Dana
In 2002, just as Mona got Sean back from ICC, the doctors decided that
Dana
(Sean’s sister) should be put on AIDS drugs, even though she wasn’t
ill.
Mona: Dana wasn’t sick. She’d never had a major illness.
The doctors said her Tcells were low, so he put her on Viracept, Epivir,
Zerit,
and Bactrim.
LS: What was her reaction to the drugs?
Mona: She was throwing up constantly. Over the next two months, she
started
complaining of back and head pain, which got so bad I had to take her to
the
emergency room.
Beth Israel diagnosed it as Langerhans Syndrome, which is a childhood
disease
similar to cancer. Langerhans affects bone. It damaged one of her
vertebrae.
It can be treated with chemotherapy, but it’s a low level dose, much lower
than a standard cancer treatment.
Beth Israel knew about Dana’s HIV status. They told me, “We’re
going to ship her over to Presbyterian for a new diagnosis. Because of her
HIV
status, there may be a possibility that this is AIDS.”
So they sent her to Presbyterian, where the doctor wrote in her records –
“Langerhans Syndrome” but added, “May be associated with HIV.”
Langerhans Syndrome is not an AIDS-defining illness. There is no entry
anywhere
in the medical record of an association between Langerhans and HIV. But
Presbyterian
called it AIDS and gave her a much stronger chemotherapy appropriate for
an
adult cancer. Then they switched her medication to Kaletra.
LS: Kaletra – that’s the fast-track approved
drug that causes cancer?
Mona: Right. It states clearly in the manufacturers insert that Ritonavir
– one of the ingredients in Kaletra – causes cancer in test animals,
and that testing isn’t complete in humans. How do you give a child with
cancer a drug that causes cancer?
The Kaletra made her heave and throw up. They were afraid that she’d
become crippled if her back shifted in any way. So they put a brace on her
to
keep her still, and kept her on the drug. They gave her three months of
chemotherapy,
and the cancer was gone. They couldn’t find a trace of it. But they gave
her another 3 months of chemotherapy anyway.
Right after her diagnosis in January (2003), Presbyterian called ACS and
said
I was putting Dana in jeopardy by not giving her the drugs. ACS took Dana
out
of our home and put her into ICC.
We went to court to get her back. Dana’s doctor at Presbyterian had to
testify. When she was questioned under oath, she listed all the deadly
side
effects of the drugs - all of them. She knew exactly what all of them did.
The
judge asked her how she got the kids to take the drugs. And she said
“We’re
like Nazis when it comes to compliance.” Those were her words.
The Department of Health came to ICC three weeks ago for an inspection.
They
said that the children could no longer be restrained when they didn’t
want to take the drugs. They said that the children didn’t have to take
the drugs if they didn’t want to; they have a legal right to refuse
medications.
But the social workers and doctors told the children, “Sure you can
refuse,
but if you do there will be consequences.”
LS: What are the consequences?
Mona: The surgery.
Today Dana remains at ICC. She is 16. ACS is trying to put her in a foster
home where she’ll live with a stranger who’s paid to give her the
drugs. Mona is trying to bring her home. In August 2003, The Make-a-Wish
foundation
gave Dana the gift of a Disney Cruise to Bermuda. ACS told Dana that she
was
not allowed to leave the country, and cancelled her trip.
Sean’s blood is tested regularly to make sure that he’s taking
the drugs. He’s been on AIDS drugs all his life. He weighs 51 pounds and
is about 4 feet tall. Sean is now 13 years old.
During our interview, Dr. Painter of Incarnation Children’s
Center told me that there was some good news about HIV. She said, “HIV
is no longer a death sentence, it’s a chronic, manageable condition,”
– as long as you take the drugs. But Jacklyn Herger (see link below to
– “The Nurse’s Story” – part of complete story)
and Mona Newberg both successfully treated pediatric AIDS without AIDS
drugs.
In fact, their children were most sick when the drugs were used. Is their
experience
valid? Is it reproducible? According to Incarnation Children’s Center,
the answer is “Yes.”
From ICC’s published history: “Early in the [AIDS] epidemic,
HIV disease of childhood was considered to be a downhill course leading to
death.
But in the late 1980’s, before AZT was available, many very ill children
admitted to ICC got dramatically better with proper nurturing and high
quality
medical and nursing care.”
