 2005 22:58 GMT >Actually we now have worthless tests for a myth called 'AIDS' instead of >worthless tests for a myth called demon possession. MYTH: HIV antibody testing is unreliable.
FACT: Diagnosis of infection using antibody testing is one of the best-established concepts in medicine. HIV antibody tests exceed the performance of most other infectious disease tests in both sensitivity (the ability of the screening test to give a positive finding when the person tested truly has the disease ) and specificity (the ability of the test to give a negative finding when the subjects tested are free of the disease under study). Current HIV antibody tests have sensitivity and specificity in excess of 98% and are therefore extremely reliable
http://groups.google.ca/group/misc.health.aids/msg/a4bb117ba5177f34?dmode=source (I have reason to believe you would trust the person who posted that.)
 Signature David Canzi
PaulKing - 02 Jun 2005 02:40 GMT NONSENSE
Unreliable Tests
A September 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article considered the "beauty" of testing. It told the story of 59 year-old veteran Jim Malone, who'd been told in 1996 that he was HIV positive. His health was diagnosed as "very poor." He was classified as "permanently disabled and unable to work or participate in any stressful situation whatsoever."
In 2004, his doctor sent him a note to tell him he was actually negative. He had tested positive at one hospital, and negative at another.
Nobody asked why the second test was more accurate than the first (this was the protocol at the Veteran's Hospital). Having been falsely diagnosed and spending nearly a decade waiting, expecting to die, Malone said, "I would tell people to get not just one HIV test, but multiple tests. I would say test, test and retest."
In the article, AIDS experts assured the public that the story was "extraordinarily rare." But the medical literature differs significantly.
The Numbers
In 1985, at the beginning of HIV testing, it was known that "68% to 89% of all repeatedly reactive ELISA (HIV antibody) tests [were] likely to represent false positive results." (New England Journal of Medicine. 1985).
In 1992, the Lancet reported ("HIV Screening in Russia") that for 66 true positives, there were 30,000 false positives. And in pregnant women, "there were 8,000 false positives for 6 confirmations."
In September 2000, the Archives of Family Medicine stated that the more women we test, the greater "the proportion of false-positive and ambiguous (indeterminate) test results."
The tests described above are standard HIV tests, the kind promoted in the ads. Their technical name is ELISA or EIA (Enzyme-linked Immuno-sorbant Assay). They are antibody tests. The tests contain proteins that react with antibodies in your blood.
False Positives
In the U.S., you're tested with an ELISA first. If your blood reacts, you'll be tested again, with another ELISA. Why is the second more accurate than the first? That's just the protocol. If you have a reaction on the second ELISA, you'll be confirmed with a third antibody test, called the Western Blot. But that's here in America. In some countries, one ELISA is all you get.
It is precisely because HIV tests are antibody tests that they produce so many false-positive results. All antibodies tend to cross-react. We produce anti-bodies all the time, in response to stress, malnutrition, illness, drug use, vaccination, foods we eat, a cut, a cold, even pregnancy. These antibodies are known to make HIV tests come up as positive.
The medical literature lists dozens of reasons for positive HIV test results: "transfusions, transplantation, or pregnancy, autoimmune disorders, malignancies, alcoholic liver disease, or for reasons that are unclear..." (Archives of Family Medicine. Sept/Oct. 2000).
"[L]iver diseases, parenteral substance abuse, hemodialysis, or vaccinations for hepatitis B, rabies, or influenza..." (Archives of Internal Medicine, August 2000).
The same is true for the confirmatory test the Western Blot. Causes of indeterminate Western Blots include: "lymphoma, multiple sclerosis, injection drug use, liver disease, or autoimmune disorders. Also, there appear to be healthy individuals with antibodies that cross-react...." (ibid).
Pregnancy is consistently listed as a cause of positive test results, even by the test manufacturers." [False positives can be caused by] prior pregnancy, blood transfusions...and other potential nonspecific reactions." (Vironostika HIV Test, 2003).
