Re: BBC **LIES** About HIV TESTS

"Alex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Sent To newsgroups: 
>uk.media.radio.bbc-world-service,uk.media.radio.bbc-r5,misc.health.aids
>
>On their Talking Point programme, the director of the WHO/UNAIDS,
>dr. Peter Piot, flat out DECEIVED when he stated the following in this BBC
>Worldservice show (in their transcript of the 1st hour):
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3248715.stm and also here,
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3276893.stm#1
>
>
>>From the Talking Point radio programme:
>
>" Robin Lustig:
>Peter Piot there are people, aren't there, who worry that, for example,
>tuberculosis, which can often be a manifestation of HIV infection but
>isn't necessary so and that can muddle up the figures sometimes.
>
>Peter Piot:
>Well it's true that there are - it's possible to have a so-called false
positive
>test but it's extremely rare. Also in these surveys that I just talked about
in
>Africa the same scientific standards are being applied, initial positive
tests
>are being verified with other tests. I really think that that's not the
problem. "
>
>-----------------------
>
>Now let ME become a good journalist, and supply the refutation of
>Piot's OUT AND OUT FALLACIES. From three, independent and unassailable
>sources.
>
>Fallacy one.
>
>"SO-CALLED FALSE POSITIVE TESTS, BUT IT'S EXTREMELY RARE."
>
>Well obviously Peter Piot, director of WHO/UNAIDS is not even familiar
>with his own organisation's data. Because in a population with a low
>occurrence of HIV infection, false positives are THE NORM.
>
>1) The WHO ITSELF.
>
>http://www.who.int/bct/Main_areas_of_work/BTS/HIV_Diagnostics/
>Evaluation_reports/Operational%20Characteristics_HIV%20Report9_10.pdf
>
>" When a single screening assay is used for testing in a population
>with a very low prevalence of HN infection, the probability that
>a person is infected when a positive test result is obtained (i.e.,
>the positive predictive value) is very low, since the majority of
>people with positive results are not infected. "
>
>I will repeat for the slow of understanding that in low prevalence
>populations using one elisa, "THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE
>WITH POSITIVE RESULTS ARE NOT INFECTED".
>
>2) The Paul Ehrlich Institute for tropical medicine in Munich.
>
>http://www.pei.de/themen/hivdiasa.htm#stoer
>
>To quote: "Diese unspezifischen Reaktionen werden durch die
>Bestätigungs-Testung fast immer als falsch-positiv erkannt. "
>
>In translation: "These unspecific reactions are almost always
>recognized as false positive by confirmatory tests."
>
>3) HIV Screening in a Military Blood Transfusion Centers
>This is Italian data from the general population (blood donors).
>http://www.certi.org/CMA/newsletter/v03n01.pdf
>
>Table II
>
>Number of dontations: 25,562
>Number of blood donations ELISA positive: 31
>Number of blood donations after confirmation test: 2
>
>This means that of 25,562 people tested with a single ELISA,
>31 tested positive, and after further testing, only 2 *remained*
>positive.
>This means that in the field, ELISA had a ppv (positive predictive
>value) of 2/31 or 6.45%.
>
>
>
>Fallacy two, testing standards for Africa.
>
>"IN THESE SURVEYS THAT I JUST TALKED ABOUT
>IN AFRICA THE SAME SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS ARE
>BEING APPLIED, INITIAL POSITIVE TESTS ARE BEING
>VERIFIED WITH OTHER TESTS." - PIOT
>
>Wow. That makes my job really easy, because he said SURVEYS,
>not just diagnosis of individual patients in well-off clinics.
>
>
>1)  The WHO
>
>http://www.who.int/bct/Main_areas_of_work/BTS/HIV_Diagnostics/
>Evaluation_reports/Operational%20Characteristics_HIV%20Report9_10.pdf
>
>In countries with an assumed prevalence of greater than 10%
>(South Africa), the WHO recommends using "strategy I" for
>survey purposes (see table A at page 7).
>
>Strategy I means (page 8): "Strategy I All serum/plasma is tested with
>one ELISA or simple/rapid assay. Serum that is reactive is considered
>HIV antibody positive. Serum that is non-reactive is considered
>HIV antibody negative."
>
>So that is: one elisa, no confirmation at all, not even with a second elisa
>(that would be strategy II). Also, the very existence of strategies
>I, II and III means the same scientific standard IS NOT BEING
>APPLIED everywhere, unlike Peter Piot stated above.
>
>2) THE SOUTH AFRICAN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
>
>>From this paper/report:
>http://www.doh.gov.za/docs/reports/2000/hivreport.html#methodology
>
>" The laboratory
>co-ordinators ensured the effective running of the Enzyme Linked
>Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) used for HIV testing and Rapid Plasma
>Reagin (RPR) tests for syphilis. Using the bar-code label on each
>data-capture sheet, the results for each test were filled-in and the
>data capture sheet sent back to the provincial co-ordinator for data
>entry. "
>
>No mention whatsoever of confirmation tests of positive
>results before the results are sent off to the provincial co-ordinator.
>No mention of Western Blot as a confirmation test.
>
>
>
>
>----------
>
>How long is the BBC going to keep criticism of the HIV/AIDS theory
>and the massive figures the WHO throws around off the air?
>What happened to the traditional evenhandedness that was supposed
>to be the BBC hallmark?
>
>Alex
>concatenated
>



----== Posted via Usenet.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.Usenet.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---