Re: AIDS

This is "old news," TC. I'd suggest people read posts at
http://groups.msn.com/aidsmythexposed/general.msnw or read some of the
essays at www.theperthgroup.com for more up to date information.
People like Mr. Carter attack Peter Duesberg, who appears to have been
wrong on several key points, but they act as if he is the only "AIDS
dissident" in the world. I explain some of this on my web site,
http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-

For example, a point I make is that "Koch's Postulates" violates the
scientific method, so it is quite irrelevant to talk about it in any
scientific context. What they do to get around this is to say things
like, "well, we really don't know why there are exceptions, but we will
have to leave that up to future generations - however, now we have
enough evidence to proceed as we have been." Would this be tolerated
if one in every 100 bridges collapsed within a few weeks of completion?
Think of how many bridges have been built even on short segments of
highways. And keep in mind that engineering is an applied science,
whereas I'm am talking about the higher standard of theoretical
science, as well as the Hippocratic Oath,which says to do no harm (the
"HIV medication" can do tremendous harm - destroying livers quickly,
for instance).

One thing that is interesting here is that Mr. Carter finally cited
something from the literature. Unfortunately, what it demonstrates is
the lack of evidence. Someone, the powers that be in the biomedical
establishment think that if a lack of evidence sounds "scientific,"
then it can substitute as evidence. Basically, they talk about things
that are correlated, but not cytotoxic effects that are actually
observed. Attempts have been made to do this, and the technology is
capable, yet it has never been detected. Moreover, and more
egregiously (at least to me) is that there are other scientific
explanations for this (explained on my web site, though unlike this
piece of nonsense, I actually supply ample citations from the
literature). In science, when at least two explanations are possible,
one is supposed to do controlled experiments to see which one appears
to be correct. This has not been done with "AIDS." Instead, "virus
hunters" jumped in and simply declared that a virus was present and
doing the damage. In reality, and again as I explain on my web site
(with citations), viruses are "deadly" because they provoke a dangerous
inflammatory response, not because of a direct, cell killing effect.
And this happens quickly - hours or days, not after years of good
health. In order for a virus to do this, it would have to be "turned
on" by something else, and so a co-factor would have to be present.
Otherwise, if the virus was doing something nasty for all those years,
it would have been detected already, over 20 years since the Gallo
press conference.

There are also misleading statements in this entry quoted by Mr.
Carter. I don't have the time to speak on every one, but let us take
the following simple one:

"HIV belongs to a subgroup of retroviruses..."

However, retroviruses are of a certain size and shape, and despite
numerous attempts to do so, nothing of the right size and shape has
been found in any tissue of anyone said to be infected with "HIV" or
dying of "AIDS," despite several professional attempts. It is now
well-known that excessive antigenic exposure and/or oxidative stress
can create the kind of symptoms deemed to be signs of "immune system
collapse" in "AIDS patients." Thus, the proper thing to do is to
experiment, to see if those said to be "dying of AIDS" are peope who
are exposed to a great deal of antigens and/or oxidative stress. This
has never been done. But what's worse, if it was done, and if it was
found that such people die of "AIDS," despite "testing negative for
HIV" before being monitored by the researchers (and not engaging in any
"risk" activities afterwards), the powers that be would disallow the
results, because they claim that only "HIV" can cause "AIDS." This
goes beyond a violation of the scientific method. It is a violation of
basic logic. For those who don't know, "AIDS" is technically a
clinical syndrome (CS), which is used when a cause is not known but
when symptoms appear to be related in some way. Over time, the CS
should be narrowed, and possibly several CSs should replace the first
one. The other possibility is that the exact cause of the CS becomes
known, and then the CS can be abandoned. Usually, it will then be
called X disease instead. With "HIV/AIDS," all of this has been tossed
out the proverbial window. The CS has been widened, despite more being
known now, and it's been widened in a way that makes no sense, now
including cervical cancer, for instance. Most of us realize that there
is no way to reason with a stark raving mad lunatic, and what the
"HIV/AIDS" experts have done is to enshrine a certain kind of insanity
in a way that is antithetical to the most basic tenets of science.

I will conclude here by quoting a very useful, hypothetical dialogue
between doctor and patient, reminiscent of Galileo's famous work. The
source of this is: http://www.theperthgroup.com/FAQ/question8.html

QUOTE:

Doctor: I am sorry to have to tell you but your antibody test has come
back positive.

Patient: You're telling me I have HIV?

Dr: I'm afraid so.

P: Couldn't the test be mistaken?

Dr: Unfortunately not. The tests we use are extremely sensitive and
specific. I have never known them to make a mistake.

P: Doctor can you please explain how this particular test can be so
accurate? And how it actually works?

