Are we positive?

From: Pat Fallon (
Date: Tue Aug 07 2001 - 20:55:52 MDT

BigBooster wrote:

> How reliable are the "HIV tests?" (I've seen claims that
> there are more than 60 conditions or diseases that can
> cause false positives...


Anti-carbohydrate antibodies 52,19,13
Naturally-occurring antibodies 5,19
Passive immunization: receipt of gamma globulin or immune globulin (as
prophylaxis against infection which contains antibodies)18, 26, 60,4,22,
Leprosy 2, 25
Tuberculosis 25
Mycobacterium avium 25
Systemic lupus erythematosus15, 23
Renal (kidney) failure 48, 23,13
Hemodialysis/renal failure 56,16, 41,10, 49
Alpha interferon therapy in hemodialysis patients 54
Flu 36
Flu vaccination 30,11, 3, 20,13, 43
Herpes simplex I 27
Herpes simplex II 11
Upper respiratory tract infection (cold or flu) 11
Recent viral infection or exposure to viral vaccines 11
Pregnancy in multiparous women 58, 53,13, 43, 36
Malaria 6, 12
High levels of circulating immune complexes 6, 33
Hypergammaglobulinemia (high levels of antibodies) 40, 33
False positives on other tests, including RPR (rapid plasma reagent)
test for syphilis17, 48, 33,10, 49
Rheumatoid arthritis 36
Hepatitis B vaccination 28, 21, 40, 43
Tetanus vaccination 40
Organ transplantation 1, 36
Renal transplantation 35, 9, 48,13, 56
Anti-lymphocyte antibodies 56, 31
Anti-collagen antibodies (found in gay men, haemophiliacs, Africans of
both sexes and people with leprosy) 31
Serum-positive for rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibody (both found
in rheumatoid arthritis and other autoantibodies) 14, 62, 53
Autoimmune diseases 44, 29, 1O, 40, 49, 43: Systemic lupus
erythematosus, scleroderma, connective tissue disease, dermatomyositis
Acute viral infections, DNA viral infections 59, 48, 43, 53, 40, 13
Malignant neoplasms (cancers) 40
Alcoholic hepatitis/alcoholic liver disease 32, 48, 40,10,13, 49, 43, 53

Primary sclerosing cholangitis 48,53
Hepatitis 54
"Sticky" blood (in Africans) 38, 34, 40
Antibodies with a high affinity for polystyrene (used in the test kits)
62, 40, 3
Blood transfusions, multiple blood transfusions 63, 36,13, 49, 43, 41
Multiple myeloma 10, 43, 53
HLA antibodies (to Class I and II leukocyte antigens) 7, 46, 63, 48,10,
13, 49,43, 53
Anti-smooth muscle antibody 48
Anti-parietal cell antibody 48
Anti-hepatitis A IgM (antibody) 48
Anti-Hbc IgM 48
Administration of human immunoglobulin preparations pooled before1985 10

Haemophilia 10, 49
Haematologic malignant disorders/lymphoma 43, 53, 9, 48, 13
Primary biliary cirrhosis 43, 53, 13, 48
Stevens-Johnson syndrome 9, 48, 13
Q-fever with associated hepatitis61Heat-treated specimens 51, 57, 24,
49, 48
Lipemic serum (blood with high levels of fat or lipids) 49
Haemolyzed serum (blood where haemoglobin is separated from the red
Hyperbilirubinemia 10, 13
Globulins produced during polyclonal gammopathies (which are seen in
AIDS risk groups)10, 13, 48
Healthy individuals as a result of poorly-understood cross-reactions10
Normal human ribonucleoproteins 48,13
Other retroviruses 8, 55,14, 48,13
Anti-mitochondrial antibodies 48,13
Anti-nuclear antibodies 48,13, 53
Anti-microsomal antibodies 34
T-cell leukocyte antigen antibodies 48,13
Proteins on the filter paper 13
Epstein-Barr virus 37
Visceral leishmaniasis 45
Receptive anal sex 39, 64