Inflated Africa Numbers
This is significant in Africa, because HIV estimates for African nations are drawn almost exclusively from testing done on groups of pregnant women.
In Zimbabwe last year, the rate of HIV infection among young women decreased remarkably, from 32.5 to 6 percent. A drop of 81 percent overnight. UNICEF's Swaziland representative, Dr. Alan Brody, told the press that, "The problem is that all the sero-surveillance data came from pregnant women, and estimates for other demographics was based on that." (PLUS News, August, 2004).
Flawed Samples
When these pregnant young women are tested, they're often tested for other illnesses, like syphilis, at the same time. There's no concern for cross-reactivity or false-positives in this group, and no repeat testing. One ELISA on one girl, and 32.5 percent of the population is suddenly HIV positive.
The June 20, 2004 Boston Globe reported "the current estimate of 40 million people living with the AIDS virus worldwide is inflated by 25 percent to 50 percent." It said that HIV estimates for entire countries have, for over a decade, been taken from "blood samples from pregnant women at prenatal clinics."
But numbers about "AIDS deaths, AIDS orphans, numbers of people needing antiretroviral treatment, and the average life expectancy" are all taken from that one test.
I've certainly never seen this in a VH1 ad.
At present there are about six-dozen reasons given in the literature why the tests come up positive. In fact, the medical literature states that there is simply no way of knowing if any HIV test is truly positive or negative:
"[F]alse-positive reactions have been observed with every single HIV-1 protein, recombinant or authentic." (Clinical Chemistry. 37; 1991). "Thus, it may be impossible to relate an antibody response specifically to HIV-1 infection." (Medicine International. 1988).
Ambiguous Results
And even if you believe the reaction is not a false positive, "the test does not indicate whether the person currently harbors the virus." (Science. November, 1999).
The test manufacturers state that after the antibody reaction occurs, the tests have to be "interpreted." There is no strict or clear definition of HIV positive or negative. There's just the antibody reaction. The reaction is colored by an enzyme, and read by a machine called a spectro-photometer.
The machine grades the reactions according to their strength (but not specificity), above and below a cut-off. If you test above the cut-off, you're positive; if you test below it, you're negative. So what determines the all-important cut-off? From The CDC's instructional material: "Establishing the cutoff value to define a positive test result from a negative one is somewhat arbitrary." (CDC, 2003)
David Canzi -- non-mailable - 02 Jun 2005 05:35 GMT >Unreliable Tests [Anecdote about a single false positive snipped.]
>In the article, AIDS experts assured the public that the story was >"extraordinarily rare." But the medical literature differs significantly. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >represent false positive results." (New England Journal of Medicine. >1985). All Scheff tells us about his source is: New England Journal of Medicine, 1985. It would be impractically difficult to search a whole year's worth of NEJM for a brief quote that might be in there, somewhere. If Scheff read the article this came from, he knew the title, the author and the page numbers, and could have made it easy for others to find the article. If the quote, in its original context, really supported Scheff's point of view, he would have wanted to make it easy to find. He didn't, so it follows that he doesn't want his claims verified. This is strong evidence that Scheff is dishonest.
>In 1992, the Lancet reported ("HIV Screening in Russia") that for 66 true >positives, there were 30,000 false positives. And in pregnant women, >"there were 8,000 false positives for 6 confirmations." Scheff doesn't mention that 29.4 milliuon people were tested. He doesn't want people to notice that only 1/1000th of the people tested had false positive ELISAs. Scheff doesn't mention that a confirmatory test reduced the 30,000 mostly-false positive ELISAs to 66 confirmed positives. Scheff doesn't mention that, in the countries where most of his readers live, a similar confirmatory test is used before anybody is diagnosed as HIV positive. By omitting relevant information, Scheff tries to convince his readers that the figure of 30,000 false positive ELISAs is the figure that's relevant to their risk of being falsely diagnosed HIV positive. It isn't. Scheff lies by omission.
