Dissident AIDS Database

Antibody testsUnreliabilityFalse positiveDifferent standards
THE YIN AND YANG OF HIV A Great Future Behind It
 Turner Valendar & McIntyre Andrew
  One of the most bizarre aspects of the HIV/AIDS theory is that different laboratories, institutions and countries define different sets of WB bands as a positive test (Figure 1). The global variation in interpretive criteria means for example, that in Australia a positive test requires particular sets of four bands. In the USA, different sets of two or three suffice, which may or may not include the bands required in Australia. In Africa only one designated set of two is required. Put simply, this means that the same person tested in three cities on the same day may or may not be HIV infected. If the diagnosis of HIV infection were a game of poker, a flush would require five cards the same suit in one country but only one or two elswhere. As incomprehensible as this appears, further difficulties remain. For example, an Australian tested in Australia with one or two "HIV specific" bands would not be reported HIV infected (Fauci AS, Lane HC. Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Disease: AIDS and Related Disorders. (1994). p. 1566-1618 In: Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine Isselbacher KJ, Braunwald E, Wilson JD, Martin JB, Fauci AS, Kasper DL, eds 13th ed McGraw-Hill Inc., New York). Clearly however, there must be a reason why an uninfected individual, such as a healthy blood donor or military recruit can possess any, even one, "HIV specific" band. According to the experts, these bands are caused by cross-reacting, that is, "false", "non-HIV" antibodies which react with the "HIV" proteins. Thus it is axiomatic that an antibody which reacts with a particular protein is not necessarily an antibody the immune system has generated specifically in response to that protein. However Eleopulos argues, if "non-HIV" antibodies cause "one or more protein bands", then why are they not able to cause four or five? Or all ten? On what basis do experts assert which antibodies are "false" and which are "true"? Or, how the same three bands, caused by "false" non-"HIV" antibodies, become "true" when accompanied by one extra? On what basis do experts assert there are any "true" HIV antibodies? If the Australian traveller were to be tested in the USA, where two or three bands are sufficient to diagnose HIV infection, are his antibodies "false" in Australia but "true" as his aeroplane touches down in Los Angeles?
  NEXUS Magazine ; 3 issues beginning January 19991999
False-positive Western blot tests for antibodies to HTLV-III.
 Burke DS et al.
  “we recently sent identical proficiency panels to five large commercial firms that offered HTLV-III [HIV] western blot testing...Four of the five laboratories reported at least one false-positive test result. The six false-positive results were all on different normal specimens...In the absence of a 41-kd band, a blot must show both a 24-kd and a 55-kd band to be deemed positive [by the US army]”
  JAMA. 1986;256:347.1986
HTLV-III antibody Positive Blood Donors.
 Hunsmann G.
  “The sera [from 6720 blood donors] were examined by various enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) screening tests and, usually, by one of three types of confirmatory assay. 45 samples (0.21%) were confirmed as positive. Only 2 were positive in all three confirmatory tests.”
  Lancet. 1985 May 25;1:1223.1985
Evaluation of six enzyme immunoassays for antibody against human immunodeficiency virus.
 Reesink HW et al.
  “The frequences of false-positive reactions in a tricky panel of samples from patients with autoimmune and acute viral diseases...were Abbott 9.5%...Organon 1.7%...Litton 1.0%...Behring 2.7%...Wellcome 0%...and Pasteur 0%...The results of a 7th EIA (Dupont) were excluded from the study at the company’s request.”
  Lancet. 1986 Aug 30;2:483-6.1986