These two tests, we are told, identify HIV antibodies that have been created by a person’s immune system in response to ‘HIV invasion’. This statement is nonsense, and dangerous nonsense, as we shall discover. So what are these tests – the ELISA and the Western Blot – and how are they supposed to work?

The ELISA (Enzyme-Linked, Immuno-Absorbent Assay) and Western Blot tests are designed to highlight the presence of the supposed HIV, not by identifying the virus itself, but by identifying the presence of antibodies in the blood, allegedly unique to, and stimulated by the virus. The only real difference between the two tests is that the ELISA is supposed to measure antibody activity as a whole, whereas the Western Blot measures reactions to separate proteins supposedly making up the virus. As a result of this claim, the Western Blot method is deemed by most in the AIDS industry to be more specific than the ELISA test, and will often be used to confirm a positive ELISA test. But, as we shall discover, all the diagnostic methods employed by the recognised laboratories are far from specific.

To carry out the test, the clinician introduces a foreign protein (antigen) into the blood sample and then monitors the blood for any signs of unique activity as the antigen meets up with the immune system’s antibodies. And it is here that we immediately encounter the first hurdle. Introducing a foreign body into the bloodstream will always provoke a response from the immune system, the foreign presence releasing killer blood cells to combat the invading germ. This is what our immune system has been designed to do. The problem is that no antibody is ever specific to any one disease – a fact that has been widely known in science for a number of years. The ELISA and Western Blot tests are both marketed as being highly specific and accurate in identifying the presence of HIV antibodies in a person’s body, but, as Christine Maggiore explains:

“Both tests are non-specific to HIV antibodies and are highly inaccurate. Non-specific means that these tests respond to a great number of non-HIV antibodies, microbes, bacteria and other conditions that are often found in the blood of normal, healthy people. A reaction to any one of these other antibodies and conditions will result in an HIV-positive diagnosis. A simple illness like a cold or the flu can cause a positive reading on an HIV test. A flu shot or other vaccine can also create positive results. Having or having had herpes or hepatitis may produce a positive test, as can a vaccination for hepatitis B. Exposure to diseases such as tuberculosis and malaria commonly cause false positive results, as do the presence of tape worms and other parasites. Conditions such as alcoholism, liver disease and blood that is highly oxidated through drug use may be interpreted as the presence of HIV antibodies. Pregnancy and prior pregnancy can also cause a positive result.”

Yes, you read correctly. A simple illness like a cold or flu, and even pregnancy can cause an HIV positive reading. You could be suffering from a relatively innocuous illness, and your immune system, functioning quite normally, has detected the presence of an invader and ordered the defender blood cells into action. The activity of those perfectly healthy killers working away in the blood can then be interpreted by the ‘AIDS test’ and the experts administering it as indicative of the presence of the elusive HIV. Did you know that?

Christine Johnson of Project HEAL in Los Angeles, a voluntary organisation dedicated to exposing the myth of viral AIDS, has compiled and referenced some sixty different conditions that can cause a false HIV-positive reading. Some of these conditions have been included below for sober consideration.

“Naturally occurring antibodies, exposure to viral vaccine, flu, flu vaccination, tuberculosis, renal failure, hepatitis, organ transplant, haemophilia, tetanus vaccination, leprosy, alcoholic liver disease, blood transfusions, malignant cancers, proteins on the test filter papers, rheumatoid arthritis, herpes, Hepatitis B vaccination, healthy individuals as a result of poorly understood cross-reactions…. [plus forty-six others].”

In the case of haemophilia and AIDS, it is Factor VIII, the man-made compound used to help in the coagulation process, that in the main has been responsible for false HIV readings. Introducing this artificial agent into the bloodstream to help stem blood-flow will naturally provoke an antibody response, the immune system demonstrating it is functioning properly. These heightened levels of antibody activity are mistakenly read by the HIV test as indicative of the presence of HIV. Haemophiliacs, by the very nature of their condition, are prone to a number of life-threatening illnesses, and many do indeed die, but not from HIV. The popular tabloids, of course, prefer to blare out ‘HIV INFECTED BLOOD FOUND IN BLOOD BANKS MAY INFECT THOUSANDS’ rather than report the prosaic truth. Explaining the subtleties of opportunistic infection and blood-test cross-reaction does not sell newspapers.