1. Agbalika F, Ferchal F, Garnier J-P, et al. 1992.False-positive
antigens related to emergence of a 25-30 kD protein detected in organ
recipients. AIDS. 6:959-962.
2. Andrade V, Avelleira JC, Marques A, et al. 1991. Leprosy as acause of
false-positive results in serological assays for the detection of
antibodies to HIV-1. Intl. J. Leprosy. 59:125.
3. Arnold NL, Slade RA, Jones MM, et al. 1994. Donor follow upof
influenza vaccine-related multiple viral enzyme immunoassayreactivity.
Vox Sanguinis. 67:191.
4. Ascher D, Roberts C. 1993. Determination of the etiology of
seroreversals in HIV testing by antibody fingerprinting. AIDS. 6:241.
5. Barbacid M, Bolgnesi D, Aaronson S. 1980. Humans haveantibodies
capable of recognizing oncoviral glycoproteins: Demonstration that these
antibodies are formed in response to cellular modification of
glycoproteins rather than as consequence of exposure to virus. Proc.
Natl.Acad.Sci. 77:1617-1621.
6. Biggar R, Melbye M, Sarin P, et al. 1985. ELISA HTLV
retrovirusantibody reactivity associated with malaria and immune
complexes in healthy Africans. Lancet. ii:520-543.
7. Blanton M, Balakrishnan K, Dumaswala U, et al. 1987. HLA antibodies
in blood donors with reactive screening tests for antibody to the
immunodeficiency virus. Transfusion. 27(1):118.
 8. Blomberg J, Vincic E, Jonsson C, et al. 1990. Identificationof
regions of HIV-1 p24 reactive with sera which give
"indeterminate"results in electrophoretic immunoblots with the help of
long syntheticpeptides. AIDS Res. Hum. Retro. 6:1363.
 9. Burkhardt U, Mertens T, Eggers H. 1987. Comparison of two
commercially available anti-HIV ELISA's: Abbott HTLV-III ELA andDuPont
HTLV-III ELISA. J. Med. Vir. 23:217.
 10. Bylund D, Ziegner U, Hooper D. 1992 Review of testing for human
immunodeficiency virus. Clin. Lab. Med. 12:305-333.
 11. Challakere K, Rapaport M. 1993. False-positive human
immunodeficiency virus type 1 ELISA results in low-risk subjects.West.
J. Med. 159(2):214-215.
12. Charmot G, Simon F. 1990. HIV infection and malaria. Revue du
practicien. 40:2141.
13. Cordes R, Ryan M. 1995. Pitfalls in HIV testing. Postgraduate
Medicine. 98:177.
14. Dock N, Lamberson H, O'Brien T, et al. 1988. Evaluation ofatypical
human immunodeficiency virus immunoblot reactivity in blood donors.
Transfusion. 28:142.
15. Esteva M, Blasini A, Ogly D, et al. 1992. False positive results for
antibody to HIV in two men with systemic lupus erythematosus.Ann. Rheum.
Dis. 51:1071-1073.
16. Fassbinder W, Kuhni P, Neumayer H. et al. 1986. Prevalence of
antibodies against LAV/HTLV- III [HIV] in patients with terminal renal
insufficiency treated with hemodialysis and following renal
transplantation. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift. 111:1087.
17. Fleming D, Cochi S, Steece R. et al. 1987. Acquired immunodeficiency
syndrome in low- incidence areas. JAMA. 258(6):785.
18. Gill MJ, Rachlis A, Anand C. 1991. Five cases of erroneously
diagnosed HIV infection. Can. Med. Asso. J. 145(12):1593.
19. Healey D, Bolton W. 1993. Apparent HIV-1 glycoprotein reactivity on
Western blot in uninfected blood donors. AIDS. 7:655-658.
20. Hisa J. 1993. False-positive ELISA for human immunodeficiency virus
after influenza vaccination. JID. 167:989.
21. Isaacman S. 1989. Positive HIV antibody test results after treatment
with hepatitis B immune globulin. JAMA. 262:209.
22. Jackson G, Rubenis M, Knigge M, et al. 1988. Passive
immunoneutralisation of human immunodeficiency virus in patients with
advanced AIDS. Lancet, Sept. 17:647.
23. Jindal R, Solomon M, Burrows L. 1993. False positive testsfor HIV in
