I'm glad you're interested in learning more. Here is a very good article with linked references that you can look up.
there's no test to isolate HIV? Huh? It has been isolated from, e.g., the blood, CNS tissue, lymph nodes, semen, and vaginal fluid of individuals with AIDS. e.g.
NIAID "Relationship Between HIV and AIDS:" "Improvements in co-culture techniques have allowed the isolation of HIV in virtually all AIDS patients, as well as in almost all seropositive individuals with both early- and late-stage disease." [Coombs et al, "Plasma viremia in human immunodeficiency virus infection," N Engl J Med 1989;321(24):1626-31. Schnittman et al, "The reservoir for HIV-1 in human peripheral blood ...," Science
1989;245(4915):305-8." Also Ho et al 1989, Jackson et al 1990]
Antibody-based HIV testing is both specific and accurate:
"A large study of HIV testing in 752 U.S. laboratories reported a sensitivity of 99.7% and specificity of 98.5% .... and studies in U.S. blood donors reported specificities of 99.8% and greater than 99.99% (46, 47). With confirmatory Western blot, the chance of a false-positive identification in a low-prevalence setting is about 1 in 250 000 (95% CI, 1 in 173 000 to 1 in 379 000) (48)." (Chou et al, Annals of Internal Medicine, 5 July 05, vol 143, #1, p 55-73)
The predictive value would obviously be even higher in high-prevalence areas like South Africa (basic application of Bayes Theorem) - i.e., fewer false positives.
WHO is the "they" who are bombarding the blood of individuals believed to be HIV+ with chemicals in order to manufacture a false positive? What chemicals? This sounds like rank speculation. Anyone who has taken an immunology laboratory course at any major university in the United States knows how to do an ELISA and a Western Blot - it's really not very difficult. Every lab performing confirmatory Western Blots in the world would have to be in on the conspiracy! If it were true that Western Blots were being tampered with, this would be a very simple thing to prove: take 12 individuals who were diagnosed HIV+ using the Western Blot (all countries in the west require a positive western blot for diagnosis), redo the western blot on your own time, videotape it (to prove that the test was properly performed), and show the world that the previous results were incorrect! Why have none of the "scientists" who you allege support the claim of tampered HIV antibody tests done this? It would be quite easy! The fact that it hasn't been done speaks volumes - obviously no scientist actually believes that the results are being tampered with.
Mullis said that PCR should not be used for the diagnosis of HIV infection. Guess what? It isn't! For one thing, it can only detect the virus if there are a certain number of copies (usually at least 40) per ml - if it were used for diagnostic purposes, many HIV+ people on treatment would suddenly be diagnosed false-negative! There is also the problem of false positives - for that reason, nobody given an early-detection PCR test is given a definitive HIV diagnosis until they have a positive Western Blot after the 'window period'. Its generally-used purpose is not diagnosis, but rather the monitoring of patients with confirmed HIV diagnoses (it's also used to track the effects of HAART). PCR alone is not the basis for the viral load theory of HIV. Much of the famous early research was done using bDNA, a different technology used for quantification of HIV in peripheral blood. Rather than name-drop famous people who have some issue with current HIV technology, why don't you tell me what YOUR objections are? Or do you not subject HIV-deniers to the same "scrutiny" that you subject the other greater-than-99% of scientists and physicians in the world?
I know nothing about the situation in India. If an HIV physician today gave a patient AZT monotherapy to treat HIV, he would be guilty of malpractice. It simply isn't done in the United States, or most of the world. Combination therapy is the rule, and all of the HIV doctors I know now favor less toxic nucleoside analogues than AZT when there is such a choice (the favored combinations used today for most patients are tenofovir + emtricitabine [aka Truvada], tenofovir + 3TC, or ABC + 3TC. Truvada outperformed Combivir, and is less toxic. Nuff said).
I don't believe that people should be force-treated for HIV, or most diseases for that matter (for a small number of highly-infectious, highly-lethal diseases, which does not include HIV, I believe that they should either accept treatment or be quarantined so that they cannot make others sick). But what does forced treatment (which hardly seems like the biggest atrocity going on in the world today) have to do with HIV testing or whether HIV exists? If this did indeed occur (you've provided no evidence), it in no way refutes the well-established fact that HIV exists, can be detected with various technologies, and causes AIDS.