Dr: Certainly. In simple terms the test has detected some antibodies
to HIV in your blood. The only way you can get those antibodies is to
come into contact with HIV.

P: When you say the antibodies are 'to' HIV, what do you mean?

Dr: I mean they are directed against HIV. When your body came into
contact with HIV it registered the HIV proteins as something foreign.
As a result your immune system was switched on to produce a set of
antibodies which specifically combine with these proteins.

P: How do you know these antibodies are actually there? In my body?

Dr : Because when we mix your blood with the proteins in the antibody
test kits there's a reaction.

P: How do you know there's a reaction?

Dr: Because when we add your serum to a solution containing the test
kit proteins the solution changes colour. We can see that and we can
even measure the amount of reaction by the amount of colour change. We
get out a number which makes it quite objective.

P: And when you say 'reaction' do you mean a chemical reaction?

P: Yes. There is a chemical reaction. That's because the antibodies
in your blood recognise the HIV proteins. The shape of the antibodies
and protein molecules are complementary. They fit together perfectly.
Like a lock and key. That's what specific means.

P: But this is not a test for the actual virus is it? The virus
particles? You haven't found those in my body?

Dr: No it's not the actual virus. It's an indirect test. As I
explained, it's a test that looks for antibodies that are
manufactured in response to the presence of the virus proteins.
That's why we call them HIV antibodies. But the virus is there all
right. There's no other reason why your body would produce such
antibodies.

P: So if you looked you could also find the virus particles?

Dr: Maybe and maybe not. Not necessarily in your blood. That would be
very hard to do because to see them you need millions and millions of
particles. In fact no one has ever managed to find HIV particles in a
patient's blood. But we could use your blood to culture the virus.
Outside your body. Or we could do the same thing from a small piece of
lymph node for example. But these kind of tests are technically
demanding. And expensive. And quite unnecessary.

P: Where do you get the HIV proteins from?

Dr: From HIV. They form the major part of the HIV particle.

P: I presume these proteins don't occur anywhere else then?

Dr: No. They belong to HIV.

P: And nothing else you know of could induce my immune system to make
these antibodies?

Dr: The way the tests have been refined and interpreted, no.

P: So you're sure my body has this virus in it?

Dr: As sure as anyone can be.



A week later.

Patient: Doctor I've done a literature search and I've looked up
some articles in the University library. I've made you some copies
as well.

Dr: I assume you have a few more questions then? About what we
discussed last time? I know it's hard coming to grips with something
like this.

P: To be perfectly honest I'm confused. I'd really like to know
what you think. For instance, last week you told me the HIV proteins,
the ones used to test my blood for antibodies, don't occur anywhere
else except in HIV.

Dr : That's right.

P: Here's a paper I found. It's called "HIV proteins in normal
human placentae.1 It's written by a group of scientists who tested
tissue from the placentas of several healthy, pregnant women using
antibodies directed against four of the HIV proteins. They found three
HIV proteins in women who are not infected with HIV. They were p18,
p24 and p120. And here's another article. This one's called
"Monoclonal antibodies to the human immunodeficiency virus p18
protein cross-react with normal human tissues".2 In this paper the
HIV p18 protein was found in the thymus and tonsils and brains of
people who are not infected with HIV. Are you familiar with these
papers?

Dr: I'm sorry I've not seen these before. And I would have to
read them before passing comment.

P: You might have to read quite a few. Here's another paper where
blood from five patients who were HIV negative was cultured and again
the p24 protein was found. I've got another paper for p32. And
several other papers confirming what I've already said about the
others.1-7 8 9-16 I'm no expert but it seems to me if the
antibodies used in these experiments are the same antibodies that are
in AIDS patients, or in me for instance, and they specifically
recognise the HIV proteins, they should not register anything in HIV
negative people's blood or tissues. Doctor what is going on?

Dr: You're jumping to the wrong conclusion. The HIV proteins are
not there. It only looks that way. As your second paper says in its
title, the antibodies cross-react with some normal human proteins.
That occur in brain for example.

P: But aren't the antibodies they used in these experiments meant to
be specific? Don't they recognise HIV and nothing else but HIV?

Dr: When I explained the test to you last week I did say I was giving
you a simplified version.

P: All right but how come these antibodies react in normal people? If
there's not a simple answer is there a complicated answer?

Dr: What these papers are describing is not strange or mysterious. And
it's not a secret. The problem is that antibodies aren't always
exactly 100% specific. Sometimes they can and will react with other
things besides what they're meant for. That's what cross-react
means.

P: So you're saying that HIV antibodies can react with things other
than HIV?

Dr: Yes.

P: So if an antibody reacts with something that's not proof it's
directed against that something?

Dr: It may not be.

P: Are HIV antibodies the only antibodies that can cross-react?

Dr: No. In theory it's possible for any antibody to cross-react.
It's not a property confined to one type of antibody.