ICC successfully treated pediatric AIDS without toxic AIDS drugs. This
startling
revelation brings to mind a number of questions: Are the drugs necessary?
Why
are we using them if there are better options? And…
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Do We Really Know About HIV?
In July 2003, the esteemed science journal Nature Medicine
published an article called “HIV-1 Pathogenesis” by AIDS researcher
Mario Stevenson of the University of Massachusetts Medical School. The
article
was part of its “20 years of AIDS science” special edition.(6)
The article states with surprising candor what many researchers
have been saying for a long time: We don’t know how HIV might cause any
disease, and we can’t prove that it does. The paper begins:
"Despite considerable advances in HIV science in the
past 20 years, the reason why HIV-1 infection is pathogenic is still
debated... considerable efforts have gone into identifying the mechanisms
by which HIV-1 causes disease, and two major hypotheses have been
forwarded."
Stevenson is using the careful and somewhat deceptive language
of an academic. But what he’s saying is straightforward: Despite 20 years
and 118 billion dollars spent on AIDS (“considerable efforts”),
no one’s proven how (“the mechanisms” by which) HIV might
cause any disease (is “pathogenic”), and no one can prove that it
does (it’s “still debated”). What Stevenson offers instead
of actual proof are two “major hypotheses.”
In science, a “hypothesis” is an idea or proposal
about how something might work. A hypothesis isn’t a fact, it’s
a guess that a scientist tries to prove is accurate and true. If a
hypothesis
fails, it’s discarded, so that new, better, more accurate ideas can be
heard.
Stevenson further explains that we don’t know how HIV
might damage, let alone kill cells, “…it is debatable
whether lymphocyte [white blood cell] damage is due to the direct killing
of
infected cells...” and we don’t have any idea how HIV affects immunity,
“…processes contributing to the immune activation state in HIV-1
infection are not well understood..." The HIV hypothesis
states that HIV kills T-Cells, but Stevenson tells us bluntly that this
has
never been proven.
Because HIV’s ability to cause any disease remains an
unproven, “still debated,” hypothesis, it would be more accurate
and honest to rephrase Stevenson’s initial assertions as follows: "Despite
considerable advances in HIV science in the past 20 years, the reason why
HIV-1
infection is assumed to be pathogenic is still debated… considerable
efforts
have gone into identifying the mechanisms by which HIV-1 is assumed to
cause
disease, yet no one has identified a single mechanism that proves the
hypothesis
is valid.”
Stevenson concludes the paper by returning to the main theme
– the HIV hypothesis has failed proof:
"There is a general misconception that more is known
about HIV-1 than about any other virus and that all of the important
issues
regarding HIV-1 biology and pathogenesis have been resolved. On the
contrary,
what we know represents only a thin veneer on the surface
of what needs to be known."
Stevenson is clear -- we know almost nothing -- only "a
thin veneer," about HIV's "biology and pathogenesis," that is,
what HIV might look like, how it might work, and if it causes any illness
at
all. This is very different from what we’re told by the media and the
medical establishment about HIV and AIDS. But according to the
academically-reviewed
article in Nature Medicine,” HIV pathogenesis remains an unproven
hypothesis.
If we don’t know how HIV works, or if it makes anyone
sick, then it’s unethical to treat any HIV positive person with
potentially
fatal pharmaceuticals, which the manufacturers themselves admit, do not
cure
AIDS.
In addition to their long list of serious and potentially fatal
side-effects, all AIDS drugs also list this printed warning:
“This drug will not cure your HIV infection…Patients
receiving antiretroviral therapy may continue to experience opportunistic
infections and other complications of HIV disease…Patients should be
advised that the long-term effects are unknown at this time.”
What Do HIV Tests Measure?
When you take an HIV test, your blood isn’t tested for
a virus, it’s tested for your body’s natural antibody response to
the proteins in the HIV test. These proteins are supposed to stand in for
HIV.
In order for an antibody test to be clinically meaningful and
accurate, its proteins must belong to a specific virus or particle. This
is
not the case with the proteins in the HIV test. These proteins, which are
grown
in artificially-stimulated cell cultures, have been accurately analyzed in
the
lab, and they don’t belong to any specific virus or particle.(16)
In fact, these proteins occur commonly in both sick and healthy
people. What HIV tests are known to measure is not the presence of a
virus,
but is instead, your body’s natural “antibody” response to
commonly-occurring proteins.
