|Back to Eclub Navigator|
These two tests, we are told, identify HIV antibodies that have been created by a person's immune system in response to 'HIV invasion'. This statement is nonsense, and dangerous nonsense, as we shall discover. So what are these tests - the ELISA and the Western Blot - and how are they supposed to work?
The ELISA (Enzyme-Linked, Immuno-Absorbent Assay) and Western Blot tests are designed to highlight the presence of the supposed HIV, not by identifying the virus itself, but by identifying the presence of antibodies in the blood, allegedly unique to, and stimulated by the virus. The only real difference between the two tests is that the ELISA is supposed to measure antibody activity as a whole, whereas the Western Blot measures reactions to separate proteins supposedly making up the virus. As a result of this claim, the Western Blot method is deemed by most in the AIDS industry to be more specific than the ELISA test, and will often be used to confirm a positive ELISA test. But, as we shall discover, all the diagnostic methods employed by the recognised laboratories are far from specific.
To carry out the test, the clinician introduces a foreign
protein (antigen) into the blood sample and then monitors the blood for
any signs of unique activity as the antigen meets up with the immune system's
antibodies. And it is here that we immediately encounter the first hurdle.
Introducing a foreign body into the bloodstream will always provoke a
response from the immune system, the foreign presence releasing killer
blood cells to combat the invading germ. This is what our immune system
has been designed to do. The problem is that no antibody is ever specific
to any one disease - a fact that has been widely known in science for
a number of years. The ELISA and Western Blot tests are both marketed
as being highly specific and accurate in identifying the presence of HIV
antibodies in a person's body, but, as Christine Maggiore explains:
"Both tests are non-specific to HIV antibodies
and are highly inaccurate. Non-specific means that these tests respond
to a great number of non-HIV antibodies, microbes, bacteria and other
conditions that are often found in the blood of normal, healthy people.
A reaction to any one of these other antibodies and conditions will result
in an HIV-positive diagnosis. A simple illness like a cold or the flu
can cause a positive reading on an HIV test. A flu shot or other vaccine
can also create positive results. Having or having had herpes or hepatitis
may produce a positive test, as can a vaccination for hepatitis B. Exposure
to diseases such as tuberculosis and malaria commonly cause false positive
results, as do the presence of tape worms and other parasites. Conditions
such as alcoholism, liver disease and blood that is highly oxidated through
drug use may be interpreted as the presence of HIV antibodies. Pregnancy
and prior pregnancy can also cause a positive result."
Yes, you read correctly. A simple illness like a cold or flu, and even pregnancy can cause an HIV positive reading. You could be suffering from a relatively innocuous illness, and your immune system, functioning quite normally, has detected the presence of an invader and ordered the defender blood cells into action. The activity of those perfectly healthy killers working away in the blood can then be interpreted by the 'AIDS test' and the experts administering it as indicative of the presence of the elusive HIV. Did you know that?
Christine Johnson of Project HEAL in Los Angeles, a
voluntary organisation dedicated to exposing the myth of viral AIDS, has
compiled and referenced some sixty different conditions that can cause
a false HIV-positive reading. Some of these conditions have been included
below for sober consideration.
"Naturally occurring antibodies, exposure to
viral vaccine, flu, flu vaccination, tuberculosis, renal failure, hepatitis,
organ transplant, haemophilia, tetanus vaccination, leprosy, alcoholic
liver disease, blood transfusions, malignant cancers, proteins on the
test filter papers, rheumatoid arthritis, herpes, Hepatitis B vaccination,
healthy individuals as a result of poorly understood cross-reactions….
[plus forty-six others]."
In the case of haemophilia and AIDS, it is Factor VIII,
the man-made compound used to help in the coagulation process, that in
the main has been responsible for false HIV readings. Introducing this
artificial agent into the bloodstream to help stem blood-flow will naturally
provoke an antibody response, the immune system demonstrating it is functioning
properly. These heightened levels of antibody activity are mistakenly
read by the HIV test as indicative of the presence of HIV. Haemophiliacs,
by the very nature of their condition, are prone to a number of life-threatening
illnesses, and many do indeed die, but not from HIV. The popular tabloids,
of course, prefer to blare out 'HIV INFECTED BLOOD FOUND IN BLOOD BANKS
MAY INFECT THOUSANDS' rather than report the prosaic truth. Explaining
the subtleties of opportunistic infection and blood-test cross-reaction
does not sell newspapers.
The following extract from Foundation News is a glaring
The possibility that the test kits could merely be
reacting with parasites, TB bacilli, candida albicans, fungal conditions
and other medical problems common to Africans is rarely considered by
these doctors, even though the problem of inadvertent cross-reaction is
common knowledge in the higher echelons of the AIDS establishment. In
reality, a 'positive' reading is actually a 'false positive', the tests
confirming only that the immune system is functioning satisfactorily.
NO VIRUS IS ACTUALLY DETECTED, ONLY ANTIBODIES!
Frank Prescott, writing on behalf of Peltec Publishing
in Perceptions Magazine in 1993, tells us: "The London Times reports
a major research group has recently proven the test for HIV to be completely
invalid and 'riddled with false positives'. Malnutrition, multiple infections,
having once had the flu, measles or a simple flu shot can all result in
positive HIV diagnosis."
"People who receive gamma globulin shots for
chicken pox, measles and hepatitis could test positive for HIV even if
they have never been infected. The Food and Drug Administration says that
a positive test could be caused by antibodies found in most of America's
supply of gamma globulin. Gamma globulin is made from blood collected
from thousands of donors and is routinely given to millions of people
each year as temporary protection against many infectious diseases. Dr
Thomas Zuck of the FDA's Blood and Blood Products Division says the government
didn't release the information because 'we thought it would do more harm
than good.'" [emphasis ours]
US News & World Report had this to say on the subject
on 23rd November 1987:
"With public health officials and politicians
thrashing out who should be tested for HIV, the accuracy of the test itself
has been nearly ignored. A study last month by Congress's Office of Technology
Assessment found that HIV tests can be very inaccurate indeed. For groups
at very low risk - people who don't use IV drugs or have sex with gay
or bisexual men - 9 in 10 positive findings are called false positives,
indicating infection where none exists."
The New England Journal of Medicine recorded the following:
"The techniques of the HIV test have not been
standardized, and the magnitude and consequences of inter-laboratory variations
have not been measured. Its results require interpretation, and the criteria
for this interpretation vary not only from lab to lab, but also from month
In reality, what one of the most respected medical
journals in the world is diplomatically attempting to tell the reader
here is that the HIV test is utterly invalid. A tacit endorsement of these
sentiments comes from a surprising and unexpected source - the manufacturer's
leaflet which accompanies the Western Blot (HIV) test kit itself! "The
test for the existence of antibodies against AIDS-associated virus is
not diagnostic of AIDS and AIDS-like diseases. Negative tests do not exclude
the possibility of contact or infection with the AIDS-associated virus.
Positive tests do not prove AIDS or pre-AIDS disease status nor that these
diseases will be acquired."
This from the test which is supposed to confirm the
ELISA test! In other words the test kit is saying: "Thank you
for spending your money on me. In return for your considerable investment,
I can predict absolutely nothing except that your blood sample contains
In particular, PCR is used to measure the supposed
'viral load' of HIV, since the elusive virus itself can never be found,
using traditional methods of detection such as virus culture. PCR's highly
theoretical technique is supposed to detect fragments of genetic material
in the blood that allegedly indicate the presence of HIV. The problem
once again is, no proof has ever been furnished that any 'fragments' produced
by PCR are peculiar to HIV, doubtless the reason the Roche PCR testing
kit actually contains a warning against using PCR as a test for the presence
of HIV: "The test is not to be used as a screening test for HIV
or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV."
"Another reason the medical community loves
diagnostic testing is that it is so wonderfully unreliable. One test leads
to another and to another. Tests are rated according to their sensitivity
and specificity. Accuracy is determined by balancing specificity and sensitivity.
Incredibly, some very expensive tests are less than 50% accurate."
Now consider the following:
"Early civilisations were based upon the invention
of agriculture and the ability to determine the proper time for planting
and harvesting crops was very important. In those societies, a small group
of men studied the heavens and learned how to divine the seasons from
the positions of the sun, moon, planets, and stars. Instead of passing
along their knowledge, they kept it to themselves and became priests who
provided life and death information for society as a whole. As a result
of their monopoly of vital knowledge, more and more power and wealth flowed
to them and in time they formed a religion. That religion eventually became
the basis of all-powerful states ruled by god-kings. In such a society,
heresy was the most heinous crime imaginable, with revelation of the secrets
of the religion to the masses a close second. From the vantage point of
history, the motivation of these priests was obvious. They worked to achieve
enormous power and luxury for themselves at the expense of the peasants.
They did not work for the benefit of society as a whole."
Today, we have our scientific priests thrusting upon us genetics, viral diseases and the impenetrable domain of DNA. We must not question their pronouncements. We must bow to their knowledge, nod and obey, and at the same time discard any basic tenets of logic and common sense.
Kim Marie Bannon was not aware of any of these test
anomalies. Writing of her own personal experiences with the HIV establishment,
Kim's 'AIDS Journey' began in 1992, following a routine health examination.
Her boyfriend at the time had discovered he had a herpes sore and Kim
thought it only sensible to order a check-up for herself.
