HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

No help from federal agencies

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2011/02/16

Official websites purport to offer useful information to the public. That becomes much less appealing when one recognizes that they typically also disclaim any responsibility for the accuracy of the information.
Still, it seems natural to presume that a specific request might bring specific help. Not when it comes to HIV/AIDS, it appears.
A friend of this blog sent the following query (slightly edited) to the Food and Drug Administration:

Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 9:54 AM
Subject: AIDS.
Dear Drs.
Why do all HIV tests have disclaimers like this?
“At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence and absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood.”
The same with WB, for which there is no universal criterion; and Viral Load tests also have this kind of disclaimer.
This is a test that, if positive, destroys lives. Please think about it, it’s not a matter of money and power, it’s about the lives of millions of people.
And will there be in a few years better alternatives to the very toxic (sometimes lethal) and expensive HAART?

The reply was interesting if somewhat evasive:

To: ………
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 08:53:19 -0500
Subject: RE: AIDS.
No HIV test is perfect.  All tests have a potential for “false-positive” or “false-negative” results.  These tests are the best that are currently available, but they are not perfect.  FDA is working with medical product manufacturers to facilitate their development of better tests.
I do not understand your comment that “it’s not about money and power.”  What is your point?
Researchers are working to develop a cure for HIV, but such a cure is not likely to appear soon.  I guess we’ll see—
David Banks
FDA Office of Special Health Issues

One Response to “No help from federal agencies”

  1. Martin said

    Hi Dr. Bauer, I saw the blurb in NY Times Science on Zimbabwe’s reduction of “HIV infections”. They acknowledged the numbers were esitmates – how could they be anything else – they don’t have any real data. Is the Bangui AIDS definition used in Zimbabwe? If so the estimates are even more ridiculous.

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