Should There Be A Warning on Hiv Tests?

And what should it say?

Twenty years of medical literature on what’s generously known as “Hiv Testing” tells us, over and over, that the tests come up reactive (positive) for at least 6 dozen conditions,

Are never truly “positive” or “negative”, but only shades of “reactive”,

Must be interpreted (according to socio-sexual-economic bases) for meaning,

And have no standard for this interpretation.

You can explore that literature here and here, or just do a google search on the subject.

So, if the tests are this bad, why don’t they have a warning, like cigarettes? They are more dangerous, because they give an irrevocable death sentence based on a non-existent, fraudulent test result.

Congress ought to hold a hearing on these tests, and get the FDA to do its job, and come up with an appropriate warning…

So, what should the warning on “Hiv tests” say?

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Should There Be A Warning on Hiv Tests?

  1. CAUTION:

    READ WARNING LABEL COMPLETELY.

    A POSITIVE REACTION ON AN “HIV” TEST COULD MEAN THAT:

    YOU NEVER EVER GET LAID AGAIN, NEVER! NEVER! NEVER AGAIN!

    HAS BEEN KNOWN TO CAUSE PEOPLE TO KILL THEMSELVES.

    CAUSED ABORTIONS IN WOMEN WHO DIDN’T WANT A LITTLE LEPER ON
    THEIR HANDS.

    CAUSES SEVERE ANXIETY: COULD INDUCE A HEART ATTACK.

    CAUSES HEMORRHOIDS FROM SITTING ON YOUR ASS WAITING TO DIE.

    CAUSES DOCTORS TO GIVE YOU POISON UNTIL YOU DIE.

    THE POISON THEY GIVE YOU MAKES YOU SHIT 50 TIMES/DAY.

    IT CAUSES YOUR LIVER TO FAIL.

    IT CAUSES IMPOTENCE: NOT THAT IT WOULD MATTER ANYWAY SINCE YOU AIN’T NEVER
    GETTIN LAID AGAIN.

  2. The warning is there on the test kits that they cannot be used to diagnose and treat AIDS but the doctors and hospitals have ignored this warning, and do not transmit it to the people tested by them. And they do in fact use to diagnose and treat AIDS and then to give those tested positive very toxic medication including AZT that can cause the symptoms of AIDS.

    What surprises me is that no lawyer in the US has initiated a class action lawsuit against the hospitals.

    BELDEU SINGH

  3. Dear Liam,

    1) Your first label tells the tale of HIV as it says it is a continuos scale with a cut off level or point above which it is taken as positive for HIV infection. This warning proves that the test is not viral specfic while at the same time it proves that the test has nothing to do a virus. If it was indeed virus specific or specific to viral proteins that are found only in the HIV, the test should like other tests give a straight yes or no reading. I have an article on this issue somewhere on Health Supreme.

    2) Please examine your box number six in the first column and you will notice that the investigators are made to believe that they are in fact testing for antibodies to HIV. If these tests actually tested for antibodies to HIV, they would be specific to HIV and again it would be a positive or negative reading to show whether or not the HIV is present as the infective agent. They can win Nobel Prizes but many refused to be fooled by such pseudo-science.

    3) Please examine your box number two, above, in column four titles “DISCUSSION” and it becomes clear that they only tested for surface glyco-proteins but there is no proof that they are encoded by the HIV. They claim that the HIV is an enveloped virus wherein there occurs the “budding process” which is triggered by the invaginations of the cell wall of the “HIV-infected” cells and as the cell wall closes around the HIV the cell breaks apart and it dies releasing the enveloped HIV into the blood stream. (But no one as yet seen this budding process for the HIV in spite of the advances in electron microscopy over the last two decades).

    This means that any test that is designed to test the surface glycoproteins are false as the envelope is nothing more than a piece of the host cell wall that has phospholipids and no protein molecules they were supposed to be encoded by the HIV and that further supports the contention that those proteins are actins produced by the cells that have come under severe oxidative stress. Hence they are no viral specific and explains the large number of false negatives and explains why the ploy of a continuous scale with a cut off point is used to indicate a certain concentration to “diagnose” the presence of HIV. That actually means that if the concentration is low and below the cut off point, there is a reaction to antibodies specific to HIV but such a patient is not infected with HIV! How ridiculous can you get?

    Thank you for making so much effort to show all the wordings on the test kits and labels. You ought to write an article on this subject.

    BELDEU SINGH

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s