Nobody denies that AZT can have toxic side effects (e.g. anemia, neutropenia). However, the toxic side effects that AZT produces look absolutely nothing like an AIDS-related death. Nobody with the slightest bit of medical knowledge could confuse the two. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies even using AZT as monotherapy (which is never done anymore, because combination therapy is far more effective in the long term) show this: BW002 trial showed only 1 of 145 patients treated with AZT died vs. 19 of 137 on placebo; 24 on AZT had opportunistic infections vs. 45 on placebo. [NIAID citing Fischl et al, "The efficacy of azidothymidine (AZT)...." N Engl J Med. 1987 Jul 23;317(4):185-91.]. If AZT is what causes AIDS, why are most people with AIDS today those who have never been treated, with AZT or anything else?
Also, in the first world, no one (and I mean NO ONE) is given AZT by a legitimate doctor on the basis of an ELISA or Western Blot test alone. It is also not protocol to do so in other parts of the world. The determination regarding the necessity of treatment (it is always the patient's choice whether to take it; you can't force someone to take medications if they would prefer to die without them) is based on a variety of parameters, the most important one being the CD4+ T-cell count.
You wrote that the ELISA and Western Blot come with a label that says that they do not detect HIV. I just checked the label of a commonly used Western Blot assay. It says no such thing. Onus is now on you to provide a link to a antibody assay in current use that says that it cannot detect HIV. I believe you are confusing the antibody tests with the PCR. PCRs should not be used to routinely diagnose HIV for reasons cited above. That's not its purpose.
"I have seen that my self and my friend took an HIV test to see what was the count.
It just shows antibody count. Both these test just show the anti-body count.
Now do I have to go and explain to you that antibodies are produced by the body in response to any germs entering out body."
Hmmm, for someone who doesn't seem to know very much about how the immune system works, you're very cocky about wanting to lay your miseducated opinions on others.
Antibodies are antigen-specific. You make millions of naive B-cells every day, each with a B-cell receptor that recognizes a specific epitope (such as an HIV envelope protein - an epitope is the piece of the germ that is capable of activating a B or T cell). When that one B-cell is lucky enough to encounter its antigen, it becomes "activated", and produces many copies of itself, some of which become plasma cells. These are the cells that secrete antibodies. The antibodies they secrete are soluble versions of their B-cell receptors. This could be a much more complicated discussion, but you now see why not just any germ will create high levels of antibodies to HIV antigens.
If you want to learn a bit about antibodies, start here:
run a search for "antibodies" or "immunoglobulin" or "B cells" or "humoral immunity" on the online version of Janeway's famous immunology textbook, available for free here:
or, for less details, this is a good introduction:
Contrary to your statement (with no cited evidence), there IS proof that other germs do not produce high levels of HIV antibodies: the specificity of these tests used in conjunction is extremely high (cited earlier). If high levels of antibodies to some other germ could produce positive results on both the initial assay and confirmatory test in all but the rarest cases, its specificity would be much lower. Don't believe the evidence? It's easily confirmed. All someone would have to do to disprove it is start giving Western Blots to people who are HIV-negative (e.g. children born to HIV- mothers, with no risk factors; nuns) and see how many of them have positive results!
You write: "That is the reason that India and africa have high HIV rates. It is not because of unprotected sex. It is because of the unhygenic conditions they live in. That means they will be having a lot of germs in their body through the contaminated food and water they consume. That means they are bodies will always be producing high anti-bodies."
But not antibodies that are specific to HIV! Again, you need to review your immunology basics.
you write: "I dont know if HIV exist or no". I'll give you a hint: it does!
here's a picture of the HIV virus:
there are many more where that came from!
I'm struggling to see how you did any more than simply "refute everything in just words". You haven't provided any proof for your bald, incorrect assertions.
I can respect the fact that you're "searching" for answers. I can not, however, respect the fact that you cherry-pick information and subject honest HIV researchers to a strange sort of scrutiny, while subjecting HIV-deniers to no scrutiny at all. I appreciate that you want to learn more, and admit when you do not know something. If you have any questions, just ask.
Best Wishes to you.