P: Well if HIV antibodies can cross-react with proteins which are not
HIV, like in the brain for example, then why can't non-HIV antibodies
cross-react with the proteins you say do come from HIV?

Dr: In theory they can.

P: What about in practice?

Dr: Yes they can. That is reported in the literature.

P: So how do you know the antibodies in my blood, the ones that react
in my test, are caused by HIV and not by something else?



A week later.

Dr: I understand this must be causing you considerable distress. So
I've set aside some extra time to fully go over these tests.

P: I appreciate that doctor. We were talking about cross-reactions.

Dr: I remember. OK. And let me know if I lose you in what I am about
to say. Sometimes antibodies to one protein do react with another,
different protein. That happens because the fit between the bit of the
protein the antibody reacts with, and the antibody itself, although not
100% perfect, is still good enough for a reaction to take place.

P: I understand.

Dr: Now back in 1985, when the HIV tests were being designed, when HIV
testing was in its infancy, it was discovered there are people who are
not infected with HIV who have antibodies that react with one or even a
couple of the HIV proteins.

P: But that wasn't an infection?

Dr: No, that was cross-reactions.

P: How many people does that affect doctor?

Dr It varies depending on what papers you read. But in one of the
types of test we do, it's called the Western blot, can be as high as
25%. It's certainly at least 15%. The 25% figure is from Australia.
From studies of healthy blood donors.

P: And these people definitely are not infected with HIV?

Dr: No they're not.

P: How do you know they're not? How do you know they haven't got
the real HIV antibodies?

Dr: Because these people don't belong to a risk group. And
they're healthy and they stay healthy. They don't go on to develop
AIDS. And when they donate blood the recipients don't develop AIDS
either.

P: And 25% of the population couldn't possibly be infected with HIV?

Dr: Exactly. If they were I can't imagine how many hospitals we
would need to treat them all.

P: And for HIV to get that common life would have to be one continuous
orgy?

Dr: A very good point.

P: But these antibodies must have come from somewhere?

Dr: That's true. Something must be responsible. And it's often
hard to know exactly what. Although it really isn't important to know
that. Perhaps they're caused by some other illness or some exposure
to something in the environment. But whatever it is, it's not HIV.

P: I understand.

Dr: Now, I said before, we do have a way to sort out true HIV
antibodies from all the others.

P: Yes I remember your saying that. The wheat from the chaff.

Dr: That's a good analogy. Let me tell you what happens. When we
first test you we do what's called an ELISA test. That is known as a
screening test. In the ELISA we test your blood against all the
proteins from HIV. All mixed up together. That's about ten proteins
by the way. So we have all the proteins in one test-tube and then we
add a few drops of your blood sample. Minus the red blood cells of
course. Otherwise we wouldn't see any colour except red. So we add
the serum, where the antibodies are dissolved, not the whole blood. If
there's a reaction the solution changes colour. We can see that. As
I said before, we measure the amount of the reaction by measuring the
passage of a light beam through the solution.

P: With the spectrophotometer?

Dr: Yes. You've obviously been doing a lot of study.

P: I also did two years of chemistry as an undergraduate.

Dr: OK. But there's a problem with the ELISA. It's not that
specific. Or at least it's not specific enough. We can't do just
one ELISA test then look you in the eye and say you're infected.
That would not be considered best practice.

P: So why do you use this test?

Dr: Because it is the most sensitive antibody test. By that I mean
it's guaranteed to pick up every HIV single antibody anyone could
ever have-but at a price. It also has a tendency to pick up non-HIV
antibodies as well. To use your analogy, it picks up all the wheat OK,
every single grain, but along with that some of the chaff. By that I
mean antibodies which are not HIV.

P: I still don't understand why you use it.

Dr : We use it to screen people. The way it works is this: If the
ELISA is negative it hasn't picked up any antibodies. HIV or
non-HIV. So the person is not infected. In that case that's as far
as we need to go. So it's a very useful first up test. It's used
a lot for donating blood. Most people who want to donate blood are
negative on the ELISA. In fact most people period are ELISA negative.
End of story.

P: And what if a blood donor is positive?

Dr: Then we have to dig deeper. But for the blood bank it means they
know straight away they can or can't use that person's blood.
It's quick and easy.

P: But what happens to the blood donor who is positive on the ELISA?

Dr: If the blood bank find a positive they hand over the case to an
approved laboratory for running further tests. Such as our laboratory.
In fact that's the law in this country. Not just any person or
laboratory is allowed to do the further tests. Then it's really no
different from what happened in your case. We dig deeper by doing
another test. A test which is different from the ELISA. In most parts
of the world the second type of test is the Western blot. The
difference is that in the Western blot the ten HIV proteins are not
mixed up together. They have been separated from each another along a
paper strip about half a centimeter wide. That way we can identify
precisely which HIV proteins are reacting. Or if you like, we can tell
which antibodies you have to which HIV proteins.