What does HIV-Positive mean?
The HIV test measures “antibody” response to these
commonly-occurring proteins. We produce “antibodies” to all the
foreign material we encounter - germs, yeast, fungi, bacteria, pollutants,
even
food. Antibodies are proteins that are produced by our white blood cells
to
help identify foreign matter in our blood. They “grab” onto the
foreign protein so that it can be processed safely.
Antibodies tend to be cross-reactive. That is, one antibody
can grab onto a wide variety of proteins. The proteins in the HIV-test are
commonly-occurring,
and so they cross-react with an even wider variety of antibodies. This
non-specific
“cross-reaction” is the actual meaning of “HIV-positive.”
How cross-reactive is the HIV-Test?
HIV tests can cross-react with antibodies produced from nearly
70 disease (and non-disease) conditions. These include yeast infections,
arthritis,
hepatitis, herpes, parasitic infections, drug use, tuberculosis,
inoculations,
colds and prior pregnancy (1-3). The HIV test is also more reactive with
people
who are chronically exposed to environmental stressors, bacteria, fungi,
parasites
and toxins (for example, people living in poverty without sufficient food
and
clean water, such as in Africa).
If you’ve been exposed to any of these conditions, your
body will produce antibodies that can react with the HIV test proteins.
This
non-specific antibody reaction is what’s known as “HIV-positive.”
The term “HIV-positive” only has one valid meaning:
“Non-specific antibody to commonly-occurring protein-positive.”
An HIV-positive test result may help identify patients who have a lot of
antibodies
in their blood. This can indicate a high historical exposure to illness,
which
can serve as a warning to better support immune function by improving
general
health. But it’s in no way indicative of a terminal, fatal virus or
condition.
This is very different from what we’ve been told about
HIV tests for nearly 20 years. But the FDA and the test-makers are legally
obligated
to state the limitations of their tests. (From HIV test package inserts):
* “At present there is no recognized standard for
establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood.”
(Abbott Laboratories HIV Test - ElA)
* “The risk of an asymptomatic person with a repeatedly reactive serum
developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known.”
(Genetic Systems HIV Test - Peptide EIA)
* “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 HIV Test – PCR).
* “Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis
of HIV-1 infection.” (Epitope, Inc. HIV Test - Western Blot)
* “[Positive test results can occur due to] prior pregnancy,
blood transfusions... and other potential nonspecific reactions.”
[Vironostika HIV Test, 2003].
The medical literature is also clear about the lack of specificity
of HIV tests:
“False-positive ELISA [antibody] test results
can be caused by alloantibodies resulting from transfusions,
transplantation,
or pregnancy, autoimmune disorders, malignancies, alcoholic liver disease,
or for reasons that are unclear... The WB [Western Blot antibody
test] is not used as a screening tool because... it yields an unacceptably
high percentage of indeterminate results. ”
Doran TI, Parra E. False-Positive and Indeterminate Human
Immunodeficiency Virus Test Results in Pregnant Women. Archives of Family
Medicine. 2000 Sep/Oct;9:924-9.
“False-positive HIV ELISAs have been observed
with serum from patients with a variety of medical conditions unrelated to
HIV infection.... False-positive HIV ELISAs [also] occur because
of human or technical errors associated with doing the tests
or because of antibodies that coincidentally cross-react with HIV
or nonviral components in the tests... Notable causes of false-positive
reactions have been anti-HLA-DR antibodies that sometimes occur in
multiparous [pregnant more than once] women and in multiply
transfused patients. Likewise, antibodies to proteins of
other viruses have been reported to cross-react
with HIV determinants. False-positive HIV ELISAs also have been observed
recently
in persons who received vaccines for influenza and hepatitis
B virus”
Proffitt MR, Yen-Lieberman B. Laboratory diagnosis of
human immunodeficiency virus infection. Inf Dis Clin North Am.
1993;7:203-19.
Regardless of what the FDA-mandated warnings or the clinical
research tells us, these non-specific tests are used to tell people that
they’re
infected with a deadly virus.
The test makers are aware that HIV-positive test results occur
because of “prior pregnancy, blood transfusion…and other nonspecific
reactions,” “vaccines,” “human or technical errors,”
“transfusions, transplantation, or pregnancy, autoimmune disorders,
malignancies,
alcoholic liver disease, or for reasons that are unclear.” Given all of
this cross-reactivity…
How do we know who is really HIV-positive?