a woman with lupus and renal failure. NEJM. 328:1281-1282.
24. Jungkind D, DiRenzo S, Young S. 1986. Effect of using
heat-inactivated serum with the Abbott human T-cell lymphotropicvirus
type III [HIV] antibody test. J. Clin. Micro. 23:381.
25. Kashala O, Marlink R, Ilunga M. et al. 1994. Infection with human
immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and human T-cell
lymphotropicviruses among leprosy patients and contacts: correlation
between HIV-1 cross-reactivity and antibodies to lipoarabionomanna. J.
Infect. Dis.169:296-304.
26. Lai-Goldman M, McBride J, Howanitz P, et al. 1987. Presence of
HTLV-III [HIV] antibodies in immune serum globulin preparations. Am.J.
Clin. Path. 87:635.
27. Langedijk J, Vos W, Doornum G, et al. 1992. Identification of
cross-reactive epitopes recognized by HIV-1 false-positive sera. AIDS
28. Lee D, Eby W, Molinaro G. 1992. HIV false positivity after hepatitis
B vaccination. Lancet 339:1060.
29. Leo-Amador G, Ramirez-Rodriguez J, Galvan-Villegas F, et al.1990.
Antibodies against human immunodeficiency virus in generalized lupus
erythematosus. Salud Publica de Mexico.32:15.
30. Mackenzie W, Davis J, Peterson D. et al. 1992. Multiple
false-positive serologic tests for HIV, HTLV-1 and hepatitis Cfollowing
influenza vaccination, 1991. JAMA. 268:1015-1017.
31. Mathe G. 1992. Is the AIDS virus responsible for the disease? Biomed
& Pharmacother. 46:1-2.
32. Mendenhall C, Roselle G, Grossman C, et al. 1986.False-positive
tests for HTLV-III [HIV] antibodies in alcoholic patients withhepatitis.
NEJM. 314:921.
33. Moore J, Cone E, Alexander S. 1986. HTLV-III [HIV] seropositivity in
1971-1972 parenteral drug abusers - a case of false-positives or
evidence of viral exposure? NEJM. 314:1387-1388.
34. Mortimer P, Mortimer J, Parry J. 1985. Whichanti-HTLV-III/LAV [HIV]
assays for screening and comfirmatory testing? Lancet. Oct. 19,p873.
35. Neale T, Dagger J, Fong R, et al. 1985. False-positive anti-HTLV-III
[HIV] serology. New Zealand Med. J. October 23.
36. Ng V. 1991. Serological diagnosis with recombinant
peptides/proteins. Clin. Chem. 37:1667- 1668.
37. Ozanne G, Fauvel M. 1988. Perfomance and reliability of five
commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits in screening for
anti-human immunodeficiency virus antibody in high-risk subjects.
J.Clin. Micro. 26:1496.
38. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E. 1988. Reappraisal of AIDS - Is the
oxidation induced by the risk factors the primary cause? Med.
39. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner V, and Papadimitriou J. 1993.Is a
positive Western blot proof of HIV infection? Bio/Technology.
40. Pearlman ES, Ballas SK. 1994. False-positive humanimmunodeficiency
virus screening test related to rabies vaccination. Arch. Pathol.Lab.
Med. 118-805.
41. Peternan T, Lang G, Mikos N, et al. Hemodialysis/renal failure.
1986. JAMA. 255:2324.
42. Piszkewicz D. 1987. HTLV-III [HIV] antibodies after immune globulin.
JAMA. 257:316.
43. Profitt MR, Yen-Lieberman B. 1993. Laboratory diagnosis ofhuman
immunodeficiency virus infection. Inf. Dis. Clin. North Am. 7:203.
44. Ranki A, Kurki P, Reipponen S, et al. 1992. Antibodies to retroviral
proteins in autoimmune connective tissue disease.Arthritis and
Rheumatism. 35:1483.
45. Ribeiro T, Brites C, Moreira E, et al. 1993. Serologic validation of
HIV infection in a tropical area. JAIDS. 6:319.
46. Sayers M, Beatty P, Hansen J. 1986. HLA antibodies as a causeof
false-positive reactions in screening enzyme immunoassays forantibodies