P: How do you read the Western blot?

Dr: By eye. Every place where an antibody reacts with one of the HIV
proteins the strip changes colour. So you end up with a series of
coloured dots along the strip. We call those bands. The lab
technician looks at the strip and reports the names of the bands that
light up. Each band is named with a 'p' for protein and then a
number which is its molecular weight in thousands. I think you've
already found that out.

P: How does the number of bands determine whether someone is infected
or not?

Dr: Well you might have one band or you might have ten bands. If you
only have a couple of bands then you're almost certainly dealing with
cross-reactions. But if you have four or more your test is positive
and you are infected. Or of course you might have no bands which means
you are definitely negative and not infected.

P: So the Western blot is used to work out whether the ELISA is right
or wrong?

Dr : Yes. We say the Western blot is a 'confirmatory' test.

P: And knowing which bands a person has distinguishes real antibodies
from cross-reactions?

Dr: Yes. We know that HIV antibodies cause particular patterns of
bands to show up. Kind of like a Lotto ticket. Certain combinations
invariably mean a prize and others don't.

P: What does my Western blot test show? Which antibody bands do I
have?

Dr: You have antibodies to p41, p24, p32 and p18. That's four bands
and it's also one of the several possible band patterns that makes a
positive test.

P: I still don't understand how you can know that some band patterns
are caused by HIV and others are not.

Dr: OK. Tell me what you don't understand.

P: Last week I asked how you know blood donors who have one or two
antibodies aren't infected with HIV. You told me it's because they
aren't sick or in a risk group.

Dr: And they don't go on to develop AIDS.

P: OK. But if I had only one band on the Western blot you'd say
that was not an HIV antibody?

Dr : You can have up to three bands not caused by HIV antibodies. Or
at least the chances are very slim. Of course it might also be that
you haven't produced all your antibodies yet. It's early days.
You are on the way but your infection was only a few weeks ago. In
some people it can take a couple of months for all their antibodies to
show up. The bands don't appear simultaneously. It's called the
window period.

P: I could have as many as three antibodies and not be infected?

Dr: Yes. As many as that. And as long as you don't get any more.

P: So I could have three bands and not have HIV while the next patient
you see today could have the same three plus one extra band. And that
extra one produces a pattern you say is caused by 'real' HIV
antibodies.

Dr: That's quite possible.

P: Then the three bands he shares with me must be real HIV for him but
not for me. So that extra band makes all the difference?

Dr: Precisely.

P: I don't get it. Why should just one extra band be 'real'
when the others on their own aren't? How can a number or combination
determine which antibodies are real and which aren't? I mean if you
have three pieces of fruit that aren't apples and then you add a
fourth that is an apple, does that make four apples?

Dr: I agree but we have evidence. I said it before. We know which
band patterns are caused by HIV because we've analysed which
groupings of bands distinguish people with AIDS from those who remain
healthy. It's really not that difficult.



A week later

P: I've been thinking about what you told me. I'm sorry but I
still have problems.

Dr : Well we better keep talking. Fire away.

P: I have a cousin in the US who works for a biotechnology company. He
sells antibody test kits to several New York hospitals. He faxed me a
packet insert for the ELISA and Western blot. One of each. Which I
read last week.

Dr : And what did they say?

P: They confirmed what you said. With the ELISA you can distinguish
most people with AIDS from healthy people. If you use a combination as
you said, an ELISA followed by a Western blot, the distinction is
almost perfect.

Dr: Then doesn't that put the matter to rest?

P: Maybe. Maybe not.

Dr What's the difficulty?

P: The biotechnology companies want their tests to be highly specific.
In other words, they don't want their tests to react in someone
who's not infected with HIV. And neither I guess do the doctors.
And certainly not the patients. So, as you said, they try their tests
out on healthy blood donors. To see how good they are. They assume,
quite rightly I suppose, those sorts of people don't have much chance
of getting AIDS or being infected with HIV.

Dr : That's right. They're extremely unlikely to be infected with
HIV. That's been proven time and time again by millions of tests at
the blood banks.

P: Yes doctor but when the biotechnology companies test their tests on
blood donors they go further. They actually define the blood donors as
not infected. The World Health Organisation does the same thing.

Dr: That's correct.

P: Well that's one of the problems. When I read about healthy blood
donors, not being in a risk group and all the rest, I asked myself, who
are these people? Where do they live? What kind of people are they?
What are their habits? Where do they hang out? And you know who it
reminded me of?

Dr: No.

P: It reminded me of me. I'm healthy. My friends regularly tell me
how well I look. I only got HIV tested because I need life insurance.
I'm not gay, I'm not a haemophiliac, I'm never been a drug taker.
I've not been promiscuous. I haven't been an angel but since
getting married my only sexual partner has been my wife. And because
we were about to start a family, a couple of months ago, unbeknown to
me, my wife had an HIV test. And she's negative.

Dr: What point are you making?

P: Doctor I could easily be in a group of people the manufacturers of
antibody tests use to determine how accurate their tests are. And when
they tested me I'd be positive all right but they would have already
defined me as non-infected. To me that's a false-positive. Don't
you agree?

Dr : To be perfectly frank I think you are somewhat in denial over
this. Believe me I'm not having a go at you but that's what people
often do when the news is not good. You realise there are other tests
we could do to settle this matter?

P: You mean the viral load test?

Dr Yes.

P: But according to my packet inserts, when biotechnology companies and
the WHO investigate their tests, they don't do that. They don't go
checking the antibody positive people with viral load tests. So why do
it to me?

Dr: To reassure you?

P: There's a man I talked to this morning in the waiting room. He
told me he's had a positive antibody test since 1987. He didn't
have his first viral load test until 1992. In fact I know there were no
such things as viral load tests in 1987. And this man didn't have a
viral load test to prove his antibody test is correct. It was to do
with his drug treatment. If that man didn't need a viral load test
to diagnose him in 1987, why do I in 2004?

Dr : Because most of the people who come to this clinic have clearcut
reasons for being infected. Their cases are straight forward. I'm
sure from all your reading you wouldn't be surprised to know most of
our patients are either gay or drug users.

P: But doctor three weeks ago you told me I was infected with HIV.
You didn't say I was a difficult case. You didn't tell me I would
need another test to sort out my antibodies. And if I'd come to you
fifteen years ago with a positive test, before there were viral load
tests, surely you wouldn't have told me I wasn't infected.
That's not what happened to the man in the waiting room. And if it
wasn't for me and the Internet we wouldn't even be having this
conversation. And I understand what you are saying about gay men and
drug users. But to me that just makes the problem worse.

Dr : I'm beginning to think you must be reading some very unusual
material.

P: All I've read is what's at PubMed. To find the paper on HIV in
the normal placenta I just entered "HIV p24 protein". Up it came.
Along with about 3000 others. So it took a bit of work. I assume
PubMed is where doctors do their literature searches. And the papers
there are peer reviewed?

Dr: Yes but why do you say the problem is worse in gay men and drug
users?

P: Doctor I'm an actuary. I have a PhD in mathematics. From
Oxford. I came to Australia six years ago because my wife is a top
notch forensic scientist. She was head hunted by your National Crime
Commission. My field is statistics. I understand probabilities and
the like. That's what I'm paid to do. If you tell me a few things
about yourself I can tell what chance you have of getting any disease
you name and living to any age you care to say. If you want to know
the chance your wife will outlive you by a certain number of years I
can also tell you that.

Dr: I'm not questioning your competence in your field. But you seem
bent on questioning me in mine. Please tell me what problems do you
see with gay men and drug users.

P: You tell me any antibody molecule can cross-react. It can pick off
some protein it's not destined for. So let's assume that each
individual antibody molecule has some probability of a cross-reaction.
I have no idea what it is. Do you?

Dr: No. I don't think that kind of data is available.

P: OK but if healthy people with a normal number of antibodies have a
¼ probability of reacting with one of the ten HIV proteins the
probability can't be small. If a healthy person has say ten thousand
different antibodies, and a target of ten HIV proteins, you have a
hundred thousand combinations to try. That's a lot of locks and
keys. If you double the number of antibodies you have two hundred
thousand combinations. And that's just on numbers. I don't know
how variety affects the maths. So the more antibodies you have and the
more things you're exposed to and the more likely you will generate
an antibody that can cross-react in these tests. Or in any test for
that matter. And that's the problem. At least the way I see it.

Dr You'll have to explain.

P: Let's ask ourselves, what kind of people are likely to have the
greatest number and variety of antibody molecules? In general. Surely
the people in the AIDS risk groups must head the list? What about all
the germs and foreign substances that gay men and drug addicts are
exposed to? And haemophiliacs who get infused with foreign proteins
that come from thousands of blood donors. And what about Africans?
Who have all manner of diseases such as TB and fungal and parasitic
infections which also cause antibodies? And the organisms that cause
these diseases just happen to be representative of the commonest AIDS
defining diseases in Western AIDS patients. Who don't actually come
from Africa. So the groups of people with the greatest probability of
having cross-reacting antibodies, antibodies that will confuse these
tests, are the very groups in which you say the tests rarely make a
mistake. It just doesn't add up doctor. I'd say it would be a
miracle if any of the antibodies in AIDS patients were genuinely HIV.