The answer to this question has more to do with sociology than
science. Lab technicians, doctors and nurses are instructed by the test
manufacturers
to make this determination subjectively, based on socio-economic and
sexual
criteria.
The HIV test has two different names for identical test reactions:
“nonspecific” and “specific.” A “nonspecific
reaction” (HIV-negative or indeterminate) is the diagnosis given
to people determined to be in the “low-risk group.”
A “specific reaction” (HIV-positive) is the diagnosis
determined to be in the “high-risk group.”
Social, Sexual and Economic Bias in HIV Testing:
Who are the people in these groups? The “high-risk group,”
according to the test manufacturers, consists of “prison inmates,
STD clinic patients, inner city hospital emergency room patients…
homosexual
men [and] intravenous drug users.” The “low-risk group”
isn’t defined, but can be assumed to include people outside of poverty
situations who are under less social, ethnic and economic stress.
For people in the “high-risk group,” an antibody
reaction is more likely to be considered “specific” (HIV positive).
However, for the “low-risk group,” the test manufactures state that
“nonspecific reactions [HIV negative] may be more common than specific
reactions [HIV positive]. (Vironostika HIV Test, 2003).”
What makes a “nonspecific” (HIV negative)
reaction “more common” [more likely] than a “specific”
(HIV positive) reaction in the “low-risk group”?
What makes a “specific” reaction “more
common” in the “high-risk group?”
The answer to this question is different from test to test,
lab to lab, and country to country. There are no standards for what makes
a
test “HIV-positive.”
* “At present there is no recognized standard for
establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood.”
(Abbott Laboratories HIV Test - ElA)
The final analysis belongs to the subjective interpretation
of the person or institution giving the test. The test manufacturers are
telling
the lab technicians, doctors and nurses who are reading these tests that
it’s
acceptable to determine HIV test results based on subjective consideration
of
an individual’s ethnic, social, sexual and economic status.
* “Both the degree of risk for HIV-1 infection of the
person studied and the degree of reactivity of the serum may be of
value in interpreting the test” – (Abbott Laboratories
HIV Test – EIA)
It is highly unethical to assume that two identical reactions
mean different things, based on socio-economic factors and sexual
preference,
but that is exactly what is being done every day in HIV test labs.
Given the subjective, variable interpretation of HIV tests,
how accurate are they at predicting illness? The medical literature makes
this
very clear:
“Most patients (68 to 89%) from low risk groups
who show reactivity on screening tests will have false-positive results…
The predictive value of a positive ELISA varies from 2% to 99%....The
Western blot method lacks standardization, is cumbersome,
and is subjective in interpretation of banding patterns.
”
Steckelberg JM, Cockerill F. Serologic testing for human
immunodeficiency virus antibodies. Mayo Clin Proc. 1988;63:373-9.
HIV antibody tests are exactly 2% to 99% accurate,
depending on a subjective interpretation of your “risk
group,” made by whoever is reading your test. In other words, they’re
not accurate at all.
The result of this inexcusable lack of medical standards is
that if you’re black, Hispanic, poor, using drugs, in prison, gay or
pregnant,
then a “nonspecific” test result becomes a life sentence. You’re
put on toxic drugs and your children can be drugged and taken away from
you.
The tests being used on Sean, Dana, Elaine and Liz
(see “The Nurse’s Story”), as well
as thousands of people around the globe, don’t tell us anything about
them that we can’t tell by hearing their life stories: they’re poor,
black, Hispanic, pregnant, they’ve used drugs, and they’ve been
exposed to stress and illness.
But even if you decide to believe that a non-specific antibody
reaction actually represents a virus, there’s still a problem. No one
knows how HIV is supposed to work. As Stevenson points out in Nature, no
one
knows how HIV infects a cell at all, let alone how it causes disease, if
indeed
it does. Despite “considerable efforts,” we have “two major
hypotheses.”
Stevenson concludes his “Nature” article by acknowledging
how little is known about HIV. “[W]hat we know represents only a thin
veneer on the surface…” But like most AIDS researchers, he remains
stuck to the failed hypothesis. In order to understand HIV better,
Stevenson
writes, “a permissive, small animal model would be a key experimental
tool.”
