MIGHT BE, it says. Translation: also might not be.
Perhaps an epidemic of 'HIV' testing has curtailed
number of positive test results due to a slacking off of those submitting
to such a flawed test, having discovered they are not as accurate as
claimed by the AIDS Industry Apologists. The only
way to know for certain is if the Department of Health released the total
number of tests given for each of the last few years and see if the
percentage of 'HIV' positive results have increased or decreased
proportionately. Ofcourse, we are told to downplay the downturn when it is
convenient for the AIDS Industry Apologists. Funny the CDC only has
numbers for the year[2004] prior to 2005.

READ THE 'HIV' TEST KIT INSERTS INCREDIBLY DISCLAIMING THEY ARE LICENSED
TO DIAGNOSE INFECTION WITH ANY VIRUS
http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous/messages?msg=1006.1

Healthfully and Hopefully,

Kelly Jon Landis

V I R U S M Y T H
http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous

==

AIDS DISSIDENT SCIENTIFIC SUMMARY ANALYSIS  

what is hiv?  

No laboratory has ever obtained an undisputed sample of human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV), despite countless attempts. Most
laboratories, clinics and medical corporations have come to accept
indirect signs, or 'markers', such as antibody reactions, proteins,
genetic fragments, 'virus-like' particles, enzymes - that could suggest a
virus but also other things - as proving the presence and existence of an
'HIV'.  

If such a virus were ever isolated by standards applicable until the late
1970s, the expectations are that it would be a retrovirus - a concept of
viruses adopted in the early 1970s. The genetic code of a retrovirus would
work 'backwards' - 'retro' - transforming RNA to DNA. Most retroviruses
are known as harmless passenger viruses a part of all of endogenous or
naturally occuring genetic make-up. 'HIV' has never been found in
suficient quantities to kill T-Cells and in fact there is no concensus
even after 20+ years as to 'HIV's cytotoxic or cell killing mechanism. For
a decade, researchers thought cancer was caused by a retrovirus. Professor
Peter Duesberg, UC Berkeley, isolated the first retrovirus and is a Father
of Retrovirology says 'HIV' is a harmless passenger virus that does not
cause the syndrome known as 'AIDS.'  

In 1984 some signs suggesting a possible new virus were detected in cell
cultures by the scientific teams of Frenchman Luc Montagnier in Paris, and
American Robert Gallo in Washington, who were trying to explain a single
cause for 'AIDS'. The French called their findings Lymphadenopathy
Associated Virus (LAV), the Americans called theirs Human T-cell
Lymphotrophic Virus III (HTLV-III). The US Government announced at a press
conference in 1984 that a new virus was "the probable cause of AIDS," yet
before any scientific papers inviting peer scrutiny were published. When
such papers appeared in Science some weeks later, a dispute erupted
between Montagnier and Gallo. Gallo was found guilty of scientific
misconduct by a Senate Ethics Committee, for misappropriating material and
photographs of 'virus- like' particles from the French. Because of the
financial stakes - Gallo and the US government applied for a patent for
tests for 'HIV' the day of the press conference - the matter was
eventually solved only by a closed meeting between the scientists which
produced an official history of events, and a meeting between the US and
French Presidents.  

However, neither Gallo nor Montagnier ever managed to purify samples of
the virus they claimed to have detected. Many scientists believe that
without fulfiling this traditional primary requirement of virus isolation,
multiple confusions at the molecular biological level are inevitable over
what or whether anything has actually been found. To this day, primary
purification of 'HIV' has never been achieved. The last attempts,
published in 1997 in Virology, revealed proteins and genetic fragments
from microvesicles - sub-cell particles - but no virus.  

hiv antibody tests  

INDEX OF ARTICLES, PAPERS
http://www.healtoronto.com/hivtest.html

Over the years of the HIV/AIDS theory, different types of tests have been
used to try to detect such a virus in patients. These have included (1)
antibody tests, which look for a reaction in a person's blood between
their natural antibodies and synthetic proteins said to belong to HIV, and
(2) Polymerase Chain Reaction - PCR - or 'viral load' genetic tests, which
purport to use part of the virus' genetic code to detect its presence.  

All these tests are indirect, or surrogate. They do not claim to detect
any whole virus. Rather, they use markers to infer whether a virus might
be present. Unfortunately for the accuracy of these tests, these same
markers can be found in a variety of non-HIV situations. No HIV test of
any kind has ever been validated against the one measure that is not
indirect - the gold standard: physical virus isolation. This is because
isolation of HIV by the previously conventional standards of viral
isolation has never been achieved, despite numerous attempts.  

Of the antibody tests for HIV, there are two main types - called ELISA,
and Western Blot. Neither was designed especially for HIV, but are
examples of laboratory methodologies used in many investigations. Around
the world many companies market their versions of the ELISA and Western
Blot antibody tests for HIV.  

However, the uncertain, unvalidated nature of these tests is reflected in
the product literature supplied by their manufacturers.  

A typical example for the ELISA reads:  

"At present there is no recognised standard for establishing the presence
or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood." - Axsym
System, Abbott Laboratories  

A typical example for the Western Blot reads:  

"Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection." -
Epitope, Organon Teknika  

Neither Isolation Nor Validation

Any scientist who declares that a genetic sequence, moreover a genetic
sequence arrived at by human concensus, represents a naturally occuring
virus, has compromised their scientific integrity. To further suggest that
this genetic sequence represents a unique, exogenous, sexually transmitted
and indeed pathogenic retrovirus is to enter the realms of pseudo-science.
Without HIV isolation all is mere speculation. Even if HIV were isolated
and the proteins tested for by the ELISA antibody test were actually
proteins specific to HIV, an antibody test would still not be accurate
enough for determining actual viral infection. Everyone tests HIV positive
on ELISA if their serum is not diluted by a factor of 400 because of
non-specific antibodies which bind to any proteins.

"Of course we looked for it [HIV]... We saw some particles but they did
not have the morphology [shape] typical of retroviruses. ... I repeat we
did not purify."  
~ Dr. Luc Montagnier, the "discoverer of HIV"  
 (see French transcript of quote from the interview
http://healtoronto.com/lmfrench.html , Did Luc Montagnier Discover HIV?
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/dtinterviewlm.htm  or video)  

"No one believed we really had that many isolates... No one believed we
really meant that..."  
~ Dr. Robert Gallo, also discovered "HIV"  
 (see Gallo Investigated http://healtoronto.com/galloindex.html )  

'viral load' / PCR test  

Polymerase Chain Reaction - PCR - or the 'viral load' test, purports to
detect, and quantify, blood-borne HIV in patients. However, the genetic
fragments it amplifies have never been proved to originate in HIV, or in
any virus. The accuracy of PCR viral load is estimated by leading doctors
at plus or minus 300% - i.e. a reading of 90,000 could be 30,000 or
270,000!  

The PCR was not invented for HIV. Its Nobel Prizewinning inventor, Dr Kary
Mullis, calls the use of PCR in AIDS medicine, "a tragedy in the practice
of Western medicine" and a "viral load of crap."  

The uncertain unvalidated nature of the PCR for HIV is reflected in the
product literature supplied by manufacturers. A typical example reads:  

"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." - Roche, Amplicor  

VIRAL LOAD OF WHAT?
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/kmullis.htm