HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Superb accuracy (99.8%) of HIV tests in Britain

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/03/14

A correspondent in Britain sent me this e-mail:

“These jokers do a “99.8% accurate” hiv test:

plus a “confirmation” test of hiv
(Vidas HIV1/HIV2 Duo Quick, Bispot Immunocomb HIV1/HIV2, Determine HIV1&2)

Are they lying?!”


I wrote direct to the responsible (?) organization and received this enlightening response:


“Dear Dr Bauer,
Thank you for your enquiry.
Information regarding the tests and accuracy comes from the laboratory, we send our samples to the largest laboratory in the UK which has all the necessary accreditations.
If you require further information or have any questions or queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Kind regards,
Emma Musson
Patient Services Ltd
Navigation House
48 Mill Gate
NG24 4TS

t +44 (0) 1636 640195
f +44 (0) 1636 640218


follow us on Twitter 

join our FaceBook community


It’s certainly reassuring that MediChecks relies on “the largest laboratory in the UK which has all the necessary accreditations”. I leave it to any interested others to look into further details of that lab, which I would guess is a commercial entity.

4 Responses to “Superb accuracy (99.8%) of HIV tests in Britain”

  1. voza0db said

    Hello 😉

    The headline

    “HIV not as infectious soon after transmission as thought”

    The study

    After the court failure, here comes another stone on the DOGMA!

    Best regards

  2. lukas said

    There’s a new article in scientific journal jpands, “the case against hiv” of prof. Bauer is quoted inside:

  3. BEN said

    I did not know the CDC has dismissed the “confirmatory” WB test! Was it not supposed to be the “perfect”, the unique Gold standard avaliable in the hiv testing world?? Nonetheless I am struggling to fully undestand what changed in the new algorithm, and the consequences it has having..

    My understanding is they have replaced the WB by using a second Elisa (the most modern ones, of course, but are they exactly the same as the first ones?) as to confirm the first reactive one and, if the second one is negative, they say it has to be confirmed with a NAT, basically by measuring a supposed ongoing “viremia”.

    Needless to say that with 2 Elisas they have avoided once and for all, those embarassing WB interpreting criteria.. but what happened to the “..this Hiv-Rna assay cannot be used to confirm the presence or absence of the hiv virus..”- pharmaceutica warnings then??

    And last but not least: the role of the p24 antigen test performed with the first Elisa is not clear to me:
    Is it performed only to confirm a true negative? Why? …I mean: should I continue with my testing if I have a positive Elisa with a negative p24..?? (which is, by the way, what happened to a dear friend of mine years ago with the old WB algorithm: he was reactive on only 3 bands but he was not on the p24: but that was sufficient to declare him hiv +)

    Any thoughts from the dissident prospective? Anyone that can shed some light on this subject?

    thanks you all

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

%d bloggers like this: