Liam Scheff is a journalist who responded to my previous blog entry on "HIV testing." I liked his response so much, I'm making it a blog in its own right.
By Liam Scheff
Only a slight correction: They [hiv tests] detect almost anything, and nothing in particular.
Enjoy a walk through the literature, 24 years and counting, on the non-specificity of the tests.
This technology is not able, in any field (for any disease category), to 'find' a particular particle, of any sort. What antibody testing can do, is latch onto proteins floating in the blood. What proteins? Many proteins.
The proteins in the test are synthetic, grown in bacteria, modeled, to some degree, on proteins that were found in stimulated cancer cell cultures, stemming from the good old, bad old days of cancer (retro)virology at the NIH.
This is R.Gallo and L.Montagnier's fascination; Gallo looked for a signature, so to speak (a surrogate, a stand-in, for what he thought should be there), in the stimulated, cancer cloaked cells of some gay men who had swollen lymph nodes, and any number of things going on.
He found the marker, the stand-in, the non-specific reaction, in about a third of his subjects.
You can dig through this in his original papers, or in review in the Perth group's lovely analysis of his work.
There was a selection process, that unfolded between and among the incipient 'arc, sida, grid, aids' "researchers", to decide which proteins (of what molecular weight), would be permitted into the final (but not so final) "LAV", or "HTLV-3" (and then, later "hiv") test.
They came to some consensus agreements, even, I believe, agreeing to alter a weight of a putatively "specific" protein, because both parties held a different weight as the more accurate - (molecular weight, measured in 'daltons', not after Timothy Dalton, the former, and slightly under-rated James Bond).
The later PCR tests are a God-knows-what, hodge podge of nucleic acid sequences, excoriated, stolen out of white blood cells, made to align to some or another model of a 'retroviral genome'; bullied into "consensus agreements", that still, never reach consensus.
That is, whenever you look in the white blood cell, and copy (steal) out of it some partial, non-functioning cloned semi-strand of nucleic acids, there have been such substantial differences, that these "researchers" have decided to conclude, not, as logic would ask, that they're catching a different fish every time - that is, that there's no static, specific thing there; but that the thing is "mutating" so wildly that it just can't be held down.
And yet, and yet, and yet. Viral load does not correlate to antibody testing, to health, to tcell loss...
It's all a wonderful game, that they've got going on. It's too dense for most people to bravely throw themselves into. And the bottom line is, most people don't have to care, because the testing Pogrom won't affect them, by design.
It is not within the design specifications of any brand of 'hiv test' to be used indiscriminately on the public. The tests, which, as you've pointed out, test for nothing (and anything), are only "considered accurate", when they are used on certain "risk groups."
This tells you, with a wink and a smile, that the testing process is the punchline to a terrible joke.
Testing is there to give pseudo-scientific validation to previously held biases. Gays, Blacks, Drug Abusers, and the extremely Poor, Only, need apply.
For the rest of us, or as thhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gife journal Aids Alert put it, the "1000 white suburban housewives," the tests are no measure of anything, and any 'reactive' or 'positive' result must be regarded as a "false positive."
I will post two articles that I assembled, from the standard medical literature, on the subject.
Or, you may find the will and desire to look through the database of literature on testing.
Either way, it's a grand historical movement, much like the Eugenics movement of the early 20th century, similarly abusing a current philosophy of science, to similar, but even subtler ends.
Of course, this is my opinion, or doxa, (but not the ortho-dox-y) and unlike the geniuses at Aidstruth, I will be more than happy to have you examine the arguments and the literature without prejudice, and at great leisure.
The Shocking Documentary by The BBC
The Guinea Pig Kids by Liam Scheff
Deos The NY Times Want To Kill Gay Men?