The AIDS Test

Original Publication
HEAL

Ah yes, the test. That's why we're here.
Everywhere we go, we're told: get tested.

This is our duty: Get tested again and again until you're told you have a deadly disease with no cure and you are forced to take expensive medicines which make you sick from "side effects" which probably won't go away but which require more expensive medicines which make you fat in the stomach and shrunken everywhere else so that the idea of someone touching you is horrible, so that the idea of smiling and having fun would be hard even if you weren't required to be grateful and docile and poor and ugly all the time.

Can't we just go back to the day when sex only caused hairy palm syndrome?

The test is important because it colors everything in life. The stress level rises and just doesn't come down. The human contact level becomes a choice between lying or being pitied and shunned. The hope level slips below the horizon as fast as the falling safe which you wish would hit you and solve the whole problem.

The full "HIV: Against science" article in the HIV page comprehensively documents that (1) HIV can't be seen, (2) doesn't kill by itself and (3) none of the HIV tests are accurate.

Each of the tests is required to have a legal disclaimer that any test results should not be considered to indicate the presence of HIV nor to predict progression to AIDS. The idea is that if you take enough unreliable tests you'll get a reliable result.

Yet newcomers to HEAL meetings firmly believe that the morning after a certain sexual experience with a stranger, they experienced certain "flu like" symptoms which were so different that they knew it was HIV.

We need a research grant into finding out what sex experience makes you feel like dying (in a bad way) but only after certain "flu like" symptoms and within a period of months if it happened in the eighties but within ten years if it happened in the nineties but within fifteen years if it happened in the 00s.

Men coming back from the baths used to note they would have a sore throat the next day. Have anything in there, maybe?

Perhaps there actually are different flu strains which have slightly different symptoms as they tell us each "flu season." This site doesn't believe that every drug company statement is wrong. Perhaps sudden contact with a stranger causes "flu like" symptoms. It sure did when soldiers returned from Europe after WW I.

The thing that the test sellers have going for them is that everyone who tests positive is going to get sick, just as everyone else will get sick some time in their lives, over and over til we all die. It's called life - sickness and death are part of it. But the test victims are primed to blame it on HIV. All of society requires them to believe it.

And there's the piece of paper that says it.

Slow, frightened people Leave Now.

This article is now going into the realm of speculation. Or to use the scientific term: we are proposing a theory. It will be up to you to get a grant, conduct a double-blind test and publish in a peer journal to disprove it. (Or you can be a AIDS researcher and just say you have "probable cause.")

The researcher who claimed "probable cause" for HIV got into trouble when another researcher pointed out that the HIV in question didn't belong to him. Wouldn't matter except that it was the only HIV ever seen anywhere before or since. Wouldn't matter except that the first researcher could make a fortune with a patent on a test. Wouldn't matter except that the second researcher could make a fortune with a patent on a test.

A compromise was eventually arranged by the governments of US and France. It was agreed that an under-researcher put some French HIV in the American refrigerator where the American researcher unknowingly took it out with his left-over soft cheese. Both researchers could make their fortunes on the test.

The American researcher had another hairy moment when his bluff was called by Elizabeth Dole, (This was before her husband, Bob, ran for president, took Viagra, got so gross that she fled to South Carolina to campaign for election as Senator.)

Mrs Dole was hired to fix the image of the Red Cross. Questions were raised about the blood supply: Did it contain HIV? Since selling blood was the main business of the Red Cross, things needed to be smoothed over in Washington where Bob was leader of the Senate,

Seems that half of the blood was from junkies who it sold to Blood Banks. You thought those blood drives provided free and pure blood. But people only tend to give blood after a disaster and disasters don't occur on a regular schedule. In order to maintain steady employment, the Red Cross required junkie blood. They would mix it with the free stuff so that people couldn't insist on getting just the good.

Mrs Dole decided that a new test for HIV would restore confidence in Red Cross blood. It would be a very broad test with many false positives. The impression of safety would be more important than accuracy. They would throw away many gallons of good blood for effect.

The AIDS researcher was in a fix. He couldn't find HIV. Gone just like the soft cheese. The "probable cause" theory wasn't panning out. No peer review paper appeared in the medical journals. AIDS wasn't spreading into the general population. No other disease had ever appeared that hit only overachieving gay men and hopeless junkies. The "AIDS defining" PCP pneumonia and KS were revealed to be old diseases. KS couldn't even be directly tied to immune deficiency.

But we know he devised a test, saved the Red Cross, and became very rich.

It is the thesis of this paper that the researcher designed the test not to find HIV, but to reveal gay men, IV drug users and Africans under health stress.

Now a quotation from "Rethinking AIDS," Volume 8, Number 5, May 2000:

Professional HIV-testing expert Roberto Giraldo, MD, noticed something strange...

Using the officially stipulated serum dilutions, very few Americans test positive for antibodies that neutralize presumed HIV proteins (RA July, 1996). Among Americans in general, only about one in 260 test positive. That number plummets to just one in 7,500 if risk group members are excluded. Only when the risk group members are considered exclusively does the number become appreciable. About half of all gays and drug injectors in large cities test positive, as do 75% of all hemophiliacs (RA Nov. 1997). And 10-20% of the general populations of various African countries reportedly test positive.

The figures are even higher for risk group members who develop any of the diseases that compose the official AIDS definition. Among a mixture of gay men and African heterosexuals with these diseases, 88% test positive according to Gallo's original 1984 data (Science May 4). More recently, data analyzed in 1995 by UC-Berkeley retrovirologist Peter Duesberg (Genetica 95) showed that 82% of gay men with these diseases test positive.

With his data suggesting that perhaps all people may have varying amounts of "HIV antibodies" in their blood, Giraldo has a reasonable explanation for how Gallo may have established the ELISA and Western blot HIV testing standards: they happened to correspond with high success in identifying members of the AIDS risk groups, especially those who have AIDS diseases, while distinguishing them from people unlikely to belong to the risk groups or to have AIDS conditions.

End of quotation.

They know who we are.

The first phrase that grabs attention is: About half of all gays and drug injectors in large cities test positive.

Inevitably a gay man comes to wonder “Why do I test positive?”

The answer is, “Because the test was designed to make your blood test positive.”

There has been a lot of discussion whether "gay" is a choice or a type of human nature.

Think about it: Do you wake up every morning and query, "Will I be gay today, will I be straight?"

Researchers have found that gay men have smaller right brains and larger genitals. (Maybe you were one of those researchers?) It is not inconceivable that a blood test could be devised to discover gay men. Or IV drug users - are they putting stuff into their blood - or what?

The gay and IV user test results are about 50% accurate. But if illness is present the accuracy increases to 82% to 88%. This also applies for Africans. So the test also reveals stress from disease.

(People not gay who do not use IV drugs and do not live in Africa test positive less than 2%.)

Wow, the HIV test has gaydar. Do you really need a test to tell you that you're a gay man in less than optimal health? Or an IV drug user in less than optimal health? Or an African in less than optimal... well you get the point. Ever look in a mirror?

The test, as the label says, was not created to diagnose disease. It was created to exclude certain unpopular and scary groups from publicly giving blood.

What is the test good for? Well, if they want to start a new round-up of gays, IV drug users and Africans, it will come in handy. It's currently being used as an effective way to market old cancer drugs which were previously banned as unsafe for human use.

Perhaps it's all right to market a broad, inaccurate test which causes gallons of blood to be thrown out as part of the cost of selling the stuff.

But it doesn't seem all right to throw out human lives to sell drugs only proven in tests to be toxic.

When the marketing ploy is a death sentence, why would you buy?