Dr: I honestly don't follow your logic. You told me that the
laboratory test inserts your cousin sent from America confirmed the
antibody tests can separate patients with AIDS from patients who are
healthy. Isn't that right?

P: Yes there we agree. And we agree they do this very accurately.

Dr: Surely then if a positive antibody test distinguishes between AIDS
and healthy people then HIV must be involved in one group, the AIDS
patients, and not in the other group? The healthy people.

P: Why?

Dr: Because HIV causes AIDS. If the test distinguishes between AIDS
and not having AIDS then it automatically distinguishes between having
the cause of AIDS and not having the cause of AIDS. Which is HIV.
It's just another way of saying the same thing. It doesn't matter
which way around you say it.

P: No you can't deduce that doctor.

Dr : Why not? It can't be any other way. Unless of course you say
HIV is not the cause of AIDS. Surely you're not suggesting that?
Not seriously? Have you been reading some of the dissident junk on the
Internet?

P: Have you read any of that junk doctor?

Dr: No of course not. Look, this is getting out of hand. There are
important things we must discuss and the sooner the better. We seem
stuck on what really shouldn't be a problem at all. I respect your
right to ask questions and I've tried my best to answer them but
obviously I'm not able to satisfy you. Perhaps you would prefer to
talk to one of my colleagues?

P: No that will not be necessary doctor. I have every confidence in
you. And in this clinic. Another doctor would only increase my
confusion. Let's call it a day. I'll try and come to come to
grips with it next time.

Dr: Very well. We certainly need to move on.



A week later.

P: Doctor I think I've worked out a way to explain my misgivings.

Dr: I'm glad to hear it.

P: Let's talk about tests in general terms. What actuaries do for
example. It's not too different from our last discussion.

Dr: OK.

P: Actuaries are interested in how long people live. Which is another
way of saying when people die. So we collect data about large groups
of people who have something in common. People who have say heart
disease or diabetes. We work out whether having or not having one of
these diseases will affect a person's chances of being or not being
alive at some future date. In a statistical sense of course.

Dr: Go on.

P: So what we do is very similar to your antibody tests and AIDS. Your
take people with or without a positive antibody test and contrast that
with the risk of having or getting AIDS or staying healthy.

Dr: Yes.

P: Now this is where I think the medical profession or the laboratory
scientists or whoever decides these things have gone beyond their data.
The outcome actuaries seek is whether a person is dead or alive. And
one of the 'tests' we use, is what diseases they have or don't
have at various times before they die. So our tests are diseases and
our outcome is death. Clear and unambiguous. You're either dead or
you're not.

Dr: Go on.

P: We don't use a substitute for dead bodies. We don't count the
numbers of death notices in the papers. We don't tally up how much
timber undertakers order. Or how small the forests are becoming. We
don't ask Centre Link how many pensions they've cancelled. We go
straight to the real thing.

Dr OK.

P: When it comes to the antibody tests the medical profession doesn't
deal with the real thing.

Dr: I don't follow.

P: You told me the antibody tests diagnose HIV infection.

Dr: That's right.

P: But you haven't produced any evidence for that. What you've
described is a test for AIDS. That's what you said you measure
antibodies against. The biotechnology companies and the WHO say it
too. You have a test for HIV but you measure it against AIDS.

Dr: I already explained that...

P: I know. You say you can use AIDS as a substitute for HIV. And not
having AIDS as a substitute for not having HIV. Well I don't think
you can do that.

Dr: Why not?

P: Several reasons. First: AIDS is not HIV. They're totally
different. AIDS is 30 diseases. HIV is allegedly a virus. Second:
The AIDS diseases have been around for hundreds, maybe thousands of
years. Long before we had AIDS. There's an account of Kaposis'
sarcoma in the Ebers papyrus. From ancient Egypt. Dating from 2500
BC. So if HIV is really a virus and does cause the AIDS diseases
it's not the only cause. It's not unique. How about tuberculosis?
TB has been found in Egyptian mummies. Would you use an Egyptian
mummy as a substitute for HIV?

Dr This is beginning to sound ridiculous...

P: You can use AIDS as an HIV substitute if and only if the sole cause
of these 30 diseases is HIV. Which it isn't. There's no way
around that. If you want to say AIDS can be substituted for HIV then
actuaries can substitute death for the number of cancelled pensions.

Dr Hold on...

P: The other faulty piece of logic is to use an antibody test as part
of the AIDS diagnosis. If a positive antibody test is part and parcel
of having AIDS it stands to reason there will be a perfect correlation
between these antibodies, wherever they come from whatever they are,
and AIDS. But that would be a man made correlation.

