Re: The fraud of HIV testing

Here is another write up I did on inaccuracies of HIV testing with an explanation of polymerase chain reaction (PCR, viral load), and why it cannot prove the presence or activity of a virus:

What you are asking is absolutely impossible to provide or prove.  This is because there is no way to determine the cause of AIDS in the first place.  Let's say for example that HIV could cause opportunistic infections, which constituted the original definition.  How would we determine whether or not the HIV virus is even present?  People are under the false assumption that a positive HIV test means that you are infected with the HIV virus.   But as I pointed out this is false.   First of all there are over 65 KNOWN causes for false positives on HIV tests, which are antibody tests, not tests for viruses.  Most of these false positives occur from serological cross reactivity, which means antibodies of like structure will cross react yielding a false positive.  Antibodies in gammaglobulin can also react false positive.  And exposure, without chronic infection, will yield false positives.  In the last example let's say that I get the influenza (flu) virus.  After a few weeks I have successfully fought it off.  Yet if I go and get an antibody test I will test positive.  Does this mean I have the influenza virus?  Of course not!  Well, the same applies to the use of ELISA and Western blot tests in connection with HIV. S o as we can clearly see an HIV+ test does not prove infection with the HIV virus.

So we have  a "confirmation" test called viral load or PCR (polymerase chain reaction).  Though can we rely on these?  The answer is no! A gain contrary to popular belief PCR DOES NOT prove the presence of a particular virus.  PCR only amplifies sections of genetic material, not the whole virus. Yet other viruses share a lot of the genetics of HIV.  For instance the closest known relative to HIV is the sheep maedna visna virus (SVV), which has 53% of the genetic markers of HIV.  Bovine leukemia virus is the second closest known relative with 51% of the genetic markers and shares the same genetic coding for the production of reverse transcriptase.  Therefore the amplification of the genetics of these viruses, or others, can yield false positives.  Exposure to the genetics of these viruses can come from lamb, beef, and dairy.  Another problem with PCR is its extreme sensitivity makes it very prone to cross contamination, which has been demonstrated many times.  For instance, there was a claim that a British sailor died of HIV induced AIDS back in 1950.  PCR of preserved tissues seemed to back this claim, but it was later proven that the samples were contaminated in the lab.  And wild caught monkeys were thought to have harbored the HIV, or a similar virus, because of a PCR test.  Again it was found that the samples were contaminated in the lab, and the monkeys were not harboring any viruses.  PCR is also limited by other factors, such as annealing time, which can alter results.  So as we can see there is absolutely no way to prove that a person is infected with HIV.

Keep in mind that HIV does not cause AIDS under the original definition of AIDS.  The only virus that can cause AIDS under the original definition is human herpes virus type 6- variant A.  The HIV hypothesis was started by Robert Gallo after he already got busted for scientific fraud.  He had a financial interest in promoting his HIV causes AIDS lie because he held the patent rights to the HIV test . So as long as the world believed his lie he was making a fortune.  To cover up Gallo's second lie to the world the government changed the definition of AIDS to include the drop in CD4 counts since this is all HIV could do.