HIV Tests are totally false & misleading

[Guest guest]

HIV Tests are Totally Opposite of The Immune Theory YET, they are

based on the Immune Theory of disease because they measure antibodies.

" [in order to do a proper test] . . . extraordinarily high dilution

of the person's serum [400 times] took me by surprise. Most serologic

tests that look for the presence of antibodies against germs uses

neat serum [undiluted]. For example, the tests that look for

antibodies to hepatitis A and B viruses, rubella virus, syphilis,

hystoplasma and cryptococus, to mention a few of them, use straight

serum [undiluted].

However, to try to prevent false positive reactions some serologic

tests use diluted serum; for example this is the case with tests that

look for antibodies to measles, varicelia and mumps viruses which use

a dilution of 1:16, to cytomegalovirus [CMV] 1:20 and to Epstein-Barr

Virus [EBV] 1:10.

The obvious questions are: What makes HIV so unique that the test

serum needs to be diluted 400 times? And what would happen if the

individual's serum is not diluted?

I first took samples of blood that, at 1:400 dilution, tested

negative for antibodies to HIV. I then ran the exact same serum

samples through the test again, but this time without diluting them.

Tested straight, they all came positive. This would probably mean

that the blood that is negative when diluted, but positive when

undiluted, has a lower level of antibodies than the diluted blood

that is doubly positive and, therefore, may probably test negative on

the Western blot test.

The results presented here could also mean that the tests used for

detecting antibodies to HIV are not specific for HIV, as has been

explained previously7-4. In this case, there would be reasons other

than HIV infection, past or present, to explain why a person reacts

positive to it. The test also reacts positive in the absence of HIV

(7-14).

Since people are reacting positive on tests that are not specific for

HIV, let's please stop labeling them as " HIV positive " .

See this article for more details about how the Antibody Theory is

False: http://www.healingnaturallybybee.com/articles/germ13.php

Also see:

" Medical Tests - Manufacturing Certainty in Pseudo (fake) Science "

http://www.healingnaturallybybee.com/articles/corrupt9.php

" Antibody Ruse and False Science "

http://www.healingnaturallybybee.com/articles/germ1.php

" Antibody Theory Debunked "

http://www.healingnaturallybybee.com/articles/germ2.php

Bee

[Guest guest]

This is real strange to me since my wife has had like 10 tests and they all

showed the same that she has HIV,  her son was born and like all babies born to

mom's with HIV he did in fact test positive for HIV for around a year when it

went away as in I think 30% of all babies born to HIV moms.   Then there is the

matter of me.  for a while we did know she had HIV and we did not practice safe

sex and not that we do that everytime, but I have had like 15 HIV tests and they

all showed me not to have HIV.   To be honest I am not sure that I understand

all of this that you post; but I have been to word 986 at SF General and I know

what HIV looks like first hand and am sure that the two HIV tests they have are

fairly certain although there are indeed falce postives.

Bee wrote:

HIV Tests are Totally Opposite of The Immune Theory YET, they are

based on the Immune Theory of disease because they measure antibodies.

" [in order to do a proper test] . . . extraordinarily high dilution

of the person's serum [400 times] took me by surprise. Most serologic

tests that look for the presence of antibodies against germs uses

neat serum [undiluted]. For example, the tests that look for

antibodies to hepatitis A and B viruses, rubella virus, syphilis,

hystoplasma and cryptococus, to mention a few of them, use straight

serum [undiluted].

However, to try to prevent false positive reactions some serologic

tests use diluted serum; for example this is the case with tests that

look for antibodies to measles, varicelia and mumps viruses which use

a dilution of 1:16, to cytomegalovirus [CMV] 1:20 and to Epstein-Barr

Virus [EBV] 1:10.

The obvious questions are: What makes HIV so unique that the test

serum needs to be diluted 400 times? And what would happen if the

individual's serum is not diluted?

I first took samples of blood that, at 1:400 dilution, tested

negative for antibodies to HIV. I then ran the exact same serum

samples through the test again, but this time without diluting them.

Tested straight, they all came positive. This would probably mean

that the blood that is negative when diluted, but positive when

undiluted, has a lower level of antibodies than the diluted blood

that is doubly positive and, therefore, may probably test negative on

the Western blot test.

The results presented here could also mean that the tests used for

detecting antibodies to HIV are not specific for HIV, as has been

explained previously7- 4. In this case, there would be reasons other

than HIV infection, past or present, to explain why a person reacts

positive to it. The test also reacts positive in the absence of HIV

(7-14).

Since people are reacting positive on tests that are not specific for

HIV, let's please stop labeling them as " HIV positive " .

<snip>