greetings,

this from www.virusmyth.com relates some of the many things that are known to cause a false positive on an hiv test.

although it says on the back of the test that it can't actually tell you if you have aids or hiv (read the fine print), people are taking these in great numbers and being sentenced to iatrogenic death by the so called aids drugs (do research on the much lauded azt and the protease inhibitors).

anyway, here many of the listed factors known to cause a false positive. i should add being black...

Anti-carbohydrate antibodies (52, 19, 13)
Naturally-occurring antibodies (5, 19)
Passive immunization: receipt of gamma globulin or immune globulin (as prophylaxis against infection which contains antibodies)(18, 26, 60, 4, 22, 42, 43, 13)
Leprosy (2, 25)
Tuberculosis (25)
Mycobacterium avium (25)
Systemic lupus erythematosus (15, 23)
Renal (kidney) failure (48, 23, 13)
Hemodialysis/renal failure (56, 16, 41, 10, 49)
Alpha interferon therapy in hemodialysis patients (54)
Flu (36)
Flu vaccination (30, 11, 3, 20, 13, 43)
Herpes simplex I (27)
Herpes simplex II (11)
Upper respiratory tract infection (cold or flu)(11)
Recent viral infection or exposure to viral vaccines (11)
Pregnancy in multiparous women (58, 53, 13, 43, 36)
Malaria (6, 12)
High levels of circulating immune complexes (6, 33)
Hypergammaglobulinemia (high levels of antibodies) (40, 33)
False positives on other tests, including RPR (rapid plasma reagent) test for syphilis (17, 48, 33, 10, 49)
Rheumatoid arthritis (36)
Hepatitis B vaccination (28, 21, 40, 43)
Tetanus vaccination (40)
Organ transplantation (1, 36)
Renal transplantation (35, 9, 48, 13, 56)
Anti-lymphocyte antibodies (56, 31)
Anti-collagen antibodies (found in gay men, haemophiliacs, Africans of both sexes and people with leprosy)(31)
Serum-positive for rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibody (both found in rheumatoid arthritis and other autoantibodies)(14, 62, 53)
Autoimmune diseases (44, 29, 10, 40, 49, 43): Systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma, connective tissue disease, dermatomyositis
Acute viral infections, DNA viral infections (59, 48, 43, 53, 40, 13)
Malignant neoplasms (cancers)(40)
Alcoholic hepatitis/alcoholic liver disease (32, 48, 40,10,13, 49, 43, 53)
Primary sclerosing cholangitis (48, 53)
Hepatitis (54)
"Sticky" blood (in Africans) (38, 34, 40)
Antibodies with a high affinity for polystyrene (used in the test kits)(62, 40, 3)
Blood transfusions, multiple blood transfusions (63, 36,13, 49, 43, 41)
Multiple myeloma (10, 43, 53)
HLA antibodies (to Class I and II leukocyte antigens)(7, 46, 63, 48, 10, 13, 49, 43, 53)
Anti-smooth muscle antibody (48)
Anti-parietal cell antibody (48)
Anti-hepatitis A IgM (antibody)(48)
Anti-Hbc IgM (48)
Administration of human immunoglobulin preparations pooled before 1985 (10)
Haemophilia (10, 49)
Haematologic malignant disorders/lymphoma (43, 53, 9, 48, 13)
Primary biliary cirrhosis (43, 53, 13, 48)
Stevens-Johnson syndrome9, (48, 13)
Q-fever with associated hepatitis (61)
Heat-treated specimens (51, 57, 24, 49, 48)
Lipemic serum (blood with high levels of fat or lipids)(49)
Haemolyzed serum (blood where haemoglobin is separated from the red cells)(49)
Hyperbilirubinemia (10, 13)
Globulins produced during polyclonal gammopathies (which are seen in AIDS risk groups)(10, 13, 48)
Healthy individuals as a result of poorly-understood cross-reactions (10)
Normal human ribonucleoproteins (48,13)
Other retroviruses (8, 55, 14, 48, 13)
Anti-mitochondrial antibodies (48, 13)
Anti-nuclear antibodies (48, 13, 53)
Anti-microsomal antibodies (34)
T-cell leukocyte antigen antibodies (48, 13)
Proteins on the filter paper (13)
Epstein-Barr virus (37)
Visceral leishmaniasis (45)
Receptive anal sex (39, 64)


pregnancy is one that should remain firmly lodged in your mind. there is an open attempt to make it a legal requirement for pregnant women to be tested for hiv...

just like the hpv vaccine, we risk placing the wombs of our women at the whims of our government. and, black people, katrina has only been the latest evidence of their actual feelings towards us.

OK?

also check out this movie...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4396856850556632563&q=HIV+%3D+AIDS

This is the website of one group mentioned in the video:
http://www.rethinkaids.com/

this is serious black people!

with the recent release of this pbs documentary on aids and black people, you can see a continued sinsiter attack on africans. we have to defeat this mythology.

ok!

sources line up with above post

References

1. Agbalika F, Ferchal F, Garnier J-P, et al. 1992. False-positive antigens related to emergence of a 25-30 kD protein detected in organ recipients. AIDS. 59-962.

2. Andrade V, Avelleira JC, Marques A, et al. 1991. Leprosy as a cause of false-positive results in serological assays for the detection of antibodies to HIV-1. Intl. J. Leprosy. 59:125.

3. Arnold NL, Slade RA, Jones MM, et al. 1994. Donor follow up of influenza vaccine-related multiple viral enzyme immunoassay reactivity. Vox Sanguinis. 67:191.

4. Ascher D, Roberts C. 1993. Determination of the etiology of seroreversals in HIV testing by antibody fingerprinting. AIDS. 6:241.

