Evidence that HIV antibody tests are not specific

[hitcan79]

The Perth Group have NO expertise on HIV and AIDS, Nor is there any evidence that this dude talking ever done any research at all, he's never even had HIV in his own Labs, A lot of the crap spewed out here are nothing special, They have been OWNED on court on HIV cases,

[dialectical44]

@hitcan79

well then he has a lot in common with "HIV experts" in that neither of them have had "HIV" "in their labs" The reason why is that "HIV" is a Fata Morgana and has never been isolated. If you read the details of the court transcripts it would be difficult to make the claim that they were "owned" Courts protect the free market private property and patents. Don't be foolish

[mykoolaidtastesfunny]

@dialectical44 That idiot is just some groupie who likes to pretend to "forget" the same things going from video to video. Obviously he gets all of "his" ideas from internet drug marketers The Ministry of Aidstruth. He goes from video to video LYING and "forgetting"

[mykoolaidtastesfunny]

@hitcan79 Will you stop going from video to video "forgetting" the exact same things over and over and over again you freak? You claimed Dr Al Bayati has no expertise too but you're just a "forgetful" idiot

Did you "forget" all the crap you posted here?

on youtube......The Other Side of AIDS (1984 AIDS HIV US Government Lie part 1 -.2004 -

[RJJNYC1]

As the other posting of this has been falsely flagged as spam, it seems worth repeating. I appreciate that 1977 is a fairly recent citation for denialists, but perhaps you can try and catch up.

Persistence of maternal antibody in infants beyond 12 months: mechanism of measles vaccine failure.

J Pediatr. 1977 Nov;91(5):715-8.

[ThePerthGroup]

RJJNYC1 Please list our assumptions. Given that all the data from pre-AIDS and non-HIV studies show that no maternal IgG antibodies can be detected after 9 months, we repeat, by nine months, if not before, no maternal HIV antibodies can be detected with any test no matter how sensitive. If you think otherwise please explain why maternal HIV antibodies behave differently from all other antibodies. Where are dilutional sensitivity data on the HIV EIA tests published?

[ThePerthGroup]

The question eSnout should be addressing is why Parekh et al were unwilling to make the obvious conclusion from their own experimental research.

[eSnout]

@ThePerthGroup Perhaps your "obvious conclusion" is nothing of the kind. Maybe it's simply that the Perth Group's fixed assumption that conventional HIV-1 EIAs are incapable of detecting maternal antibody after 7 half lives of decay from neonatal levels is something they just made up.

[mykoolaidtastesfunny]

@eSnout Maybe the fact that you have zero qualifications in science or medicine makes the obvious difficult for you.

[dialectical44]

@mykoolaidtastesfunny

The real question is which pharmaceutical company or research univer$ity does Esnout work for? I wouldn't be surprised if he/she/they are responsible for the libelous defamation of Eleni P and Val T on Wikipedia.

[mykoolaidtastesfunny]

@dialectical44 Snout has been going by FelineFury lately too. He's just some Ministry of Aidstruth groupie. Maybe he's got his snout in the trough maybe he's just a sycophant. Who can tell?

[loagun]

@eSnout something they just ,ade up like 'HIV causes AIDS', 'AIDS is an STD', 'AIDS is an infectious disease', 'without antivirals you will die', 'antivirals will save your life' -even though all antivirals are and must be issued with a Black Box Warning Label in accordance to the FDA so drug companies don't get sued because prolonged use is proven to, and WILL cause internal organ failure. and the list goes on....

[dialectical44]

@eSnout

The Perth Group is cautious not to assume anything. I don't understand how you have reduced this to an assumption. Why is their obvious conclusion "nothing of the kind"? What are your reasons? Perth doesn'tt "make up" anything. They faithfully interpret the data. Esnout, you are either blindly dedicated to the mainstream theory or you are an intentional obscurantist. I'd search your conscience if i were you.

[eSnout]

@dialectical44 Thanks for the advice to search my conscience. The assumption Valendar is making is that 99% clearance of maternal antibodies (as occurs following 7 half-lves of decay) is sufficient to render them undetectable by highly sensitive antibody assays such as conventional HIV EIAs. He says that Parekh et al should have drawn an "obvious conclusion" based on this premise.

Unfortunately, Valendar's premise is incorrect.

[dialectical44]

@eSnout

Turner does not make assumptions. He goes where the data takes him. I have trouble understanding you double-talk. Where did you learn this The Robert Gallo night school?

[ThePerthGroup]

eSnout’s quote from the Parekh paper is correct but contradicts their own evidence: “Data obtained from this test demonstrated that the observed T1/2 of maternal antibodies in seroreverting infants was 28-30 days (Fig. 4), a value that IS WITH CONSISTENT WITH THE REPORTED T 1/2 OF HUMAN IgG OF 23-26 DAYS. IgG-CEIA OD VALUES FOR SEROREVERTING INFANTS DROPPED TO BACKGROUND LEVELS BY 6 MONTHS (7 HALF-LIVES), WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH EXPECTED >99% CLEARANCE OF MATERNAL IgG” (emphasis ours).

[eSnout]

@ThePerthGroup Antibodies "disappear" not when they reach zero, but when they fall below the limits of detection of the particular test being used. With Parekh's CEIA this is by 7 half lives. For conventional EIAs it takes a median of 11-12 half lives (10 months) and can be as long as 20 half lives to reach the detection limit. >99% is not the same as 100%.

