Re: HIV TESTS CANNOT DIAGNOSE HIV INFECTION

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Bee - 06 May 2006 01:04 GMT

Here is one I found while searching which reiterates some of what I
have read about how these 'HIV' tests can not be used to determine if
someone has 'HIV' anyway?

HIV TESTS CANNOT DIAGNOSE HIV INFECTION
A reply to several of the numerous fallacies contained in the document
entitled "Errors in Celia Farber's March 2006 article in Harper's
Magazine" (Gallo et al 2006).
Roberto A. Giraldo, MD[1]
Etienne de Harven, MD [2]
http://robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/Farber_Reply_April_2006.html

Also, this case is interesting. This woman is suing some of the test
makers for fraud.

<http://www.kimbannon.com>

This seems real simple to me: If so many other things besides 'HIV' can
cause a positive result on some of these tests which are allegedly 'HIV
specific,' the tests can hardly be considered to be specific to 'HIV?'

What? 'Specific' does not really mean 'specific' or something? Means
something else in this context or something? If someone says 'specific'
to me I expect that to me 'specific?' If a test was truly able to
accurately detect 'HIV specific antibodies' then how can all of these
other things cause a positive result? And, I called the CDC to ask if
there were other things which could cause a positive result on some of
these tests and was told 'yes?' Can look on the test literature and
find this information as well? Anyone care to explain this to me. I
agree with this Bannon woman, folks looking into the validity of any of
this should concentrate on the tests as if they can't test someone,
don't have a reliable test, the test is not actually 'specific,' then
they can't tell anyone they have this 'HIV?'

Do the tests come with statements basically to the effect of 'not to be
used to conclusively determine whether or not someone has "HIV," or 'to
be used as an *aid* in the diagnosis of "HIV"' or not? Yes, well, then
some might say something like 'but one test is confirmed with another?'
Yes, well, but does this confirmatory test also come with a statement
to the effect of 'not to be used to determine if someone has 'HIV?'
Well, if so, then I would agree, that this is really just nonsense? No
need to go any further beyond the tests and argue about all of these
other points if this is the case, imo.

Reply to this Message

Bee - 06 May 2006 01:20 GMT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MAY 3, 2006
12:00 PM

CONTACT: US Public Interest Research Group
Paul Brown, (202) 546-9707

Deceptive Prescription Drug Marketing Tactics 'Common and Dangerous'
New Report says FDA's Enforcement Policies Ineffective

WASHINGTON - May 3 - Prescription drug marketers made deceptive claims
to
doctors and consumers about 150 different drugs including Vioxx and
OxyContin, according to a new report released today by U.S. Public
Interest
Research Group and the NJPIRG Law and Policy Center.

"Powerful prescription drugs can improve or save lives, but if they're
marketed to the wrong people, they can cripple or even kill," said
NJPIRG
Law and Policy Center Consumer Advocate Abigail Caplovitz, the report's
author.

The report, "Turning Medicine Into Snake Oil: How Drug Marketers Put
Patients At Risk," analyzes five years of regulatory letters from the
FDA to
prescription drug companies. The report called false and misleading
prescription drug advertising "common and dangerous."

Among the report's key findings:

Drug marketers make unsupported or misleading claims.

· Thirty-eight percent of messages to doctors and consumers made
unsupported
or misleading claims.

· Thirty-five percent misrepresented risks or side effects of taking
the
drugs.

· Twenty-two percent promoted unproven drug uses.

FDA policies to stop deceptive advertising are ineffective.

· About one-third of the drug marketers receiving FDA enforcement
letters
received more than one letter declaring their ads false or misleading.

· Many drug marketers received more than one letter addressing the
same
problem.

Deceptive marketing aimed at doctors.

· Physicians were inundated with 38 different types of dangerous and
misleading marketing tactics.

"Doctors are targeted because they're the ones who write the
prescriptions,"
said U.S. PIRG Consumer Advocate Paul Brown. "Drug companies know who
they
have to influence, if they want to jack up sales and profits."

Deceptive marketing aimed at consumers.

· Print ads, TV ads and website ads make up almost 80 percent of
deceptive
marketing aimed at consumers. These direct-to-consumer ads potentially
mislead millions of people, far more than the marketing aimed solely at
doctors.

Deceptive marketing includes clinical trials.

· Drug companies suppress unfavorable clinical trials.

· They use public relations firms to write favorable research reports
and
then list a doctor's name on the report as the "author."

· The FDA highlighted at least 82 times false or misleading
advertising
cited clinical trials.

"If we can't rely on clinical trial reports, the very foundation of
pharmaceutical medicine is destroyed," Caplovitz said. "Medicine, not
marketing must drive clinical trial designs."

The report recommends that Congress:

· Pass The Food and Drug Administration Safety Act, Senate Bill 930,
which
requires the FDA to review prescription drug advertising materials
before
consumers see them.

· Require that clinical trials used to support advertising claims be
approved by the FDA.

· Authorize the FDA to levy stiff fines against drug marketers who use
deceptive tactics.

"The FDA's current enforcement isn't even a slap on the wrist," Brown
said.
"A slap on the wrist would be an improvement."

The report recommends that individual states:

· Pass laws to make it easier for consumer to sue drug marketers for
deceptive advertising.

· Create a comprehensive, searchable database of clinical trials,
which
would make it harder for drug marketers to suppress or misrepresent
data.

"States can protect consumers now from the dangers of deceptive drug
marketing," Caplovitz said. "There's no need to wait for Congress or
the
FDA."

The report includes six case studies of deceptive marketing: Vioxx,
OxyContin, Paxil, Accutane, Neurotin and Tindamax. The report's numbers
are
derived from FDA letters to drug marketers.

###

Reply to this Message

GMCarter - 06 May 2006 12:08 GMT

>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>MAY 3, 2006
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>Deceptive Prescription Drug Marketing Tactics 'Common and Dangerous'
>New Report says FDA's Enforcement Policies Ineffective

Good article!! And no doubt a lot of truth to it.

Too many people take too many drugs they don't need. Or too much. Even
within HIV disease--I think many people could safely and effectively
use lower doses of drugs like zidovudine, stavudine and efavirenz.

However, that does not mean that diseases don't exist or drugs don't
have uses and benefits. It's just pharma is driven by the capitalist
model of profit, stockholders and 6-month forecasts so their goal is
to shovel as much of their product as they can into people at the
highest possible price.

THAT is a valid, immediate and profound concern that wombling off into
idiotic denialism will only deflect from. It is a far more important
discussion we should be having....like in the US demanding a single
payer healthcare system.

George M. Carter

Reply to this Message

GMCarter - 06 May 2006 12:05 GMT

>Here is one I found while searching which reiterates some of what I
>have read about how these 'HIV' tests can not be used to determine if
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>A reply to several of the numerous fallacies contained in the document
>entitled "Errors in Celia Farber's

HIV tests diagnose HIV infection with a high degree of specificity and
sensitivity. This is merely unsupported and lunatic ravings. If the
HIV test is no good--well, then there are NO infectious diseases at
all!

And Santa says we're also immortal as of this day forward forever!

George Mary

Reply to this Message