Dana
In 2002, just as Mona got Sean back from ICC, the doctors decided that
Dana (Sean’s sister) should be put on AIDS drugs, even though she wasn’t
ill.
Mona: Dana wasn’t sick. She’d never had a major illness.
The doctors said her Tcells were low, so he put her on Viracept,
Epivir,Zerit, and Bactrim.
LS: What was her reaction to the drugs?
Mona: She was throwing up constantly. Over the next two months, she
started complaining of back and head pain, which got so bad I had to take
her to the emergency room.
Beth Israel diagnosed it as Langerhans Syndrome, which is a childhood
disease
similar to cancer. Langerhans affects bone. It damaged one of her
vertebrae.
It can be treated with chemotherapy, but it’s a low level dose, much lower
than a standard cancer treatment.
Beth Israel knew about Dana’s HIV status. They told me, “We’re going to
ship her over to Presbyterian for a new diagnosis. Because of her HIV
status, there may be a possibility that this is AIDS.”
So they sent her to Presbyterian, where the doctor wrote in her records –
“Langerhans Syndrome” but added, “May be associated with HIV.” Langerhans
Syndrome is not an AIDS-defining illness. There is no entry anywhere in
the medical record of an association between Langerhans and HIV. But
Presbyterian called it AIDS and gave her a much stronger chemotherapy
appropriate for
an adult cancer. Then they switched her medication to Kaletra.
LS: Kaletra – that’s the fast-track approved
drug that causes cancer?
Mona: Right. It states clearly in the manufacturers insert that Ritonavir
– one of the ingredients in Kaletra – causes cancer in test animals, and
that testing isn’t complete in humans. How do you give a child with cancer
a drug that causes cancer?
The Kaletra made her heave and throw up. They were afraid that she’d
become crippled if her back shifted in any way. So they put a brace on her
to keep her still, and kept her on the drug. They gave her three months
of
chemotherapy, and the cancer was gone. They couldn’t find a trace of it.
But they gave
her another 3 months of chemotherapy anyway.
Right after her diagnosis in January (2003), Presbyterian called ACS and
said I was putting Dana in jeopardy by not giving her the drugs. ACS took
Dana out of our home and put her into ICC.
We went to court to get her back. Dana’s doctor at Presbyterian had to
testify. When she was questioned under oath, she listed all the deadly
side effects of the drugs - all of them. She knew exactly what all of them
did.
The judge asked her how she got the kids to take the drugs. And she said
“We’re
like Nazis when it comes to compliance.” Those were her words.
The Department of Health came to ICC three weeks ago for an inspection.
They said that the children could no longer be restrained when they
didn’t want to take the drugs. They said that the children didn’t have to
take the drugs if they didn’t want to; they have a legal right to refuse
medications.
But the social workers and doctors told the children, “Sure you can
refuse, but if you do there will be consequences.”
LS: What are the consequences?
Mona: The surgery.
Today Dana remains at ICC. She is 16. ACS is trying to put her in a
foster
home where she’ll live with a stranger who’s paid to give her the
drugs. Mona is trying to bring her home. In August 2003, The Make-a-Wish
foundation
gave Dana the gift of a Disney Cruise to Bermuda. ACS told Dana that she
was
not allowed to leave the country, and cancelled her trip.
Sean’s blood is tested regularly to make sure that he’s taking
the drugs. He’s been on AIDS drugs all his life. He weighs 51 pounds and
is about 4 feet tall. Sean is now 13 years old.
During our interview, Dr. Painter of Incarnation Children’s
Center told me that there was some good news about HIV. She said, “HIV
is no longer a death sentence, it’s a chronic, manageable condition,”
– as long as you take the drugs. But Jacklyn Herger (see link below to
– “The Nurse’s Story” – part of complete story)
and Mona Newberg both successfully treated pediatric AIDS without AIDS
drugs.
In fact, their children were most sick when the drugs were used. Is their
experience
valid? Is it reproducible? According to Incarnation Children’s Center,
the answer is “Yes.”
From ICC’s published history: “Early in the [AIDS] epidemic,
HIV disease of childhood was considered to be a downhill course leading
to
death.
But in the late 1980’s, before AZT was available, many very ill children
admitted to ICC got dramatically better with proper nurturing and high
quality
medical and nursing care.”