5. Barbacid M, Bolgnesi D, Aaronson S. 1980. Humans have antibodies capable of recognizing oncoviral glycoproteins: Demonstration that these antibodies are formed in response to cellular modification of glycoproteins rather than as consequence of exposure to virus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 77:1617-1621.

6. Biggar R, Melbye M, Sarin P, et al. 1985. ELISA HTLV retrovirus antibody reactivity associated with malaria and immune complexes in healthy Africans. Lancet. ii:520-543.

7. Blanton M, Balakrishnan K, Dumaswala U, et al. 1987. HLA antibodies in blood donors with reactive screening tests for antibody to the immunodeficiency virus. Transfusion. 27(1):118.

8. Blomberg J, Vincic E, Jonsson C, et al. 1990. Identification of regions of HIV-1 p24 reactive with sera which give "indeterminate" results in electrophoretic immunoblots with the help of long synthetic peptides. AIDS Res. Hum. Retro. 6:1363.

9. Burkhardt U, Mertens T, Eggers H. 1987. Comparison of two commercially available anti-HIV ELISA's: Abbott HTLV-III ELA and DuPont HTLV-III ELISA. J. Med. Vir. 23:217.

10. Bylund D, Ziegner U, Hooper D. 1992 Review of testing for human immunodeficiency virus. Clin. Lab. Med. 12:305-333.

11. Challakere K, Rapaport M. 1993. False-positive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 ELISA results in low-risk subjects. West. J. Med. 159(2):214-215.

12. Charmot G, Simon F. 1990. HIV infection and malaria. Revue du practicien. 40:2141.

13. Cordes R, Ryan M. 1995. Pitfalls in HIV testing. Postgraduate Medicine. 98:177.

14. Dock N, Lamberson H, O'Brien T, et al. 1988. Evaluation of atypical human immunodeficiency virus immunoblot reactivity in blood donors. Transfusion. 28:142.

15. Esteva M, Blasini A, Ogly D, et al. 1992. False positive results for antibody to HIV in two men with systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 51:1071-1073.

16. Fassbinder W, Kuhni P, Neumayer H. et al. 1986. Prevalence of antibodies against LAV/HTLV-III in patients with terminal renal insufficiency treated with hemodialysis and following renal transplantation. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift. 111:1087.

17. Fleming D, Cochi S, Steece R. et al. 1987. Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in low-incidence areas. JAMA. 258(6):785.

18. Gill MJ, Rachlis A, Anand C. 1991. Five cases of erroneously diagnosed HIV infection. Can. Med. Asso. J. 145(12):1593.

19. Healey D, Bolton W. 1993. Apparent HIV-1 glycoprotein reactivity on Western blot in uninfected blood donors. AIDS. 7:655-658.

20. Hisa J. 1993. False-positive ELISA for human immunodeficiency virus after influenza vaccination. JID. 16 89.

21. Isaacman S. 1989. Positive HIV antibody test results after treatment with hepatitis B immune globulin. JAMA. 262:209.

22. Jackson G, Rubenis M, Knigge M, et al. 1988. Passive immunoneutralisation of human immunodeficiency virus in patients with advanced AIDS. Lancet, Sept. 17:647.

23. Jindal R, Solomon M, Burrows L. 1993. False positive tests for HIV in a woman with lupus and renal failure. NEJM. 328:1281-1282.

24. Jungkind D, DiRenzo S, Young S. 1986. Effect of using heat-inactivated serum with the Abbott human T-cell lymphotropic virus type III antibody test. J. Clin. Micro. 23:381.

25. Kashala O, Marlink R, Ilunga M. et al. 1994. Infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and human T-cell lymphotropic viruses among leprosy patients and contacts: correlation between HIV-1 cross-reactivity and antibodies to lipoarabionomanna. J. Infect. Dis. 169:296-304.

26. Lai-Goldman M, McBride J, Howanitz P, et al. 1987. Presence of HTLV-III antibodies in immune serum globulin preparations. Am. J. Clin. Path. 87:635.

27. Langedijk J, Vos W, Doornum G, et al. 1992. Identification of cross-reactive epitopes recognized by HIV-1 false-positive sera. AIDS. 6:1547-1548.

28. Lee D, Eby W, Molinaro G. 1992. HIV false positivity after hepatitis B vaccination. Lancet. 339:1060.

29. Leo-Amador G, Ramirez-Rodriguez J, Galvan-Villegas F, et al. 1990. Antibodies against human immunodeficiency virus in generalized lupus erythematosus. Salud Publica de Mexico. 32:15.

30. Mackenzie W, Davis J, Peterson D. et al. 1992. Multiple false-positive serologic tests for HIV, HTLV-1 and hepatitis C following influenza vaccination, 1991. JAMA. 268:1015-1017.

31. Mathe G. 1992. Is the AIDS virus responsible for the disease? Biomed & Pharmacother. 46:1-2.

32. Mendenhall C, Roselle G, Grossman C, et al. 1986. False-positive tests for HTLV-III antibodies in alcoholic patients with hepatitis. NEJM. 31 21.

33. Moore J, Cone E, Alexander S. 1986. HTLV-III seropositivity in 1971-1972 parenteral drug abusers - a case of false-positives or evidence of viral exposure? NEJM. 314:1387-1388.

34. Mortimer P, Mortimer J, Parry J. 1985. Which anti-HTLV-III/LAV assays for screening and comfirmatory testing? Lancet. Oct. 19, p873.

35. Neale T, Dagger J, Fong R, et al. 1985. False-positive anti-HTLV-III serology. New Zealand Med. J. October 23.

36. Ng V. 1991. Serological diagnosis with recombinant peptides/proteins. Clin. Chem. 37:1667-1668.

37. Ozanne G, Fauvel M. 1988. Perfomance and reliability of five commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits in screening for anti-human immunodeficiency virus antibody in high-risk subjects. J. Clin. Micro. 26:1496.

38. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E. 1988. Reappraisal of AIDS - Is the oxidation induced by the risk factors the primary cause? Med. Hypo. 25:151.

39. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner V, and Papadimitriou J. 1993. Is a positive Western blot proof of HIV infection? Bio/Technology. June 11:696-707.

40. Pearlman ES, Ballas SK. 1994. False-positive human immunodeficiency virus screening test related to rabies vaccination. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 118-805.

41. Peternan T, Lang G, Mikos N, et al. Hemodialysis/renal failure. 1986. JAMA. 255:2324.

42. Piszkewicz D. 1987. HTLV-III antibodies after immune globulin. JAMA. 257:316.

43. Profitt MR, Yen-Lieberman B. 1993. Laboratory diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus infection. Inf. Dis. Clin. North Am. 7:203.

44. Ranki A, Kurki P, Reipponen S, et al. 1992. Antibodies to retroviral proteins in autoimmune connective tissue disease. Arthritis and Rheumatism. 35:1483.

45. Ribeiro T, Brites C, Moreira E, et al. 1993. Serologic validation of HIV infection in a tropical area. JAIDS. 6:319.

46. Sayers M, Beatty P, Hansen J. 1986. HLA antibodies as a cause of false-positive reactions in screening enzyme immunoassays for antibodies to human T-lymphotropic virus type III . Transfusion. 26(1):114.

47. Sayre KR, Dodd RY, Tegtmeier G, et al. 1996. False-positive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 Western blot tests in non-infected blood donors. Transfusion. 36:45.

48. Schleupner CJ. Detection of HIV-1 infection. In: (Mandell GI, Douglas RG, Bennett JE, eds.) Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 3rd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1990:1092.

49. Schochetman G, George J. 1992. Serologic tests for the detection of human immunodeficiency virus infection. In AIDS Testing Methodology and Management Issues, Springer-Verlag, New York.

50. Simonsen L, Buffington J, Shapiro C, et al. 1995. Multiple false reactions in viral antibody screening assays after influenza vaccination. Am. J. Epidem. 141-1089.

51. Smith D, Dewhurst S, Shepherd S, et al. 1987. False-positive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay reactions for antibody to human immunodeficiency virus in a population of midwestern patients with congenital bleeding disorders. Transfusion. 127:112.

52. Snyder H, Fleissner E. 1980. Specificity of human antibodies to oncovirus glycoproteins; Recognition of antigen by natural antibodies directed against carbohydrate structures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 77:1622-1626.

53. Steckelberg JM, Cockerill F. 1988. Serologic testing for human immunodeficiency virus antibodies. Mayo Clin. Proc. 63:373.

54. Sungar C, Akpolat T, Ozkuyumcu C, et al. Alpha interferon therapy in hemodialysis patients. Nephron. 67:251.

55. Tribe D, Reed D, Lindell P, et al. 1988. Antibodies reactive with human immunodeficiency virus gag-coated antigens (gag reactive only) are a major cause of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay reactivity in a bood donor population. J. Clin. Micro. April:641.

56. Ujhelyi E, Fust G, Illei G, et al. 1989. Different types of false positive anti-HIV reactions in patients on hemodialysis. Immun. Let. 22:35-40.

57. Van Beers D, Duys M, Maes M, et al. Heat inactivation of serum may interfere with tests for antibodies to LAV/HTLV-III . J. Vir. Meth. 12:329.

58. Voevodin A. 1992. HIV screening in Russia. Lancet. 339:1548.

59. Weber B, Moshtaghi-Borojeni M, Brunner M, et al. 1995. Evaluation of the reliability of six current anti-HIV-1/HIV-2 enzyme immunoassays. J. Vir. Meth. 5 7.

60. Wood C, Williams A, McNamara J, et al. 1986. Antibody against the human immunodeficiency virus in commercial intravenous gammaglobulin preparations. Ann. Int. Med. 105:536.

61. Yale S, Degroen P, Tooson J, et al. 1994. Unusual aspects of acute Q fever-associated hepatitis. Mayo Clin. Proc. 6 69.

62. Yoshida T, Matsui T, Kobayashi M, et al. 1987. Evaluation of passive particle agglutination test for antibody to human immunodeficiency virus. J. Clin. Micro. Aug:1433.

63. Yu S, Fong C, Landry M, et al. 1989. A false positive HIV antibody reaction due to transfusion-induced HLA-DR4 sensitization. NEJM.320:1495.

64. National Institue of Justice, AIDS Bulletin. Oct. 1988.



OK!

Every single one is over a decade old. Many are more than two decades old.

So they say essentially nothing about the current state of the science of HIV diagnosis.


And then there's also the fact that if one were actually to read the papers urthanheaven has directed us toward, he or she would find unrelenting reminders that the authors of these very papers, even while they are discussing possible false-positive scenarios, essentially all agree that HIV causes AIDS, and that HIV testing is essential to the health of any sexually active person. So I really don't see what his point is.

with the accidental input of smiley faces in the references. CURSE YOU HTML!!!

beyond what strav wrote, the existence of false positives does not mean don't get a test, it just means get a test, if you get a positive result, get a more elaborate test. false negatives are problems for testing, false positives are easily remedied with more extensive testing and follow-up.

