HIV/AIDS Skepticism

Pointing to evidence that HIV is not the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS

Press Release: “A Positive Routine ‘HIV Test’ Is Likely To Be a False Positive, Scientist Explains”

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2010/03/09

Association of American Physicians & Surgeons

Mar 9, 2010
Contact: Jane Orient, M.D. (800) 323-3110,
or Henry Bauer, Ph.D., (540) 951-2107,

For immediate release:

A Positive Routine “HIV Test” Is Likely To Be a False Positive, Scientist Explains

In many jurisdictions, tests for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are required screening for pregnant women. Some even suggest screening the entire population for HIV. The rationale is to administer powerful antiretroviral drugs to healthy individuals to “prevent transmission.”

But what if healthy people take expensive, toxic drugs for a condition they cannot transmit because they don’t have it?

In the spring 2010 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Henry H. Bauer, Ph.D., writes that “HIV tests are not HIV tests.” A positive test does not mean that a person has or will get AIDS. It doesn’t even mean that he has HIV. Rather, it is a test for antibodies, either to HIV or to something that cross-reacts with it.

The FDA said in 1987 that “the significance of antibodies in an asymptomatic individual is not known.” It is still not known, as positive tests have been reported in many illnesses, including multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, malaria, and aplastic anemia. They have also been reported after immunizations to tetanus or influenza, and may even be caused by pregnancy itself.

“The problem of false positive tests applies to all screening tests, not just HIV,” states Jane M. Orient, M.D., executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). “If a population with a very low likelihood of a disease is tested, there will be very few positive tests. But even with an excellent test, a positive is more likely than not to be a false positive.”

If only one in 1,000 tested individuals has HIV, then only one out of every six positive tests is a true positive, even if the HIV test is as good as is claimed.

This is why a test that is a very good for screening blood donors can do much more harm than good if used to screen the entire population, Dr. Orient stated.

Dr. Bauer’s article on HIV testing can be accessed at


17 Responses to “Press Release: “A Positive Routine ‘HIV Test’ Is Likely To Be a False Positive, Scientist Explains””

  1. Philip said

    One thing that’s always bothered me concerning the ELISA. It’s “supposedly” 99% or so “accurate” — so why the need for a “confirmatory” test? I mean, I’ve had other doctor friends (including an HIV specialist) say with a straight face that HIV ELISAs are so accurate YET in the same breath will say they must be “verified” by Western Blot. It thus begs the question — why do a Western Blot in the first place if the ELISA is so accurate? THIS blog post says why but even HIV specialists seem not to be able to put two and two together.

    Now when it comes to OTHER lab tests, some physicians feel that a test is accurate if you repeat the test several times and it comes out consistent. That’s not accuracy. That’s consistency. Accuracy is comparing to gold standard. That’s one joke about the so-called 99% accuracy of HIV ELISA — that 99% was measured against other ELISAs as per the Burke study. Ergo, that’s not 99% accuracy but 99% consistency. This means that if ELISA sucks in detecting “HIV” then it is consistently sucky.

    • Martin said

      Hi Dr. Bauer, Of course you know: two aspects to testing : test validity — does it test for what you’re looking for and testing repeatablility — does the test give consistent results. Obviously, if the test isn’t valid as is the case for both ELISA and Western Blot, testing repeatablility is irrelevant. When ever I hear about the debates on these so-called HIV tests, the only thing talked about is the repeatability (Is it reliable as well?). Neither of those tests have been validated with the “gold standard” of pure virus. It will never happen.

      However, I saw an article in the Boston Herald Monday that HIV resides hidden in the bone marrow. Well, that’s a new one. Those quacks keep coming up with more exotic explanations to keep the funds rolling in.

      • Philip said

        Martin: I had seen that article too. Two questions come to mind. First, the article mentions that “bits” of HIV (and as usual, not the entire virus) was found to “infect” progenitor cells in the laboratory. This means only that the aforementioned cells produce either RT activity or a hodgepodge of proteins some of which are similar to HIV proteins when primed with kaboodles of chemicals and grown in Gallo’s “special” soup.
        The question is: have they actually done bone-marrow biopsies of HIV patients and cultured virus from them? If bone marrow is indeed a reservoir, then there should be no excuse this time — there ought to be gazillions of viruses in the bone marrow.

        Second, am beginning to wonder just how many cells HIV can infect, supposedly. I mean think about it, supposedly it infects cells that exhibit cluster of differentiation 4 proteins (hence CD4) on the cell surface. The keyword is “differentiation” meaning it is no longer a progenitor cell. A progenitor cell has YET to differentiate. Thus, am I supposed to believe that HIV can latch onto receptors of cells whose receptors aren’t that specific yet? By that logic ALL the progenitor cells in bone marrow should be infected, and ALL blood-cell lines should be mowed down like weed under my powermower, not just WBCs, and definitely not just CD4 cells.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Philip: Why shouldn’t they be abel to culture “HIV” from bone-marrow cells, when it’s the culturing procedure that produces it?

      • Philip said

        Henry: Let me rephrase. There shouldn’t even be a need to artificially produce more virus or virus bits via PCR since there should be kaboodles of them in the marrow.