ICC successfully treated pediatric AIDS without toxic AIDS drugs. This
startling
revelation brings to mind a number of questions: Are the drugs necessary?
Why
are we using them if there are better options? And…
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Do We Really Know About HIV?
In July 2003, the esteemed science journal Nature Medicine
published an article called “HIV-1 Pathogenesis” by AIDS researcher
Mario Stevenson of the University of Massachusetts Medical School. The
article
was part of its “20 years of AIDS science” special edition.(6)
The article states with surprising candor what many researchers
have been saying for a long time: We don’t know how HIV might cause any
disease, and we can’t prove that it does. The paper begins:
"Despite considerable advances in HIV science in the
past 20 years, the reason why HIV-1 infection is pathogenic is still
debated... considerable efforts have gone into identifying the mechanisms
by which HIV-1 causes disease, and two major hypotheses have been
forwarded."
Stevenson is using the careful and somewhat deceptive language
of an academic. But what he’s saying is straightforward: Despite 20 years
and 118 billion dollars spent on AIDS (“considerable efforts”),
no one’s proven how (“the mechanisms” by which) HIV might
cause any disease (is “pathogenic”), and no one can prove that it
does (it’s “still debated”). What Stevenson offers instead
of actual proof are two “major hypotheses.”
In science, a “hypothesis” is an idea or proposal
about how something might work. A hypothesis isn’t a fact, it’s
a guess that a scientist tries to prove is accurate and true. If a
hypothesis
fails, it’s discarded, so that new, better, more accurate ideas can be
heard.
Stevenson further explains that we don’t know how HIV
might damage, let alone kill cells, “…it is debatable
whether lymphocyte [white blood cell] damage is due to the direct killing
of
infected cells...” and we don’t have any idea how HIV affects immunity,
“…processes contributing to the immune activation state in HIV-1
infection are not well understood..." The HIV hypothesis
states that HIV kills T-Cells, but Stevenson tells us bluntly that this
has
never been proven.
Because HIV’s ability to cause any disease remains an
unproven, “still debated,” hypothesis, it would be more accurate
and honest to rephrase Stevenson’s initial assertions as follows:
"Despite
considerable advances in HIV science in the past 20 years, the reason why
HIV-1
infection is assumed to be pathogenic is still debated… considerable
efforts
have gone into identifying the mechanisms by which HIV-1 is assumed to
cause
disease, yet no one has identified a single mechanism that proves the
hypothesis
is valid.”
Stevenson concludes the paper by returning to the main theme
– the HIV hypothesis has failed proof:
"There is a general misconception that more is known
about HIV-1 than about any other virus and that all of the important
issues
regarding HIV-1 biology and pathogenesis have been resolved. On the
contrary,
what we know represents only a thin veneer on the surface
of what needs to be known."
Stevenson is clear -- we know almost nothing -- only "a
thin veneer," about HIV's "biology and pathogenesis," that is,
what HIV might look like, how it might work, and if it causes any illness
at
all. This is very different from what we’re told by the media and the
medical establishment about HIV and AIDS. But according to the
academically-reviewed
article in Nature Medicine,” HIV pathogenesis remains an unproven
hypothesis.
If we don’t know how HIV works, or if it makes anyone
sick, then it’s unethical to treat any HIV positive person with
potentially
fatal pharmaceuticals, which the manufacturers themselves admit, do not
cure
AIDS.
In addition to their long list of serious and potentially fatal
side-effects, all AIDS drugs also list this printed warning:
“This drug will not cure your HIV infection…Patients
receiving antiretroviral therapy may continue to experience opportunistic
infections and other complications of HIV disease…Patients should be
advised that the long-term effects are unknown at this time.”
What Do HIV Tests Measure?
When you take an HIV test, your blood isn’t tested for
a virus, it’s tested for your body’s natural antibody response to
the proteins in the HIV test. These proteins are supposed to stand in for
HIV.
In order for an antibody test to be clinically meaningful and
accurate, its proteins must belong to a specific virus or particle. This
is
not the case with the proteins in the HIV test. These proteins, which are
grown
in artificially-stimulated cell cultures, have been accurately analyzed
in
the
lab, and they don’t belong to any specific virus or particle.(16)
In fact, these proteins occur commonly in both sick and healthy
people. What HIV tests are known to measure is not the presence of a
virus,
but is instead, your body’s natural “antibody” response to
commonly-occurring proteins.