–––––––––––––
Vas por la calle llorando
Lagrimas de oro
Vas por la calle brotando
Lagrimas de oro

>with the accidental input of smiley faces in the references.
>CURSE YOU HTML!!!
>
>beyond what strav wrote, the existence of false positives does
>not mean don't get a test, it just means get a test, if you
>get a positive result, get a more elaborate test. false
>negatives are problems for testing, false positives are easily
>remedied with more extensive testing and follow-up.
>
>–––––––––––––
>Vas por la calle llorando
>Lagrimas de oro
>Vas por la calle brotando
>Lagrimas de oro

co-sign on this, and as written before, that information is way old man and can't be used in making any direct valid comments about the test. it sure as hell cant be used to make a descion on not to get tested. peace

>with the accidental input of smiley faces in the references.
>CURSE YOU HTML!!!

Yeah, usually you only see those crazy smilies from religious types trying to cite Bible verses.

Perhaps we could reasonably and quickly judge people's sources by whether they took the time or had the ability to figure out how to cite them correctly.

I mean, if even the computer is laughing at a poster, that surely isn't a good sign.

>beyond what strav wrote, the existence of false positives does
>not mean don't get a test, it just means get a test, if you
>get a positive result, get a more elaborate test. false
>negatives are problems for testing, false positives are easily
>remedied with more extensive testing and follow-up.

Yes, that should have been my first response.

>I mean, if even the computer is laughing at a poster, that
>surely isn't a good sign.

>beyond what strav wrote, the existence of false positives does
>not mean don't get a test, it just means get a test, if you
>get a positive result, get a more elaborate test. false
>negatives are problems for testing, false positives are easily
>remedied with more extensive testing and follow-up.

be careful!

first, how will you know if you get a false or a true positive>?

what is the criteria for a positive on either the elisa or the wb test?

if you take a test that tells you the sun goes around the earth, take it again. and keep taking it. and if it keeps telling you sun goes around the earth, eventually accept it and jump off a cliff....

never addressing the fact that the sun may not go around the earth (oh come on! it's all relative).

i should point out again, do you actually know the mechanics involved in an hiv diagnosis?

are you aware that they are different depending on what country you live in?

how is this possible?

are you aware that it is nearly physically impossible to locate and identify the hiv retrovirus?

yet based on the contested and not peer reviewed hypothesis of a known fraud, we have spent money in the billions stuffing the pockets of idiots, thieves, and racists.

still, don't worry about it. your white. and genetically immune to aids because of having the black plague in the 16th century. aids comes from people fucking monkeis in africa.

black men are all secretly gay and have sex with the thousands of people each month necessary to spread the 'virus' according to the data on the cdc's website! (1 in 1000 chance of transmission through vaginal intercourse.

oh, we also commit more crime, and do more drugs then white people. (can you smell it?)

how about this, a total moratorium on hiv tests worldwide untill this is addressed in an open forum

or you could go and get tested for something that does nothing and take drugs that kill you, have your life pulled to peices, be stigmatised and possibly imprisoned, place your children at the whim of the state to be turned into guinea pigs for pharmaceutical companies (if you live in new york), watch your family disintegrate, be restricted in where you can travel, be convicted of attempted murder and imprisoned should you have sex with anyone, have your community and networks fall apart, end up alone and misserable,. and die of.... aids.

i know it's a long film, but i seriously advise anyone of you shooting from the hip at the idea that hiv does not cause aids, to watch the film in its entirety and get back here with specific points. there are issues raised that have not been addressed and yet the industry is worth billions, and way too many people have had their lives ruined by a false aids diagnosis. and many people have died from drugs that cause irreprable genetic damage (protease inhibitors) and others that are worst than cancer (azt).

the symptoms associated with aids are all listed as side effects on the back of the aids drugs.

the viral aids hypothesis is false.

does aids exist? yes. but it's not what you think it is. its not sexually transmittable. it was known as simply immuno deficiency syndrome much earlier than the 80's when gallo et all added the 'acquired' to it.

if it came from eating monkies in africa, why is it only now that it is blowing up all over the place? WHY IS IT ONLY HAPPENING NOW? africans have lived in africa since creation. why is it only now? and why do people have to write some bizzare plot from x files to explain this bullshit?

since their first scare mongering predictions of uganda and other countries being wiped off the face of the planet, there has been anual population growth in those countries. the numbers did not add up then, they do not add up now.

the gate to hell is through the hiv test.

i repeat, if you are even thinking of taking an hiv test, spend the time to review the information i have linked in these posts and watch the damn film.

it may save your life.

OK!

p.s. the hiv virus is also sooooo smart it can tell if your black or white, gay or straight, old or young, as well as what country you live in.

HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE (hint; its not)

are they still relevant?

how has hiv testing changed since '96?

when was this article, that was using the sources, written?

http://www.duesberg.com/
http://www.karymullis.com/
www.aliveandwell.org
www.rethinkingaids.com
http://www.healtoronto.com/
http://www.kimbannon.com/home/links.html

-------
It's incredible how the people that know the least are the first to offer advice.

Click on "Books" at the left, to see a series of rather bizarre recommendations for any scientist to make ("State of Fear", WTF?!), culminating in a book that Mullis appears to honestly believe was written by extraterrestrials.

That's right. Extraterrestrials.

Seriously. I'm not joking here.


Just like a single positive HIV test doesn't always indicate the presence of HIV with absolute certainty, a Nobel prize is not a surefire indication of sanity.

Why do you think the belief in extraterrastrials or a book written by one is related to sanity?

----------------------

"Devil and nigga are the same to me." -Nettrice

"it's wack to me when the beat is more hype than the M.C. cuz what he is saying is empty" -Chill Rob G.

"I don't blame Tiger Woods, but I overstand the mental poison that's even worse than drugs" -nas pois

http://www.theperthgroup.com/

http://healtoronto.com/nih/

http://www.robertogiraldo.com/

-------
It's incredible how the people that know the least are the first to offer advice.

i mean sources that credible and current discussing the issue of hiv tests

not a bunch of websites

I call for its deletion.

but deletion would only help feed the conspiracy theory. Better to take it head-on, out in the open.