Prior to the AIDS phenomenon, the presence of antibodies had never been used as an indicator of any illness. Yet since Gallo’s HIV hypothesis was popularised, antibody testing has become de rigeur in the AIDS establishment as the indicator of infection, when the presence of antibodies actually denotes a normal immune system response to contaminants.

The following extract from Foundation News is a glaring example:
“Professor Andrew McMichael in Oxford announced that 50 Nairobi prostitutes had high levels of killer T-cells in their bodies, which suggested they had been exposed to HIV. The Nairobi research was complemented by Oxford studies in Gambia which yielded similar results.” Said Dr Omu Anzala: ‘This was further evidence that it was the presence of T-cells which was holding the virus at bay’.”

The possibility that the test kits could merely be reacting with parasites, TB bacilli, candida albicans, fungal conditions and other medical problems common to Africans is rarely considered by these doctors, even though the problem of inadvertent cross-reaction is common knowledge in the higher echelons of the AIDS establishment. In reality, a ‘positive’ reading is actually a ‘false positive’, the tests confirming only that the immune system is functioning satisfactorily. NO VIRUS IS ACTUALLY DETECTED, ONLY ANTIBODIES!

The potential for false diagnosis with HIV tests has been fleetingly alluded to in mainstream publications such as The London Times, The European Union’s The Business, USA Today, The Telegraph and The Wall Street Journal, the latter of which, on 11th January 1995, reported that the FDA were recalling HIV testing kits due to problems with high rates of ‘false positives’.

Frank Prescott, writing on behalf of Peltec Publishing in Perceptions Magazine in 1993, tells us: “The London Times reports a major research group has recently proven the test for HIV to be completely invalid and ‘riddled with false positives’. Malnutrition, multiple infections, having once had the flu, measles or a simple flu shot can all result in positive HIV diagnosis.”
This one fact alone destroys any validity of an ‘AIDS test’. Yet there are many more ….

The US Food and Drug Administration also admits the ‘highly specific’ AIDS test has some worrying glitches, as the following USA Today bulletin tells us:

“People who receive gamma globulin shots for chicken pox, measles and hepatitis could test positive for HIV even if they have never been infected. The Food and Drug Administration says that a positive test could be caused by antibodies found in most of America’s supply of gamma globulin. Gamma globulin is made from blood collected from thousands of donors and is routinely given to millions of people each year as temporary protection against many infectious diseases. Dr Thomas Zuck of the FDA’s Blood and Blood Products Division says the government didn’t release the information because ‘we thought it would do more harm than good.’”

US News & World Report had this to say on the subject on 23rd November 1987:

“With public health officials and politicians thrashing out who should be tested for HIV, the accuracy of the test itself has been nearly ignored. A study last month by Congress’s Office of Technology Assessment found that HIV tests can be very inaccurate indeed. For groups at very low risk – people who don’t use IV drugs or have sex with gay or bisexual men – 9 in 10 positive findings are called false positives, indicating infection where none exists.”

The New England Journal of Medicine recorded the following:

“The techniques of the HIV test have not been standardized, and the magnitude and consequences of inter-laboratory variations have not been measured. Its results require interpretation, and the criteria for this interpretation vary not only from lab to lab, but also from month to month.”

In reality, what one of the most respected medical journals in the world is diplomatically attempting to tell the reader here is that the HIV test is utterly invalid. A tacit endorsement of these sentiments comes from a surprising and unexpected source – the manufacturer’s leaflet which accompanies the Western Blot (HIV) test kit itself! “The test for the existence of antibodies against AIDS-associated virus is not diagnostic of AIDS and AIDS-like diseases. Negative tests do not exclude the possibility of contact or infection with the AIDS-associated virus. Positive tests do not prove AIDS or pre-AIDS disease status nor that these diseases will be acquired.”