Re: BBC **LIES** About HIV TESTS

"Alex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message de
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent To newsgroups:
uk.media.radio.bbc-world-service,uk.media.radio.bbc-r5,misc.health.aids
>
> READ IT. A second shot, in case anyone missed the first one. On their
Talking
> Point programme, the director of the WHO/UNAIDS, dr. Peter Piot,
> flat out LIED 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.

I was the guy who asked him the question in the programme broadcast. I doubt
these biblically sized figures and after 20 odd years it appears that AIDS
is still more a matter of faith than fact. For the time being I remain
agnostic, especially as the BBC figures published for the UK show 247
heterosexual HIV cases for 2002 (figures from jan to sept)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3233018.stm . The 247 may even be drug
users or lied about their sexual habits so even that figure is dodgy. Is 247
new cases really an epidemic?

If they spent the money on sanitation rather than aids drugs in africa,
Would HIV reduce?




>
> 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.
>
> LIE 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%.
>
>
>
> LIE 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
>
>
>