Dr: Look we may diagnose AIDS with an antibody test now but that was
not what we did when the HIV tests were developed. They were verified
against AIDS. A clinical diagnosis of AIDS. By that I mean history
and examination. Plus a few test like X-rays. But not antibody tests.
But when we did an antibody test, as an experiment if you like,
that's when we discovered all AIDS patients have these antibodies.
And if you don't have these antibodies you don't have AIDS. And
that has been found time after time. That's why an antibody test is
now part of the diagnosis.

P: Doctor that doesn't prove the antibodies are caused by HIV. It
just proves that AIDS patients have some antibodies which react with
these proteins in the test kits. Which you say could be cross-reacting
and therefore not HIV. So what you have is a blood test for AIDS. Or a
blood test that predicts an increased likelihood you will get sick from
certain diseases. That's fine if that's what you want. But
that's not the same thing as proving the antibodies are caused by a
virus.

Dr:???

P: There's more doctor. Third: A couple of weeks ago I suggested I
was a false positive. You didn't agree. That means you want to have
things both ways. If you're a biotechnology company you want to use
people like me as stand ins for being HIV free. You can read it in
their inserts. The one I have says 'Random donors are assumed to
have a zero prevalence of HIV antibody". So that's the rule.
Once you set up the rules you can't break them. Which means anyone
in this group who's positive must be recorded as a false positive.
But the same person sitting in your clinic the next day is truly
infected. That could easily apply to me.

Dr: I really think all your reading has made you quite confused.

P: What I understand doctor is this: If biotechnology companies and
the World Health Organisation are quite happy to use people without
AIDS including healthy people as HIV-free substitutes to verify their
tests then there can be no epidemic of HIV.

Dr: How on Earth do you come to that conclusion?

P: Because most people on Earth with a positive antibody test don't
have AIDS and in fact most are healthy.

Dr: You're telling me all those people, millions of them, 30% of some
African countries, aren't infected with HIV? They're all false
positives?

P: It's not me saying that doctor. I'm only drawing a conclusion
based on the rules you and the WHO recommend and approve. I don't
make up the rules. I'm just saying you should stick to them.

Dr: Is there anything else?

P: Have you ever read a packet insert?

Dr : No. I don't do the tests. They're done by the laboratory
staff.

P: Do they read the packet inserts?

Dr: I don't know.

P: Don't the agencies that approve the tests read them?

Dr: I don't know that either.

P: Can I read you something else from my packet insert?

Dr: Sure.

P: Both my packet inserts say "At present, there is no recognized
standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV
in human blood". What's your opinion on that statement doctor?

Dr: I'd like to hear your opinion.

P: OK. My opinion is that biotechnology companies employ a lot clever
people. And if a biotechnology company was developing a pregnancy test
someone in the organisation would know the recognised standard for
pregnancy is whether or not a woman has a baby. So it's not rocket
science to know that the recognised standard for a test to diagnose HIV
is whether or not the person has HIV. If that's what the test is for
that's what it should judged against. Which means the biotechnology
companies know these tests are not being judged against HIV itself.
Otherwise they wouldn't be saying what they do.

Dr: So you do not accept what I explained before?

P: Doctor I'm commenting on a packet insert. I'm offering my
opinion that the biotechnology companies must know HIV is the gold
standard method for validating the antibody tests but that it's not
being used. Why this is so I don't know. And why test manufacturers
repeatedly warn whoever reads their packet inserts about this I don't
know either. But I'm going to try and find out.

Dr: So what would actuaries have us do?

P: I can only speak for this actuary doctor. You've already told me
that cross-reacting antibodies can react in the HIV test. You said
that in the Western blot one or two antibodies are most likely caused
by cross-reactions and not HIV. When I asked how you know that you
said it's because of the band patterns the antibodies form. I
don't see how patterns or numbers distinguish between real and
cross-reacting antibodies. I don't believe you can know what
something is just because there's more of it. That's why I said
maybe all antibodies in these tests are cross-reacting and not HIV. Or
maybe they really are all HIV. Well there's an easy way to find out.

Dr: And what's that?

P: Use the virus. Do an experiment comparing the antibodies against
the virus itself. After all, that's what the test is for. It's a
test for HIV. It's not a test for AIDS.

Dr: And how would you do that?

P: Take say a thousand people. Some with AIDS, some with other
diseases like AIDS, some with diseases which are not AIDS and some
healthy people. You can't restrict your choice of non-AIDS people to
those who are healthy. If you do you'll be avoiding the problem of
cross-reacting antibodies. The non-AIDS group must include sick people
because these are the people who are likely to have generated increased
amounts of different antibodies that might confound the test. If you
only use healthy people you don't expose the test to enough
cross-reacting antibodies. Then you compare having or not having a
positive antibody test with having or not having HIV. As proven by
virus isolation. But, as the test manufacturers tell us in a round
about way, this has not been done. And it should have been done long
before the tests were used on the general population.