>
>but deletion would only help feed the conspiracy theory.
>Better to take it head-on, out in the open.

Then deal with it head-on. Give some recent sources that show this is no longer the case. That the science for testing HIV have improved and there is no longer a chance for false positives due to these other conditions.

The look at the date shit isn't proof nor does it qualify to automatically discount the information posted.

----------------------------------

"Devil and nigga are the same to me." -Nettrice

"it's wack to me when the beat is more hype than the M.C. cuz what he is saying is empty" -Chill Rob G.

"I don't blame Tiger Woods, but I overstand the mental poison that's even worse than drugs" -nas pois

>>
>>but deletion would only help feed the conspiracy theory.
>>Better to take it head-on, out in the open.
>
>Then deal with it head-on. Give some recent sources that show
>this is no longer the case.

Sorry, but the burden of proof is on the crackpot. If you wanna know why I accept the consensus view on this matter, you're welcome to look at the consensus. Open any Biology textbook. Go talk to a Biologist or a doctor who deals with these issues every day. Shit, subscribe to Scientific American, or Nature.

>That the science for testing HIV
>have improved and there is no longer a chance for false
>positives due to these other conditions.

I never said there isn't a chance for false positives. All I did was imply that they don't constitute any reason to avoid getting tested.

>The look at the date shit isn't proof nor does it qualify to
>automatically discount the information posted.

I never said it was "proof" of anything. But it does indeed discount the information posted. That information is badly out of date, and therefore of little relevance.

>>>
>>>but deletion would only help feed the conspiracy theory.
>>>Better to take it head-on, out in the open.
>>
>>Then deal with it head-on. Give some recent sources that
>show
>>this is no longer the case.
>
>Sorry, but the burden of proof is on the crackpot. If you
>wanna know why I accept the consensus view on this matter,
>you're welcome to look at the consensus. Open any Biology
>textbook. Go talk to a Biologist or a doctor who deals with
>these issues every day. Shit, subscribe to Scientific
>American, or Nature.
>
See this is the game you cats play on here. I can go along with the burden of proof is on the poster when they just make a statement without anything to back it up. But in this case the poster posted information to back up why they feel the tests are inaccurate. All you pointed to was the date the information was publish as a reason to debunk his argument. That is not good enough. If you want to argue that in opposition to the posters point then present your arguement with sources to back it up.

You cats just love raising the bar with that burden of proof stuff without actually presenting a counter argument. You just keep saying. That's not good enough. That's not good enough. Now that is just bullshit. Like you stated adress it head-on.

------------------------------

"Devil and nigga are the same to me." -Nettrice

"it's wack to me when the beat is more hype than the M.C. cuz what he is saying is empty" -Chill Rob G.

"I don't blame Tiger Woods, but I overstand the mental poison that's even worse than drugs" -nas pois

>See this is the game you cats play on here. I can go along
>with the burden of proof is on the poster when they just make
>a statement without anything to back it up. But in this case
>the poster posted information to back up why they feel the
>tests are inaccurate.

Well, if you think urthanheaven justified his claims, then you're welcome to continue thinking that. If you ever do get a positive HIV test, then I hope as one man to another that you'll take it seriously. But it's up to you. All I'm saying is that I'm completely unconvinced by urthanheavean's argument.

>All you pointed to was the date the
>information was publish as a reason to debunk his argument.

Published. See there. All I did was correct your spelling to completely debunk yours.

>That is not good enough.

That's up to you.

>If you want to argue that in
>opposition to the posters point then present your arguement
>with sources to back it up.
>
>You cats just love raising the bar with that burden of proof
>stuff without actually presenting a counter argument. You
>just keep saying. That's not good enough. That's not good
>enough. Now that is just bullshit. Like you stated adress it
>head-on.

Again, I'm addressing urthanheaven's arguments themselves head-on. I'm not trying to make a counterargument. In fact, I really don't think I'm qualified to make an honest and acceptable counterargument. As far as I know, I'm the only scientist who frequents this board. Nobody is more qualified around here to make a case on this subject than I am, but I know enough about science to admit that I don't know enough biology to speak for the biology community. urthanheaven sure as shit doesn't know enough biology to claim he knows more about it than they do.

>>All you pointed to was the date the
>>information was publish as a reason to debunk his argument.
>
>Published. See there. All I did was correct your spelling to
>completely debunk yours.

Actually you corrected my grammar. So now you have been debunked.

>>That is not good enough.
>
>That's up to you.
>
>>If you want to argue that in
>>opposition to the posters point then present your arguement
>>with sources to back it up.
>>
>>You cats just love raising the bar with that burden of proof
>>stuff without actually presenting a counter argument. You
>>just keep saying. That's not good enough. That's not good
>>enough. Now that is just bullshit. Like you stated adress
>it
>>head-on.
>
>Again, I'm addressing urthanheaven's arguments themselves
>head-on. I'm not trying to make a counterargument. In fact,
>I really don't think I'm qualified to make an honest and
>acceptable counterargument. As far as I know, I'm the only
>scientist who frequents this board. Nobody is more qualified
>around here to make a case on this subject than I am, but I
>know enough about science to admit that I don't know enough
>biology to speak for the biology community. urthanheaven sure
>as shit doesn't know enough biology to claim he knows more
>about it than they do.
>
If you are not qualified to make an honest and acceptable counterargument what makes you qualified to address urthanheaven's arguments at all?

-----------------------

"Devil and nigga are the same to me." -Nettrice

"it's wack to me when the beat is more hype than the M.C. cuz what he is saying is empty" -Chill Rob G.