"At the health department, I was told that
since I didn't have a sore that could be cultured, they could not test
me for herpes; but how would I like to have an AIDS test? They were offering
it to everyone these days. I was embarrassed and confused. I felt that
a refusal of this AIDS test would be tantamount to a confession of illicit
drug use or promiscuity. I had heard that anyone can get AIDS, but I still
felt I was in a very low risk-group. I agreed to the test and was told
to come back in a week for my results. A week later and my test was positive.
They told me it was just a 'screening' test, which was called an ELISA.
They said I was not in any risk group, and it would most likely turn out
to be negative when I was given the 'confirmatory' test. Two days later
on May 1, 1992, the specialist 'confirmed' my positive diagnosis with
the results of a Western Blot test. She called it 'classic'. When I got
the 'confirmation', I felt my life was over."
Another precious life recklessly cast onto the rocks.
Ms Bannon, however, is alive and well today, currently raising finances
to take the establishment to court over the baleful state of government-approved
"HIV tests have been developed without verification
by an independent 'gold standard'. In medical science, a gold standard
means that viral isolation has been used as an independent means of establishing
the presence or absence of a virus. This process is essential for the
authentication of any diagnostic test. Without a gold standard, it is
impossible for a doctor or scientist to know if a positive antibody test
indicates infection or what it may indicate."
Gary Null is an independent AIDS researcher whose work has taken him around the world, resulting in film documentaries, countless interviews with medical personnel, and media articles presenting his findings. Null runs his own nutrition clinic and hosts Natural Living on New York City's WBAI Radio.
An excerpt from his program, broadcast on 21st March 1996, had him addressing the 'gold standard' issue:
"No one, I repeat, no one under ANY circumstances
should have an HIV test. It is a fraud. A complete and total fraud. Why
is it a fraud? Because there is no 'gold standard'. I have just gone all
over the world trying to find the independent verification of this test.
I have not found it."
Of course none of the above information is shared with the patient at the point of testing. As if all this wasn't bad enough, a new form of diagnosis came into being in late 1987. The Los Angeles Weekly explains:
"In the 4th September issue of the Journal
of the American Medical Association [JAMA], the CDC announced that a
diagnosis of AIDS no longer requires an AIDS test. The government
now considers you are an AIDS carrier if you suffer from any of the maladies
on its new list of diseases indicative of AIDS, including such relatively
common infections as herpes simplex, tuberculosis, salmonellosis and a
shockingly broad 'other bacterial infections'. This broad definition will
lead to countless new AIDS diagnoses - whether or not the person actually
has AIDS. A major problem with the new AIDS definition is that it ignores
the many environmental causes of immune suppression. Exposure to toxins,
alcoholism, heavy drug use or heavy antibiotic use all can cause onset
of the list of 'diseases' indicative of AIDS."
And the CDC itself, in a stunning remark, conceded:
"The diagnostic criteria accepted by the AIDS
surveillance case definition should not be interpreted as the standard
of good medical practice."
Presumptive diagnosis was born. Now the orthodoxy was
able to diagnose any patient as an 'AIDS carrier' simply by looking at
their lifestyle and asking whether they had any one of a handful of common
symptoms from which people have been suffering for centuries. On the basis
of this unscientific determination alone, tens of thousands of Americans
have been given the fateful diagnosis. Seldom considered are the appalling
consequences and the private grief for the individual once a positive
result is announced. Iola Martin was one such person given a positive
diagnosis. Here she recounts her own particularly traumatic experience
at the hands of the medical establishment.
"In 1990, it was recommended that I took an
HIV test because I was pregnant. The first test came back inconclusive,
the second was positive. The positive result left me in total shock. I
was told that I would have to decide what to do about my baby. The information
I was given left me without much choice. They said there were two scenarios.
I could live long enough to watch my baby die of AIDS, or I could leave
my baby without a mother, when I died of AIDS, knowing that my baby would
die soon after me. Believing in the death sentence I had been given, I
agreed to a second trimester abortion. It was a terrible, terrible experience,
and the decision haunts me to this day."
Today, ten years later, Iola is still with us. She is alive and physically well but her experience has taken its emotional toll. Iola's long-term relationship has ended: "I was so bitter, sad and angry and caught up in the idea that I was going to die." Discovering the truth about AIDS in 1996 came too late for Iola, and far too late for her unborn child.
Celia Farber in Impressions Magazine recounts the following:
"In Winston Salem, North Carolina, 3-year-old
Joey D was struck by a car. He suffered a fractured skull and was rushed
to a nearby hospital. A week later, as Joey was recovering, some of his
blood splashed on hospital workers when an IV line was being changed.
Joey was given an HIV test. He tested positive, and a doctor told Joey's
already traumatized mother, LaTonia, the news. Both of Joey's parents
were tested negative, and LaTonia asked how this could have happened to
The doctor told LaTonia she needed to launch an
investigation into her entire family and circle of friends because the
child had been sexually abused. There was no other explanation, the doctor
said, for the child being positive.
