Culshaw has discovered that the inserts with AIDS tests show that the companies that make them have been backing down over the past year or two in the firmness of their statements that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

But I doubt even more that the majority of medical practitioners are aware of the subtle but significant shift in the language used in HIV test kits since the beginning of the AIDS era. For example, from 1984 until the very recent past, test kit inserts contained the unambiguous statement “AIDS is caused by HIV”. In 2002, the OraSure toned down that statement to say: “AIDS, AIDS-related complex and pre-AIDS are thought to be caused by HIV.” (Italics mine)

But just this year, in a remarkable – and potentially significant – shift in thinking, the trend seems to be toward making an even less committal statement. For example, Abbott Diagnostic’s ELISA test insert contains the following sentence: “Epidemiologic data suggest that the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is caused by at least two types of human immunodeficiency viruses, collectively known as HIV.”

Vironostika appears to be even less willing to support a true causal role, as their 2006 test kit insert says: “Published data indicate a strong correlation between the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and a retrovirus referred to as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV).”

The truth of the matter seems to be that there is so much that is not nailed down in this area, and so many false claims made by Gallo for his lab work which was motivated at the time by the desire to replace the priority of Montagnier with his own claim, falsity revealed in later investigations by NIH officials and others, that you have to be an expert to know what can be taken seriously, if anything at all, in readings of actual viral presence, which is typically verging on non existent once the initial invasive period is over. One dreads to think what an impartial university level enquiry would come up with if it was given the responsibility of checking the lab side of HIV∫AIDS for science, sense and substance.

>>Human Immunodeficiency Virus type 1 was Detected in All Seropositive Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Individuals and in None of 131 healthy HIV-1 antibody negative individuals.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? If seropositive for HIV, of course HIV will be “detected” and if HIV-antibody negative, it won’t be.

Am I missing something ? It’s like saying, “Among 30 Americans who are lactose intolerant, 30 were lactose intolerant.”

A paper must be represented by the author testifying as an expert witness, as if this is the only way this evidence can be “cross-examined”. His (put-down) recitation of this standard, by rote as it were, in the response to Robert Houston only indicates a poverty of the imagination in him and our judicial system.