CureZone   Log On   Join
HIV+ does not mean infection with HIV
Hveragerthi Views: 1,702
Published: 9 years ago

HIV+ does not mean infection with HIV

 I was in a debate the other day with some people on another forum over what an HIV+ test means.  I explained that it does not mean a thing since there are over 65 known causes of false positives, primarily due to serological cross reactivity.  Of course I got the usual "conspiracy" comments from the people who refused to look for the evidence that I told them several times were in the medical journals.  These problems have been known for a long time by the medical establishment, but as usual it is profitable to tell people they have things they do not have so you can prescribe drugs and make them sick so you can prescribe more drugs.

Well, since these individuals kept up with the arguing instead of bothering to look for the evidence I found and posted it for them, which finally shut them up when they discovered how wring they were.  This is very important information to known though since most of us know someone directly or indirectly that have been told they have either HIV or hepatitis based on these bogus antibody tests.  And unfortunately many people have fallen victim to this scam leading to their death from AIDS created by the drugs they were given for being HIV+.  The drugs AZT and its analogues are the primary cause of AIDS since they collapse the immune system by destroying the bone marrow.  This is why it is so important for people to be educated on what HIV+ means and what AIDS really is or is not.   Anyway, here are the medical journal references I posted proving that HIV+ DOES NOT mean HIV infection:

Let's take a look at some of the evidence straight from the mainstream medical community:

Rayfield M et al. HIV culture. Chapter 7 in “AIDS Testing: a comprehensive guide to technical, medical, social, legal and management issues”. Springer Verlag. 1994;129.

Although serologic assays are capable of identifying prior exposure to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), they cannot alone demonstrate whether an individual is currently harboring the virus. The first method used to ascertain if a blood specimen contained HIV was co-cultivation with stimulated primary human lymphocytes or continuous human T cell lines and monitoring the culture supernatants for the presence of reverse transcriptase. Although viral isolation has proved to be a poor diagnostic tool because of its relative insensitivity, high costs, and lengthy time requirements, culture has served as the standard by which all other diagnostic tests have been judged and established. Furthermore, virus culture remains the steadfast route by which new variants are identified, isolated and initially characterised.”


Kion TA, Hoffmann GW. Anti-HIV and anti-anti-MHC antibodies in alloimmune and autoimmune mice. Science. 1991 Sep 6;253:1138-40.

“Alloimmune mice...were shown to make antibodies against gp120 and p24 of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and mice of autoimmune strains...made antibodies against gp120. This is surprising because the mice were not exposed to HIV.


Ou CY et al. DNA amplification for direct detection of HIV-1 in DNA of peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Science. 1988 Jan 15;239(4837):295-7.

“Serologic assays identify persons with prior exposure to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1), they do not specifically determine current infection...The number of peripheral blood lymphocytes expressing viral RNA, as detected by in situ hybridization in an infected person is less than 1 in 10,000 cells...Defective provirus would be detected by the PCR technique provided the region targeted for amplification was preserved"

Cleary PD et al. Compulsory premarital screening for the human immunodeficiency virus: Technical and public health considerations. JAMA. 1987 Oct 2;258(13):1757-62.

“for HIV infection, there is no independent, unequivocal way of identifying a group of individuals who are all assuredly infected or uninfected”


Ward JW et al. Laboratory and epidemiologic evaluation of an enzyme immunoassay for antivodies to HTLV-III. JAMA. 1986 Jul 18;256(3):357-61.

“Evaluation of a new test requires an established or known standard for comparison. At this point, however, no established standard exists for identifying HTLV-III infection in asymptomatic people. Current culture methods for identify virus in only 36% to 85% of persons with AIDS or related conditions and cannot be used as an absolute standard for HTLV-III/LAV infection. For this reason, we defined specimens positive on Western blot or culture as positive for infection with HTLV-III”

Since you probably don't have a clue what they are talking about above, what they are saying is that since they have no standard to measure HTLV-III (HIV) against they are ASSUMING that a positive test means HIV infection.