What does HIV-Positive mean?
The HIV test measures “antibody” response to these
commonly-occurring proteins. We produce “antibodies” to all the
foreign material we encounter - germs, yeast, fungi, bacteria,
pollutants,
even
food. Antibodies are proteins that are produced by our white blood cells
to
help identify foreign matter in our blood. They “grab” onto the
foreign protein so that it can be processed safely.
Antibodies tend to be cross-reactive. That is, one antibody
can grab onto a wide variety of proteins. The proteins in the HIV-test
are
commonly-occurring,
and so they cross-react with an even wider variety of antibodies. This
non-specific
“cross-reaction” is the actual meaning of “HIV-positive.”
How cross-reactive is the HIV-Test?
HIV tests can cross-react with antibodies produced from nearly
70 disease (and non-disease) conditions. These include yeast infections,
arthritis,
hepatitis, herpes, parasitic infections, drug use, tuberculosis,
inoculations,
colds and prior pregnancy (1-3). The HIV test is also more reactive with
people
who are chronically exposed to environmental stressors, bacteria, fungi,
parasites
and toxins (for example, people living in poverty without sufficient food
and
clean water, such as in Africa).
If you’ve been exposed to any of these conditions, your
body will produce antibodies that can react with the HIV test proteins.
This
non-specific antibody reaction is what’s known as “HIV-positive.”
The term “HIV-positive” only has one valid meaning:
“Non-specific antibody to commonly-occurring protein-positive.”
An HIV-positive test result may help identify patients who have a lot of
antibodies
in their blood. This can indicate a high historical exposure to illness,
which
can serve as a warning to better support immune function by improving
general
health. But it’s in no way indicative of a terminal, fatal virus or
condition.
This is very different from what we’ve been told about
HIV tests for nearly 20 years. But the FDA and the test-makers are
legally
obligated
to state the limitations of their tests. (From HIV test package inserts):
* “At present there is no recognized standard for
establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood.”
(Abbott Laboratories HIV Test - ElA)
* “The risk of an asymptomatic person with a repeatedly reactive serum
developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known.”
(Genetic Systems HIV Test - Peptide EIA)
* “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 HIV Test – PCR).
* “Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis
of HIV-1 infection.” (Epitope, Inc. HIV Test - Western Blot)
* “[Positive test results can occur due to] prior pregnancy,
blood transfusions... and other potential nonspecific reactions.”
[Vironostika HIV Test, 2003].
The medical literature is also clear about the lack of specificity
of HIV tests:
“False-positive ELISA [antibody] test results
can be caused by alloantibodies resulting from transfusions,
transplantation,
or pregnancy, autoimmune disorders, malignancies, alcoholic liver
disease,
or for reasons that are unclear... The WB [Western Blot antibody
test] is not used as a screening tool because... it yields an
unacceptably
high percentage of indeterminate results. ”
Doran TI, Parra E. False-Positive and Indeterminate Human
Immunodeficiency Virus Test Results in Pregnant Women. Archives of Family
Medicine. 2000 Sep/Oct;9:924-9.
“False-positive HIV ELISAs have been observed
with serum from patients with a variety of medical conditions unrelated
to
HIV infection.... False-positive HIV ELISAs [also] occur because
of human or technical errors associated with doing the tests
or because of antibodies that coincidentally cross-react with HIV
or nonviral components in the tests... Notable causes of false-positive
reactions have been anti-HLA-DR antibodies that sometimes occur in
multiparous [pregnant more than once] women and in multiply
transfused patients. Likewise, antibodies to proteins of
other viruses have been reported to cross-react
with HIV determinants. False-positive HIV ELISAs also have been observed
recently
in persons who received vaccines for influenza and hepatitis
B virus”
Proffitt MR, Yen-Lieberman B. Laboratory diagnosis of
human immunodeficiency virus infection. Inf Dis Clin North Am.
1993;7:203-19.
Regardless of what the FDA-mandated warnings or the clinical
research tells us, these non-specific tests are used to tell people that
they’re
infected with a deadly virus.
The test makers are aware that HIV-positive test results occur
because of “prior pregnancy, blood transfusion…and other nonspecific
reactions,” “vaccines,” “human or technical errors,”
“transfusions, transplantation, or pregnancy, autoimmune disorders,
malignancies,
alcoholic liver disease, or for reasons that are unclear.” Given all of
this cross-reactivity…
How do we know who is really HIV-positive?