"I don't blame Tiger Woods, but I overstand the mental poison that's even worse than drugs" -nas pois

>>>All you pointed to was the date the
>>>information was publish as a reason to debunk his argument.
>
>>
>>Published. See there. All I did was correct your spelling
>to
>>completely debunk yours.
>
>Actually you corrected my grammar. So now you have been
>debunked.

Well, I think that one could be considered either way, but let's not get into that.


>>Again, I'm addressing urthanheaven's arguments themselves
>>head-on. I'm not trying to make a counterargument. In
>fact,
>>I really don't think I'm qualified to make an honest and
>>acceptable counterargument. As far as I know, I'm the only
>>scientist who frequents this board. Nobody is more
>qualified
>>around here to make a case on this subject than I am, but I
>>know enough about science to admit that I don't know enough
>>biology to speak for the biology community. urthanheaven
>sure
>>as shit doesn't know enough biology to claim he knows more
>>about it than they do.
>>
>If you are not qualified to make an honest and acceptable
>counterargument what makes you qualified to address
>urthanheaven's arguments at all?

You're grasping at straws here. If someone comes up to you in the street and says "The Earth is the center of the universe! The proof is that if you watch it, the Sun is clearly rotating around US, not the other way around! It's a CONSPIRACY that people are claiming we're not at the center of the universe. Godless relativists." In such a situation you'd certainly be qualified to tell that dude he's full of shit. You're probably not qualified, however, to make a proper counterargument, citing astronomical observations and constructions of gravitation theory.

>You're grasping at straws here. If someone comes up to you in
>the street and says "The Earth is the center of the universe!
>The proof is that if you watch it, the Sun is clearly rotating
>around US, not the other way around! It's a CONSPIRACY that
>people are claiming we're not at the center of the universe.
>Godless relativists." In such a situation you'd certainly be
>qualified to tell that dude he's full of shit. You're
>probably not qualified, however, to make a proper
>counterargument, citing astronomical observations and
>constructions of gravitation theory.
>
your claim of "he's full of shit" doesn't carry much weight and comes of as obnoxious and abrasive.

-----------------

"Devil and nigga are the same to me." -Nettrice

"it's wack to me when the beat is more hype than the M.C. cuz what he is saying is empty" -Chill Rob G.

"I don't blame Tiger Woods, but I overstand the mental poison that's even worse than drugs" -nas pois

>>You're grasping at straws here. If someone comes up to you
>in
>>the street and says "The Earth is the center of the universe!
>
>>The proof is that if you watch it, the Sun is clearly
>rotating
>>around US, not the other way around! It's a CONSPIRACY that
>>people are claiming we're not at the center of the universe.
>
>>Godless relativists." In such a situation you'd certainly
>be
>>qualified to tell that dude he's full of shit. You're
>>probably not qualified, however, to make a proper
>>counterargument, citing astronomical observations and
>>constructions of gravitation theory.
>>
>your claim of "he's full of shit" doesn't carry much weight
>and comes of as obnoxious and abrasive.

I also never argued that I'm not obnoxious or abrasive.

>I also never argued that I'm not obnoxious or abrasive.
>
That's peace.

-----------------------------

"Devil and nigga are the same to me." -Nettrice

"it's wack to me when the beat is more hype than the M.C. cuz what he is saying is empty" -Chill Rob G.

"I don't blame Tiger Woods, but I overstand the mental poison that's even worse than drugs" -nas pois

>You're grasping at straws here. If someone comes up to you in
>the street and says "The Earth is the center of the universe!
>The proof is that if you watch it, the Sun is clearly rotating
>around US, not the other way around! It's a CONSPIRACY that
>people are claiming we're not at the center of the universe.
>Godless relativists." In such a situation you'd certainly be
>qualified to tell that dude he's full of shit. You're
>probably not qualified, however, to make a proper
>counterargument, citing astronomical observations and
>constructions of gravitation theory.
>

Had I approached an ordinary person, in a time when it was thought the earth was flat, and told him the earth was round, would he be qualified to tell me I was full of shit?

>>You're grasping at straws here. If someone comes up to you
>in
>>the street and says "The Earth is the center of the universe!
>
>>The proof is that if you watch it, the Sun is clearly
>rotating
>>around US, not the other way around! It's a CONSPIRACY that
>>people are claiming we're not at the center of the universe.
>
>>Godless relativists." In such a situation you'd certainly
>be
>>qualified to tell that dude he's full of shit. You're
>>probably not qualified, however, to make a proper
>>counterargument, citing astronomical observations and
>>constructions of gravitation theory.
>>
>
>Had I approached an ordinary person, in a time when it was
>thought the earth was flat, and told him the earth was round,
>would he be qualified to tell me I was full of shit?

Yes.

Ordinary people talking to ordinary people are just that. Again, opinions are like assholes.

On the other hand, if you'd known enough science, and made enough measurements to be able to justify your claims, then you could take them directly to the scientific community.


This is the important point here. These HIV skeptics, like the global warming skeptics and the evolution skeptics, are arguing scientific points, but they are not arguing by scientific methods.

I myself am a skeptic of a certain branch of mainstream science, by the way. Most theoretical physicists nowadays, if asked, would say that superstring theory appears to be an acceptable theory of quantum gravity. I'm one of a small minority of dissenters on this issue. But I argue the case in peer-reviewed journals, not in email chain letters and internet petitions.

I expect you already know why I asked the question; the to and fro's on okayctivist are largely inconsequential and should in no way contribute to the criteria by which we should decide whether, or whether not, to take a HIV test.

WHEN THE DAM PACKAGING OF THE TESTS TELL YOU THAT THE TESTS DOESN'T NOT SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY "HIV?"

-------
It's incredible how the people that know the least are the first to offer advice.

Why does that matter? One can test indirectly for a substance. One can find very strong evidence for the existence of a substance without actually looking for the substance itself.