Papadopulos-Eleopulos E et al. HIV antibodies: further questions and a plea for clarification. Curr Med Res Opin. 1997;13(10):627-34.

“The only way to obtain ‘specific reagents’ is to isolate the virus, that is, obtain viral particles separate from everything else. If this is not done it is impossible to say which reagents (proteins) originate from the virus and which are contaminants. Only then can the viral proteins be used as ‘specific reagents’ with which to perform antibody tests. Even then, because a given antigen can react with antibodies directed against other antigens (cross-reactions), the specificity of the reactions must be determined by using viral isolation as a gold standard. However, instead of using this procedure, the only one scientifically valid, Gallo and his colleagues cultured a leukaemic cell line (HT) with tissues with tissues derived from AIDS patients. Proteins derived from the culture supernatants (but without proof of origin from a retrovirus or even particles, viral or non-viral, or even from the patients), were incubated with sera from AIDS patients or those at risk.”

Also note that in the abstract that Gallo did not follow the proper procedure to prove cause.  Gallo is the CDC scientist that got busted for scientific fraud for falsely claiming discovery of the HIV virus. Then he lied to the world by claiming that HIV caused AIDS embarrassing the US government again. So the government was forced to change the definition of AIDS in the early 80s to fit the HIV virus to cover up Gallo's lie.  This is why the definition of AIDS was changed to include the drop in CD4s since this is the only thing HIV can do.

High False-positive Rate of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Rapid Serum Screening in a Predominantly Hispanic Prenatal Population

False-Positive and Indeterminate Human Immunodeficiency Virus Test Results in Pregnant Women

Many False-Positive HIV Test Results for Those in AIDS Vaccine Trials

Multiple False Reactions in Viral Antibody Screening Assays after Influenza Vaccination

The above article is about the cross reactivity caused by influenza vaccines, which have been shown to create antibodies that react positive on HIV tests.  Other vaccines shown to cause positive HIV tests include polio, hepatitis, rabies, typhoid, malaria, etc.

Report of a False-Positive HIV Test Result and the Potential Use of Additional Tests in Establishing HIV Serostatus

Tests for HIV in Lupus

False positive results for antibody to HIV in men with systemic lupus erythematosus

Lupus is not the only autoimmune disorder that has been shown to cause false positives with HIV antibody tests.  The problem stems from the fact that during autoimmune reactions the body generates an abundance of low affinity (nonspecific) antibodies that can cross react on antigen test targets due to the non-specific nature.  This is the same reason that these antibodies tag healthy tissue instead of the antigens they are supposed to target.


These are just the tip of the iceberg of what is printed in the medical journals about HIV false positives.  


I do have one other thing you need to see before I end this post.  The following is a quote from the actual product insert for an HIV antibody test that there are NO tests that can confirm the presence of HIV antibodies in human blood:

“At present, there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.”

Published in: AIDS Care, 10 (2), 1998, 197–211.

© 1998 Taylor & Francis, 0954-0121.

AIDS Counselling for Low-Risk Clients

Among the reasons for false positives are the presence of cross-reacting antibodies (Stine, 1996); false positive reactions with non-specifically “sticky” IgM antibodies (Epstein, 1994, p. 56); false positives from samples placed in the wrong wells; and contamination of wells containing negative specimens by positive samples from adjacent wells. In addition, heat-treated, lipemic, and hemolyzed sera may cause false positives; false positive results have been reported to occur in 19% of haemophilia patients and in 13% of alcoholic patients with hepatitis (George & Schochetman, 1994, p. 69). People who have liver disease, have received a blood transfusion or gamma globulin within six weeks of the test, or have received vaccines for influenza and hepatitis B may test false positive, as well (Stine, 1996, p. 333).



Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend
Alert Moderators
Report Spam or bad message  Alert Moderators on This GOOD Message

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


Donate to CureZone

CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with

Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2019

0.313 sec, (9)