Re: BBC **LIES** About HIV TESTS

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Alex wrote:

<snip>
> So, when one then goes on to South Africa, tests only pregnant
> women, and then does not follow up these single positive ELISAs,
> it is highly dubious that the numbers you get accurately reflect
> the national HIV prevalence in that country.
>

You make a valid point, but why don't you take on board what I've posted
about how the single tests are NOT the ordinary ELISAs that we use in the
UK, but are specially developed for single-use in the field in rural areas
(they're fast, cheap, accurate) and, from what I've seem, some of these
"single tests" are in fact the "confirmatory" tests that we use here in
the UK (e.g. the INNO-LIA confirmatory test).

If they were using single normal ELISAs in a low prevalence population you
might, well you would, have a point.  But you're comparing apples and
oranges.

> As has been shown by the HSRC, who also used single unconfirmed
> ELISAs (as recommended by the WHO paper I gave the URL for),
> and by merely testing a representative sample of the population,
> came up with not 19% HIV infection, but 11.4% HIV infection.
>

If you select your population (eg pregnancy clinics - by definition almost
you're going to be testing a higher risk group since they're proven to
have had sexual contact and women are more likely to contract HIV from men
than vice versa) then you're bound to get a higher figure.  This is
recognised and noted in all the UNAIDS reports: they clearly state where
they get their survey data from, both in terms of location and literature
sources.

> If these single ELISAs had been followed up with say Western
> Blot testing, who is to say that number would not have been cut
> in half again? Cut by half, or even more?
>
> I find it odd that no one, regardless of the WHO recommendation
> or guideline, goes on to check these single positive tests.

But they do when they introduce the testing methods, as recommended by the
WHO.  Please read my posts.

Bennett