The answer to this question has more to do with sociology than
science. Lab technicians, doctors and nurses are instructed by the test
manufacturers
to make this determination subjectively, based on socio-economic and
sexual
criteria.
The HIV test has two different names for identical test reactions:
“nonspecific” and “specific.” A “nonspecific
reaction” (HIV-negative or indeterminate) is the diagnosis given
to people determined to be in the “low-risk group.”
A “specific reaction” (HIV-positive) is the diagnosis
determined to be in the “high-risk group.”
Social, Sexual and Economic Bias in HIV Testing:
Who are the people in these groups? The “high-risk group,”
according to the test manufacturers, consists of “prison inmates,
STD clinic patients, inner city hospital emergency room patients…
homosexual
men [and] intravenous drug users.” The “low-risk group”
isn’t defined, but can be assumed to include people outside of poverty
situations who are under less social, ethnic and economic stress.
For people in the “high-risk group,” an antibody
reaction is more likely to be considered “specific” (HIV positive).
However, for the “low-risk group,” the test manufactures state that
“nonspecific reactions [HIV negative] may be more common than specific
reactions [HIV positive]. (Vironostika HIV Test, 2003).”
What makes a “nonspecific” (HIV negative)
reaction “more common” [more likely] than a “specific”
(HIV positive) reaction in the “low-risk group”?
What makes a “specific” reaction “more
common” in the “high-risk group?”
The answer to this question is different from test to test,
lab to lab, and country to country. There are no standards for what makes
a
test “HIV-positive.”
* “At present there is no recognized standard for
establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood.”
(Abbott Laboratories HIV Test - ElA)
The final analysis belongs to the subjective interpretation
of the person or institution giving the test. The test manufacturers are
telling
the lab technicians, doctors and nurses who are reading these tests that
it’s
acceptable to determine HIV test results based on subjective
consideration
of
an individual’s ethnic, social, sexual and economic status.
* “Both the degree of risk for HIV-1 infection of the
person studied and the degree of reactivity of the serum may be of
value in interpreting the test” – (Abbott Laboratories
HIV Test – EIA)
It is highly unethical to assume that two identical reactions
mean different things, based on socio-economic factors and sexual
preference,
but that is exactly what is being done every day in HIV test labs.
Given the subjective, variable interpretation of HIV tests,
how accurate are they at predicting illness? The medical literature makes
this
very clear:
“Most patients (68 to 89%) from low risk groups
who show reactivity on screening tests will have false-positive results…
The predictive value of a positive ELISA varies from 2% to 99%....The
Western blot method lacks standardization, is cumbersome,
and is subjective in interpretation of banding patterns.
”
Steckelberg JM, Cockerill F. Serologic testing for human
immunodeficiency virus antibodies. Mayo Clin Proc. 1988;63:373-9.
HIV antibody tests are exactly 2% to 99% accurate,
depending on a subjective interpretation of your “risk
group,” made by whoever is reading your test. In other words, they’re
not accurate at all.
The result of this inexcusable lack of medical standards is
that if you’re black, Hispanic, poor, using drugs, in prison, gay or
pregnant,
then a “nonspecific” test result becomes a life sentence. You’re
put on toxic drugs and your children can be drugged and taken away from
you.
The tests being used on Sean, Dana, Elaine and Liz
(see “The Nurse’s Story”), as well
as thousands of people around the globe, don’t tell us anything about
them that we can’t tell by hearing their life stories: they’re poor,
black, Hispanic, pregnant, they’ve used drugs, and they’ve been
exposed to stress and illness.
But even if you decide to believe that a non-specific antibody
reaction actually represents a virus, there’s still a problem. No one
knows how HIV is supposed to work. As Stevenson points out in Nature, no
one
knows how HIV infects a cell at all, let alone how it causes disease, if
indeed
it does. Despite “considerable efforts,” we have “two major
hypotheses.”
Stevenson concludes his “Nature” article by acknowledging
how little is known about HIV. “[W]hat we know represents only a thin
veneer on the surface…” But like most AIDS researchers, he remains
stuck to the failed hypothesis. In order to understand HIV better,
Stevenson
writes, “a permissive, small animal model would be a key experimental
tool.”
