THE ANTIBODY RUSE AND FALSE SCIENCE 
Release Date  2005-10-12 
Time  08:42:00 
Comment   

Article Text 
OCTOBER 12, 2005. Because testing for antibodies has now become so widespread as a method of asserting that disease is present, I want to make a few quick points.

Traditionally, the presence of antibodies was considered a sign that the immune system was functioning WELL. Antibodies, after all, are part of the immune system. They scout out "intruders."

But with the advent of the various conditions lumped under the label of AIDS, all this changed. Without justification, scientists began saying that, if a person tested positive for ANTIBODIES TO THE HIV GERM, he was destined to develop full-blown AIDS and die.

At that point, a number of tracking studies were done: follow people who tested positive for HIV and see what happened to them.

These studies showed that a surprising number of positive people did, in fact, get very sick and died.

These results have been used to argue that HIV is the very deadly cause of AIDS.

However, several vital matters were ignored.

After 1987, many of the people who tested positive for HIV were then given AZT and other similar highly toxic drugs. These drugs attacked THE IMMUNE SYSTEM. These drugs actually attack every single cell in the body. Therefore, the correlations between a positive HIV antibody test and death were useless, because of the drug factor.

Furthermore, the HIV test for antibodies was unreliable, in the sense that OTHER THINGS HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH HIV could make the test read positive.

What things?

For example, drug use. Heroin, speed, poppers, toxic medicines, etc. Previous and current infections.

Factors that would make people sick all on their own.

There is more. The largest and longest tracking study was THE SAN FRANCISCO MEN'S STUDY. I investigated several aspects of this experiment. First, there were a significant number of men who had tested positive for HIV antibodies and then did not take AZT, or took it for a while and then stopped. A significant number of THOSE men did not get sick after 8-10 years of tracking. They remained healthy.

And second, although the study tried to track HIV negative men, it didn't do a good job of that, and therefore there was no control group. There was no way to tell how many of those men went on to get sick and die---just as some men who tested positive had gone on to die.

The science is not there. The science does not show that the presence of antibodies (to ANY germ) is evidence of present or future illness and death.

Unfortunately, when it comes to such PR diseases as West Nile, SARS, and bird flu, we simply don't know how many of the tests on patients are of the antibody variety. It is quite possible that many of these tests ARE searches for antibodies---in which case, they are useless and misleading.

There is much more to say about all this, and I have written articles on this page that explore other relevant factors, but the point is clear: don't be fooled by antibody tests.