[RJJNYC1]

You do make assumptions. Your reply would fit in the video description here, you should add it. You start by quoting Parekh et al, then say "In other words.." but what follows are YOUR words, and they're WRONG. The paper clearly explains why the IgG-CEIA assay is less sensitive than conventional EIAs: it's COMPETITIVE and binds both HIV-specific and non-specific IgG to a limited number of binding sites on the microplate well. A negative IgG-CEIA does NOT mean no HIV-specific IgG is present.

[mykoolaidtastesfunny]

Google....The Guinea Pig Kids The BBC & The AIDSTruth Mafia

" let's just take a look at who is this self appointed bunch at AIDS Truth?

A dozen people who include a graduate student (Ken Witwer), a professor of economics (Nicoli Nattrass), several “HIV/AIDS activists” with no technical credentials (Martin Delaney, Nathan Geffen, Gregg Gonsalves, Richard Jefferys), and a PhD in a non-scientific discipline (Jeanne Bergman)

[eSnout]

Here's what Parekh et al actually say:

"...because of passively acquired maternal antibodies, uninfected infants may test positive for HIV-1 antibody by conventional EIAs for as long as 18 months."

[mykoolaidtastesfunny]

@eSnout tell it to the DA's Google....More Prosecutors Dropping Criminal HIV Charges

“We expect this trend to continue,” says OMSJ Director Clark Baker. “While the AIDS industry has convinced Americans of the alleged AIDS epidemic, prosecutors have a hard time finding anyone willing to promote their propaganda under penalty of perjury.”

A fatal flaw with HIV tests leaves prosecutors with no credible witnesses from local, state or federal health agencies..."

[eSnout]

Here's what Valendar claims Parekh et al say:

"The authors admit their findings in regard to the disappearance of maternal HIV antibodies are “consistent” with the disappearance of maternal antibodies in general. That is, by 9 months, if not before, no maternal antibodies can be detected with any test, no matter how sensitive."

[valendar2001]

RESPONSE TO RJJNYC1 December 22nd 2010

Thank you for your comments. Why do you keep your identity a secret?

We did not make any assumptions. We presented several sources of evidence which show that maternal antibodies disappear by 6-9 months of extra-uterine life. In regard to Parekh et al [1] from the CDC, the only study on which you base your comments, please see our response at the Perth Group website under "The Perth Group on YouTube" - ResponseToRJJNYC1

[Ricktoya]

Big pharma and main stream media are pushing the so called "HIV positive" to consume toxic drugs. AZT and other medications is what killed so many of our citizens, they have also enriched FDA members, corrupt elected officials and others. Get the facts and Just question authority !!!

[annie46664]

Utterly disgraceful!

Thanks to meddling Hillary Clinton, twice as many South African mothers & both unborn & newborn babies (99.99% Black) will be receiving a LIFE SENTENCE on ARV treatment. If the truth is known, what's the bet, that the +/- $3.5Billion just been offered to SA, arrives in the form of ARVs which have been discarded for use in the USA & Europe? Just as GW Bush did with discarded & even banned AZT some 10yrs ago or so! I so wish that those lying BASTARDS would simply drop DEAD!

[RJJNYC1]

The ASSumption is wrong. Conventional EIAs are sensitive enough to pick up maternal HIV-specific IgG that is still present beyond six months, as the paper explains. So the entire argument of this video - that any positive test on conventional EIAs after six months are not maternal Abs - is totally bogus. It's based on either a misunderstanding of the dynamics paper or deliberate misrepresentation of it.

[mykoolaidtastesfunny]

@RJJNYC1 tell it to the DA's Google....Court Trials Unnerve HIV Propagandists

"It began in 2009 with Eneydi Torres...... when asked to prove the reliability of HIV testing, prosecutors abruptly reduced their offer of 15 years in state prison to five days of unsupervised probation.

Several months later, Magdalena Mays was arrested on similar charges. But like the Torres case, prosecutors dropped their HIV-related complaint against her."

[RJJNYC1]

Maybe I can simplify: the "Dynamics.." paper uses a test that is better at measuring the *amount* of HIV-specific IgG present - not just whether any is there or not - in order to better understand the *dynamics* of the decay of maternal IgG. It finds the amount reaches "background levels" around 6 months, "consistent with expected >99% clearance of maternal IgG." This video ASSumes that "background levels" means no maternal HIV-specific IgG can be present (i.e. that >99%=100%).

[hivquestions]

exhibit A for the courts - hiv drug companies have a lot of explaining to do

[RJJNYC1]

So the entire argument is built on an attempted clumsy sleight of hand. What are your views on the specificity of class II-restricted HIV-specific CD4 T cell responses and class I-restricted HIV-specific CD8 T cell responses valendar2001? Please do tell...

[RJJNYC1]

And here's the quote: "Why specimens (>6 months) that are clearly positive by conventional EIAs are negative by IgG-CEIA can be explained by differences in the configurations of the two assays. Conventional EIAs are designed to be extremely sensitive; they produce a high response (absorbance) in the presence of small quantities of HIV-1-specific IgG and are not affected by relative amounts of non-HIV-1 IgG present."

Guess which assays the studies described from 6:19 on used?

[RJJNYC1]

The full text of the paper "Dynamics of Maternal IgG Antibody Decay and HIV-Specific Antibody Synthesis in Infants Born to Seropositive Mothers" is available free online. Anyone inclined to believe this BS should read it, as it clearly explains the difference between the test used in the paper and conventional EIAs which detect antibody beyond six months.

[MrWhereistheproof]

Excellent and self-evident.

[exclamation3mark]

Thank you Mr Turner! Look forward to many more. Why do children born to hiv neg moms test poz?