Physicists have known for decades that neutrinos exist, without ever directly detecting them. Same for what they call "dark matter," which was detected semi-directly only a few weeks ago.

Evidence can take many different forms.

.

-------
It's incredible how the people that know the least are the first to offer advice.

you don't know a dam thing on this topic based off of your simple posts in this thread. the dam packaging on these tests have disclaimers and i posted one from the dam FDA WEBSITE

Typical Disclaimers from HIV Test Manufacturers

"EIA testing alone cannot be used to diagnose AIDS, even if the recommended investigation of reactive specimens suggests a high probability that the antibody to HIV-1 is present. At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence and absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood. Therefore sensitivity was computed based on the clinical diagnosis of AIDS and specificity based on random donors" 1. Abbott Laboratories, Diagnostic Division, 66-8805/R5; January, 1997

"Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosing HIV-1 infection" 2. HIV-1 Western Blot Kit, Epitope, Inc., Organon Teknika Corporation PN201-3039 Revision #8

"The Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection" 3. Roche Diagnostic Systems, Inc., Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor Test Kit. US:83088. June 1996)(13-06-83088-001

-------
It's incredible how the people that know the least are the first to offer advice.

For real, If you don't agree then develop your argument against, don't call for its deletion - let people make up thier own minds and assess the situation how they see fit.

Fucking Logic Kings piss me off

Revelations getting impatient.

>Fucking Logic Kings piss me off

Are you referring to me?

The unofficial Moderator

Chill

Revelations getting impatient.

Unbelievable.

Look, I can accept criticism. What I can't accept is people unreasonably broadsiding me (wtf is a 'fucking logic king'?!), especially when I have kindly offered to lend my time to their cause.

I have outlined my reasons for wanting this thread deleted; the author is telling people to avoid taking a HIV test without reasonable grounds for doing so. Do you realise how dangerous and reckless this advice is?

Anyway, I hope everything goes well with your project in Hackney, but in respect of the legal advice, don't inbox me again.

Hope that's 'logical' enough for you.

>Aren't you the guy that inboxed me for free legal advice?
Yes thats me and.....

So what because I ask for some assistants on a project that means I must now agree with and not call out the bollocks that comes out your mouth. Sorry mate thats not how I play -

Your Weak for real.

Logic Kings = folks like yourself and quite a few otheers on here who think they have a monopoly on rational thought and 'valuable' information.

Let me tell, despite what you may think, people on this board are clued up enough to make up their own minds about how valid this information is.

What a punk!


I'll repeat, 'Chill'

Revelations getting impatient.

>>Aren't you the guy that inboxed me for free legal advice?
>Yes thats me and.....
>
>So what because I ask for some assistants on a project that
>means I must now agree with and not call out the bollocks that
>comes out your mouth. Sorry mate thats not how I play -

Like I said, I can accept criticism. 'Fucking logic king' ain't criticism.

>Your Weak for real.

>Logic Kings = folks like yourself and quite a few otheers on
>here who think they have a monopoly on rational thought and
>'valuable' information.

Eh? Care to name names? I, like your good self, certainly have an opinion and I will always express it. However, I don't think I have a monopoly on rational thought.

>Let me tell, despite what you may think, people on this board
>are clued up enough to make up their own minds about how valid
>this information is.

Ok. I'll concede that perhaps I was a little hasty in calling for its outright deletion, but this topic has been raised repeatedly in Activist. It's easy to become weary.

>What a punk!
>
>
>I'll repeat, 'Chill'

You come at me sideways, then tell me to chill when I react? Sorry mate, that's not how I play.

nor are you a deputy moderator.

AllHiphop.com
3121.com
Wardolphin.com
Afropunk.com
Bling47.com
Fader.com



Who's fucking wit B More right now?

"Freedom is a Lie" - the animals

8.) "Weak" posts will be deleted, and strong conversations on pressing matters will be anchored. Until a protocol is agreed upon, "Weakness" will be decided upon by you, the okayactivist. Inbox a mod, and we will then make a decision on whether or not the post should anchor or delete the post.


Note the words, '"Weakness" will be decided upon by you, the okayactivist...'.

Thank you.

There it is...as concrete as you can get...But No, but you're the one who's always on his dick right?
God this place is a joke now
Well played

>There it is...as concrete as you can get...But No, but you're
>the one who's always on his dick right?
>God this place is a joke now
>Well played

first, you have never even brought anything decent to these boards...
so who are you to say what's weak?
God your such a snitch.

*straightens up glasses 'might I refer to to these nuts?'*

AllHiphop.com
3121.com
Wardolphin.com
Afropunk.com
Bling47.com
Fader.com



Who's fucking wit B More right now?

"Freedom is a Lie" - the animals

Nahhhhhmmean?

Careful, though. Aqua's got supernatural powers. They say if you go into a dark room, turn in circles and say his name three times, he jumps out of the shadows and calls you a plant.

wait...i'm supposed to do something more...right...

*smirks*

–––––––––––––
Vas por la calle llorando
Lagrimas de oro
Vas por la calle brotando
Lagrimas de oro

Moot deals in real logic... not your silly white boy suburban logic...

Y'all be riding hard on my dick... now comment on the thread or bounce. Smirks.

>8.) "Weak" posts will be deleted, and strong conversations on
>pressing matters will be anchored. Until a protocol is agreed
>upon, "Weakness" will be decided upon by you, the
>okayactivist. Inbox a mod, and we will then make a decision on
>whether or not the post should anchor or delete the post.
>
>
>Note the words, '"Weakness" will be decided upon by you, the
>okayactivist...'.
>
>Thank you.

Prove that it is week. Make your case for the community to decide. So far you case against the post is weak.