>In September 2000, the Archives of Family Medicine stated that the more >women we test, the greater "the proportion of false-positive and ambiguous >(indeterminate) test results." If this were true as stated, testing 20,000 randomly selected women would result in MORE THAN twice as many false positives as testing 10,000 women. Perhaps that quote doesn't mean the same thing, in its original context, as Scheff is trying to force it to mean here.
If Scheff was smarter his lies would make sense.
 Signature David Canzi
Chris Noble - 03 Jun 2005 00:47 GMT David, Next time you come across a Scheff citation do a google search. For some strange reason you always get this website coming up!
http://www.rethinking.org/aids/cite/topic_027.html
Here we find where Scheff gets his citations.
Screening donated blood and plasma for HTLV-III antibody: facing more than one crisis?.
Osterholm MT et al. "68% to 89% of all repeatedly reactive ELISA tests are likely to represent false positive results...each year we might expected to find 175 to 209 truly antibody-positive donors [in Minnesota] and between 371 and 1701 falsely positive donors among those who have repeatedly positive screening tests" NEJM. 1985;312:1185-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=2984568&query_hl=3
Unfortunately, there is no abstract for this article in pubmed. I am not rushing off to the library to read the rest of the article.
However, we can search pubmed for other articles by Osterholm to try to get a more representative idea of his work.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=2648922 Ann Intern Med. 1989 Apr 15;110(8):617-21.
Performance characteristics of serologic tests for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) antibody among Minnesota blood donors. Public health and clinical implications.
MacDonald KL, Jackson JB, Bowman RJ, Polesky HF, Rhame FS, Balfour HH Jr, Osterholm MT.
Minnesota Department of Health.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate performance characteristics of sequential enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and Western blot human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) antibody testing in a low-risk population. DESIGN: Three-year prospective study of a selected sample from a community-based population. SETTING: Two blood collection facilities in Minnesota. POPULATION: Minnesota blood donors. RESULTS: During the study period, 630,190 units of blood (donations) from an estimated 290,110 Minnesota-resident donors were screened for HIV-1 antibody. Seventeen Minnesota-resident donors were identified as positive for HIV-1 antibody. Sixteen donors were available for follow-up HIV-1 culture: all were culture positive. The other donor, who was not available for follow-up culture, was likely infected with HIV-1 based on a history of high-risk behavior and positive serologic findings for hepatitis B surface antigen. Using 95% binomial confidence intervals, performance characteristics for sequential EIA and Western blot HIV-1 antibody serology were as follows: false-positive rate by number of donations, 0% to 0.0006%; specificity by number of donations, 99.9994% to 100%; predictive value of a positive test, 81% to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: In this low-risk population, the false-positive rate of serologic tests for HIV-1 antibody, using HIV-1 culture as the definitive standard for infection status, was extremely low and test specificity was extremely high.
PMID: 2648922 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
A specificity of 99.9994% to 100% sounds pretty good to me. Even in the low-risk population the positive predictive value was very good.
Scheff is a hack! All he did was go through dissident websites and copy out of context citations. I see no evidence that he actually read the articles.
Chris Noble
David Canzi -- non-mailable - 02 Jun 2005 06:51 GMT >In September 2000, the Archives of Family Medicine stated that the more >women we test, the greater "the proportion of false-positive and ambiguous >(indeterminate) test results." Scheff's statement above would be true if the proportion of false positives rose from 0.001 to 0,01. It would also be true if the proportion rose from 0.00000001 to 0.0000001. Scheff's statement is consistent with *any* probability, from the horrifyingly large to the vanishingly small, and therefore reveals nothing at all about the actual probabilities of false test results.
At a casual glance, Scheff's argument seems to support his claim that HIV tests are inaccurate, but on examination it turns out to be nothing but smoke.
 Signature David Canzi
|
|
|