      • Martin said

        All the people who have the equipment necessary to perform the culture, isolation, etc., are the very ones who would attempt to do so at their career peril — i.e. they would lose their jobs the moment they start asking questions.

      • Tony said

        Convenient, isn’t it?

        So, until some of them are self-sacrificing enough to imperil their careers they will be part of a system that imperils the health and lives of other people. “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

        A friend told me last night that he has tested HIV positive. It is, for me, a stark reminder that this debate is at its heart about real people who must pay a terrible price. I will do my best to provide him with balanced information, but knowing that he may come to harm because of the avarice of others deeply saddens me.

      • bornskeptic said

        I never understood this business about how being a member of one of the “At Risk” groups (gay, drug addict, etc) can influence the outcome of an analytical test. Either the test is valid and accurate or it isn’t. Why do they need to know, when taking the “HIV antibody test” one’s sexual orientation, sexual behaviors, or previous drug use? I note that you in your piece describe how the false positives are great with the non-at-risk group of heterosexuals. The HIV=AIDS fanatics leap on this and say that this holds true for heterosexuals, but with gays and drug addicts the false positives are much lower. Can you please explain this rationalization to me?

      • Henry Bauer said

        bornskeptic: Please read the article refered to in the press release, which answers all your questions:
        1. No test can be 100% accurate.
        2. The “HIV” tests were never shown to detect HIV “infection”.
        3. The original Abbott ELISA test, by which all others are “validated”, measures a color intensity that’s never zero, so an assumption is made as to what intensities mark the cut-offs between “positive”, “indeterminate”, and “negative”.
        4. There are no certainties, only probabilities.
        5. The probability that a given test-result really means positive (or negative) depends on the prevalence of the condition in the tested population. Therefore a negative test in a low-risk group is quite likely — but far from certain! — to be correct, and a positive test in a high-risk group is quite likely — but far from certain! — to be correct, but not vice versa.
        So “HIV” tests are self-fulfilling prophecies based on the pre-existing decision about what are high- and low-risk groups.

        I quoted from the authoritative discussion:
        A pre-test probability assessment is required whenever test results are to be meaningfully interpreted” (p. 149; emphasis in original); “An essential part of the testing process takes place even before testing is done; that is, the estimation of the probability of infection (the ‘pre-test’ probability). This is necessary in order to interpret a test result appropriately, whatever the purpose — whether it is clinical, counseling or research — and can dramatically impact the predictive value after testing (or ‘post-test’ probability) (p. 159; emphases added).
        “HIV” tests are self-fulfilling prophecies, 10 May 2009

      • Henry Bauer said

        MArtin: Re bone marrow. Of course they keep coming up with new things (or absurdities?) If you’re stuck with trying to explain real-world phenomena by means of a mistaken theory, endless research opportunities arise to investigate increasingly far-out notions.

  2. Stefan R. said

    Christine Johnson also pointed out this in her 1996′ piece:

    • Henry Bauer said

      Stefan R., Martin: Nothing in my article claims to be original, except putting together quite a range of things that have not been put together before and that all reinforce one another:
      Unproven tests (Perth Group; Gallo papers and patent)
      Known false positives (Christine Johnson)
      CDC from “probable detection of antibodies” to “proof of infection” (Rodney Richards)
      Statistical fact of large number of false positives in any low-risk population, no matter how “good” the tests (Weiss & Cowan, special case of general statistical fact)

      • Philip said

        Don’t forget Myron Essex himself saying that there is a high false-positive rate among people EXPOSED (mind you, not sick of, even just EXPOSED) to Mycobacterium leprae (which causes leprosy) and Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB).

  3. Manuel Fernandes said is reporting today that a woman lived with a wrong diagnosis for seven years. She was 30 years old when tested during her pregnancy. At that time she performed another three HIV tests (standard brazilian protocol), all reactive, and immidiatly started taking ARV meds.,,MUL1527418-5598,00-CIDADE+CATARINENSE+APURA+POSSIVEL+ERRO+EM+DIAGNOSTICO+DE+HIV.html

    Incredible, the tests are so accurate that here in Brazil they need to perform four tests! to confirm a positive result.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Manuel Fernandes: Thanks, interesting. For people who do not read Portuguese, remember that Google has a translator, just enter the URL and ask for a translation from Portuguese to English (or whatever other language you prefer).
      This terribly sad story illustrates that
      (1) pregnancy itself can be a reason for a positive “HIV” test. The fact that she later tested negative indicates that pregnancy most probably was indeed the reason in this instance.
      (2) The belief that “HIV” is sexually transmitted means that in such a case, the “positive” spouse is automatically judged guilty of adultery and a relationship is demolished.

  4. Hi Mr Bauer, Just wanted you to note a reference to your site and I just want to say thank you so much for all that you do for those of us who have fallen prey to the “HIV” test and deadly cehmical therapy. I met you briefly at the conference and look forward to another World Dissident “AIDS” conference.

    Again Thanks Mr Bauer.
    Tomas Brewster
    Florida USA

    “HIV Tests Can Do More Harm Than Good”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s