--------------------------------

"Devil and nigga are the same to me." -Nettrice

"it's wack to me when the beat is more hype than the M.C. cuz what he is saying is empty" -Chill Rob G.

"I don't blame Tiger Woods, but I overstand the mental poison that's even worse than drugs" -nas pois

>>Thank you.
>
>Prove that it is week. Make your case for the community to
>decide. So far you case against the post is weak.

The existence of false positives is not, prima facie, a legitimate reason to avoid a HIV test. Like another poster typed, and I co-signed, there exists more rigourous testing to determine whether a positive has been generated by the factors which purportedly generate false results.

The author of this thread refers to Katrina and the US government's handling of it, and on the basis of this makes the tacit suggestion that HIV/AIDS is a conspiracy to cull black people; which, of course, without real evidence, is patently absurd.

Like I wrote, the thread is bullshit, and its message is dangerous.

and I honestly don't expect you to have the answers. No slight to you. How well know is it that the test can result in false positives for so varied a reason? Also, how well is it known that there is more rigorous testing to determine this? I see and hear ads to get tested on city buses, billboards, and the radio and rarely do I hear about false positives and more rigorous testing to eliminate those possibilities.

Is this info made readily available to people of low incomes at test centers where they may be tested? To be honest forums like this is the only place that I have heard talk on this subject. I can also see the posters concern for posted numbers of infections among certain groups can be exaggerated if these factors have not been taken into account. As brought up by Marcus 3x we know these factors are not taken into account when testing in other nations of third world status if there is any testing at all. This combined with treatment with drugs that actually cause some of the symptoms that are associated with the disease AIDS itself is a legitimate concern.


>>>Thank you.
>>
>>Prove that it is week. Make your case for the community to
>>decide. So far you case against the post is weak.
>
>The existence of false positives is not, prima facie, a
>legitimate reason to avoid a HIV test. Like another poster
>typed, and I co-signed, there exists more rigourous testing to
>determine whether a positive has been generated by the factors
>which purportedly generate false results.
>
>The author of this thread refers to Katrina and the US
>government's handling of it, and on the basis of this makes
>the tacit suggestion that HIV/AIDS is a conspiracy to cull
>black people; which, of course, without real evidence, is
>patently absurd.
>
>Like I wrote, the thread is bullshit, and its message is
>dangerous.

---------------------------------

"Devil and nigga are the same to me." -Nettrice

"it's wack to me when the beat is more hype than the M.C. cuz what he is saying is empty" -Chill Rob G.

"I don't blame Tiger Woods, but I overstand the mental poison that's even worse than drugs" -nas pois

>and I honestly don't expect you to have the answers. No
>slight to you. How well know is it that the test can result
>in false positives for so varied a reason? Also, how well is
>it known that there is more rigorous testing to determine
>this? I see and hear ads to get tested on city buses,
>billboards, and the radio and rarely do I hear about false
>positives and more rigorous testing to eliminate those
>possibilities.

I don't know. Do you? If there is little by way of knowlede on this, then urthanheathen's message could quite suitably have been, 'Your HIV test may produce a false positive. In the event of a positive result, you should discuss with your clinic the factors which, it has been claimed, may generate false positives and from here, consider the possibility of further testing'. To my mind this message would have been far more reasonable and logical than, 'Don't get a HIV test!'.

and not okflame shenanigans...

there is a large group of people throughout the spectrum who call for a reapraisal of what is now known as aids.

two things are clear, that it has not behaved as was predicted had it been an actual pathogen caused illness, and all the early aids projections have not played out in the least.

there has been an annual population growth in haiti, kenya, and uganda despite famine and war let alone aids. there are static hiv numbers in the united states. and it has mysteriously jumped rails from gay white men to straight black women. white women are exempt and white people are said to be immune to hiv due to the black plague.

given all these things and the absolute failure despite billions of dollars chasing a magic bullet in the aids industry over 20 years, is it not time to openly reevaluate the entire premise, given its shady past and put an end to all speculation once and for all?

hiv has NEVER been scientifically identified to the golden standard (not present in all cases of the illness and vice versa). do it. i dare you. let it be in a peer reviewed paper. use one global criteria for diagnosing hiv and not a different one for each country.

to compare aids to the holocaust is interesting, and, given the history of the iatrogenic drugs, may be frighteningly accurate. if we allow them to dump wholesale poison on to pregnant african women, we will be watching a global holocaust right in front of our eyes.

ok.

> there has been an annual population growth in haiti, kenya,
>and uganda despite famine and war let alone aids. there are
>static hiv numbers in the united states. and it has
>mysteriously jumped rails from gay white men to straight black
>women. white women are exempt and white people are said to be
>immune to hiv due to the black plague.
>

I had a lot of responses to a lot of this, but fuck that shit. The first person I knew with HIV is a college friend (or, at least, first person I knew who told me they had HIV) who is a white woman. You've so directly disrespected her and thousands of other white women with aids through your desire to make some conspiracy theory bullshit point it sickens me.

yes, white women are not likely to get hiv. but they do. there's no immunity. f*cking ignorant shit to write.

–––––––––––––
Vas por la calle llorando
Lagrimas de oro
Vas por la calle brotando
Lagrimas de oro

With an OPEN MIND can you watch the first 25 minutes of this video featuring scientists like Dr. Peter Duesberg? JUST WATCH THE FIRST 25 MINUTES. If the first 25 minutes of this video can't get you to question the propaganda nothing will.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6814491427846073388

-------
It's incredible how the people that know the least are the first to offer advice.

how do I get my apology for wasting those 25 minutes? who gives me that time back?

i'm more convinced than ever that hiv begets aids. jesus.

–––––––––––––
Vas por la calle llorando
Lagrimas de oro
Vas por la calle brotando
Lagrimas de oro