Dr: Well what are you going to do about your tests?

P: For the next three months I'm going to try and forget I have a
positive test. Actually I'm encouraged by something else I read in
the packet insert. "The risk of an asymptomatic person with a
repeatably reactive serum sample developing AIDS or an AIDS-related
condition is not known". So it seems no one is very sure what a
positive test means outside a risk group. Meantime I'll go to my GP
to make sure I haven't got TB or something else that might set these
tests off. I got immunised for 'flu and tetanus about three months
ago. Maybe that's the reason. I know I could be wrong so my wife
and I will put off having a baby and we'll use condoms. And I'm
going to spend a lot of my spare time in the library. Working out a
few things. Including why the HIV proteins occur in normal, healthy
people. In fact I'm going to read all the original papers on HIV
isolation and find out exactly what evidence international scientists
published to prove there is a virus called HIV. Then I'm going to
ask you to repeat my test.

Dr: And what if your test is still positive?

P: Then whatever caused it must still be operative. But that won't
prove it's HIV.



TO BE CONTINUED

Next question



ENDNOTES

1. Faulk WP, Labarrere CA. HIV proteins in normal human placentae. Am
J Reprod Immunol 1991;25(3):99-104.

2. Parravicini CL, Klatzmann D, Jaffray P, Costanzi G, Gluckman JC.
Monoclonal antibodies to the human immunodeficiency virus p18 protein
cross-react with normal human tissues. AIDS 1988;2:171-177.

3. Chassagne J, Verelle P, Fonck Y, Legros M, Dionet C, Plagne R, et
al. Detection of the lymphadenopathy-associated virus p18 in cells of
patients with lymphoid diseases using a monoclonal antibody. Annales de
l Institut Pasteur - Immunology 1986;137D:403-8.

4. Stricker RB, Abrams D, I,, Corash L. Target platelet antigen in
homosexual men with immune thrombocytopenia. N Engl J Med
1985;313:1375-1380.

5. Agbalika F, Ferchal F, Garnier JP, Eugene M, Bedrossian J, Lagrange
PH. False-positive HIV antigens related to emergence of a 25-30kD
proteins detected in organ recipients. AIDS 1992;6:959-962.

6. Jackson JB, Kwok SY, Sninsky JJ, Hopsicker JS, Sannerud KJ, Rhame
FS, et al. Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 detected in all
seropositive symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. J Clin Microbiol
1990;28(1):16-9.

7. Mortimer P, Codd A, Connolly J, Craske J, Desselberger U, Eglin R,
et al. Towards error free HIV diagnosis: notes on laboratory practice.
Pub Health Lab Service Micrbiol Digest 1992;9:61-64.

8. Vincent F, Belec L, Glotz D, Menoyo-Calonge V, Dubost A, Bariety J.
False-positive neutralizable HIV antigens detected in organ transplant
recipients. AIDS 1993;7:741-742.

9. Arthur LO, Bess JW, Sowder II RC, Beneviste RE, Mann DL, Chermann
JC, et al. Cellular proteins bound to immunodeficiency
viruses:implications for pathogenesis and vaccines. Science
1992;258:1935-1938.

10. Arthur LO, Bess JW, Jr., Urban RG, Strominger JL, Morton WR, Mann
DL, et al. Macaques immunized with HLA-DR are protected from challenge
with simian immunodeficiency virus. J Virol 1995;69:3117-24.

11. Henderson LE, Sowder R, Copeland TD. Direct Identification of Class
II Histocompatibility DR Proteins in Preparations of Human T-Cell
Lymphotropic Virus Type III. J Virol 1987;61:629-632.

12. Pearce-Pratt R, Malamud D, Phillips DM. Role of cytoskeleton in
cell-to-cell transmission of human immunodeficiency virus. J Virol
1994;68:2898-2905.

13. Orentas RJ, Hildreth JEK. Association of host cell surface adhesion
receptors and other membrane proteins with HIV and SIV. AIDS Res Hum
Retroviruses 1993;9:1157-1165.

14. Sasaki H, Nakamura M, Ohno T, Matsuda Y, Yuda Y, Nonomura Y.
Myosin-actin interaction plays an important role in human
immunodeficiency virus type 1 release from target cells. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
1995;92:2026-2030.

15. Pinter A, Honnen WJ, Tilley SA, Bona C, Zaghouani H, Gorny MK, et
al. Oligomeric structure of gp41, the transmembrane protein of human
immunodeficiency virus type 1. J Virol 1989;63(6):2674-9.

16. Zolla-Pazner S, Gorny MK, Honnen WJ. Reinterpretation of human
immunodeficiency virus Western blot patterns. N Engl J Med
1989;320:1280-1281.

UNQUOTE.

.

Relevant Pages