More testing was ordered, and LaTonia spent two
days waiting, trying not to go insane. She thought about finding out who
had infected her son or hurt him and "killing them." But then
the second round of test results came in, and Joey was found to be HIV-negative.
Even some of the hospital's staff have encouraged
LaTonia to contact an attorney. The hospital, meanwhile, held a press
conference, where a remarkable admission was made. In her effort to clear
the hospital of any wrongdoing, a hospital spokesperson announced that
"… these HIV tests are not reliable; a lot of factors can skew the
tests, like fever or pregnancy. Everybody knows that."
The widespread acceptance of the HIV test has opened
the way for all manner of calamitous, secondary effects, not always immediately
obvious. Take the practical advice dispensed by Dr Patrick Dixon, a well-recognised
UK voice on AIDS and HIV. Dr Dixon was at the forefront of those early
AIDS doom-and-gloom statistics and his 1987 book, The Truth About AIDS,
warned of a pandemic of massive proportions on the horizon. The opening
chapter, entitled The Extent of the Nightmare, speculated that
the UK could be witnessing 18,000 AIDS deaths a year. No such pandemic
arrived, of course. The same book warned against deep kissing and suggested
the pill and even sterilisation for women who had been diagnosed HIV-positive.
"Deep kissing, where saliva may pass from one
mouth to another, is probably not a good idea. Dry kissing carries a much,
much lower risk.… An infected woman should probably avoid pregnancy as
there is a significant chance that any child born may also be infected.
So use a second method of contraception as well, e.g. the pill, or consider
sterilisation very seriously."
Telephoning Dr Dixon on this matter, Credence pointed out the physiological dangers of the contraceptive pill and also asked him to comment on the medical evidence sent to him and everyone at management level within his organisation, highlighting the fallacy of the HIV test. Given the potential for such a high rate of 'false positives' (including a reaction to pregnancy), should he really be suggesting the test, let alone that women consider the irreversible sterilisation procedure?
Becoming quite angry, Dr Dixon accused us of being flat-earthers and has so far refused to seek ways of professionally resolving these issues. Furthermore, as of November 2004, Dr Dixon's same ghastly advice on sterilisation still has not been omitted from his updated version of The Truth About AIDS, stored in electronic format on his website. Perhaps if enough people e-mail him, the sterilisation advice at least will be removed. Dr Dixon has since gone on record to say SARS could be deadlier than AIDS. Where is the SARS pandemic? Dr Dixon's Global Trend/Global Change website reportedly received 5.5 million hits over the last twelve-month period, so someone's listening to him. Given Dr Dixon's HIV recommendations, what are we then to make of his web-site's opening banner, 'Take hold of your future, before your future takes hold of you'?
Saturday, 6th November 2004, in the UK county of Berkshire,
48-year-old Brian Drysdale deliberately parks his car on the rails at
a rural level-crossing and waits for the London-Plymouth express train.
He is killed instantly, taking with him six other lives and injuring one
hundred more as the train ploughs into his car at high speed and derails.
The UK's Sunday Mirror:
"Drysdale made an anguished 25-minute call
to the Samaritans on his mobile phone and poured out his heart about his
HIV agony. A police source said that blood tests after he died confirmed
he did have the killer virus [standard media-speak for HIV]. During the
conversation with the Samaritan, Drysdale told her he believed he was
HIV-positive and that there was no point in going on with his life. He
was asked in what way he intended to commit suicide, and he told the woman
that he intended to 'go out with a bang'. The Samaritan assumed he meant
by use of a shotgun or firearm. Drysdale had also been depressed over
splitting up with a gay lover. The police source also revealed that small
amounts of cocaine, cannabis and two ecstasy tablets were found at Drysdale's
home - a Victorian terrace in East Reading. 'We don't think Drysdale was
a heavy drugs user. We believe he used them for recreational purposes,'
said the source."
Yes, but did he use those drugs in sufficient quantity to trigger a positive test? Had he been exposed to flu, flu vaccination, tuberculosis, renal failure, hepatitis, organ transplant, haemophilia, tetanus vaccination, leprosy, alcoholic liver disease, blood transfusions, malignant cancers, proteins on the test filter papers, rheumatoid arthritis, herpes, Hepatitis B vaccination, or a test turning positive as a result of poorly understood cross-reactions?
This is the HIV-positive diagnosis. Relationships severed, marriages called off, lives wrecked, babies aborted, social ostracism, mental torture, suicides on railway crossings… And all this before any medication has even been prescribed. The physician warns that the disease may progress, and if it does, the patient will eventually die of AIDS-related disorders. And we believe him. As we witness the withering decline of our loved ones, who among us is not persuaded that what we are seeing is death brought on by the effects of the virus?
Rarely will we consider another possibility: AIDS by prescription.