to human T-lymphotropic virus type III [HIV]. Transfusion. 26(1):114.
47. Sayre KR, Dodd RY, Tegtmeier G, et al. 1996. False-positive human
immunodeficiency virus type 1 Western blot tests in non-infectedblood
donors. Transfusion. 36:45.
48. Schleupner CJ. Detection of HIV-1 infection. In: (Mandell GI,
Douglas RG, Bennett JE, eds.) Principles and Practice of Infectious
Diseases, 3rd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1990:1092.
49. Schochetman G, George J. 1992. Serologic tests for thedetection of
human immunodeficiency virus infection. In AIDS Testing Methodologyand
Management Issues, Springer-Verlag, New York.
50. Simonsen L, Buffington J, Shapiro C, et al. 1995. Multiplefalse
reactions in viral antibody screening assays after influenzavaccination.
Am. J. Epidem. 141-1089.
51. Smith D, Dewhurst S, Shepherd S, et al. 1987. False-positive
enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay reactions for antibody to human
immunodeficiency virus in a population of midwestern patients with
congenital bleeding disorders. Transfusion. 127:112.
52. Snyder H, Fleissner E. 1980. Specificity of human antibodies to
oncovirus glycoproteins; Recognition of antigen by natural antibodies
directed against carbohydrate structures. Proc. Natl. Acad.
53. Steckelberg JM, Cockerill F. 1988. Serologic testing for human
immunodeficiency virus antibodies. Mayo Clin. Proc. 63:373.
54. Sungar C, Akpolat T, Ozkuyumcu C, et al. Alpha interferon therapy in
hemodialysis patients. Nephron. 67:251.
55. Tribe D, Reed D, Lindell P, et al. 1988. Antibodies reactive with
human immunodeficiency virus gag-coated antigens (gag reactive only)are
a major cause of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay reactivity in a bood
donor population. J. Clin. Micro. April:641.
56. Ujhelyi E, Fust G, Illei G, et al. 1989. Different types of false
positive anti-HIV reactions in patients on hemodialysis. Immun.
57. Van Beers D, Duys M, Maes M, et al. Heat inactivation of serum may
interfere with tests for antibodies to LAV/HTLV-III [HIV]. J.
58. Voevodin A. 1992. HIV screening in Russia. Lancet. 339:1548.
59. Weber B, Moshtaghi-Borojeni M, Brunner M, et al. 1995.Evaluation of
the reliability of six current anti-HIV-1/HIV-2 enzymeimmunoassays. J.
Vir. Meth. 55:97.
60. Wood C, Williams A, McNamara J, et al. 1986. Antibody against the
human immunodeficiency virus in commercial intravenous gammaglobulin
preparations. Ann. Int. Med.105:536.
61. Yale S, Degroen P, Tooson J, et al. 1994. Unusual aspects of acute Q
fever-associated hepatitis. Mayo Clin. Proc. 69:769.
62. Yoshida T, Matsui T, Kobayashi M, et al. 1987. Evaluation of passive
particle agglutination test for antibody to human immunodeficiency
virus. J. Clin. Micro. Aug:1433.
63. Yu S, Fong C, Landry M, et al. 1989. A false positive HIV antibody
reaction due to transfusion- induced HLA-DR4
64. National Institute of Justice, AIDS Bulletin. Oct. 1988.
© Sept. 1996, Zenger's, California

The mainstream claims the tests detect specific antibodies to a virus,
and are therefore markers of an active infection. Dissidents are of two
main schools, the Duesberg school says the virus is harmless, while the
Perth Group says the antibodies are produced by the body itself under
catabolic stress, and are, therefore, markers of undefined ill health.
In other words, the DNA of immune-system cells already in trouble
frequently start expressing proteins, the purpose of which isn't clear.

IMHO, the Perth Group has a good argument, and I used to maintain a web
page summarizing their views at which is still accessable.

There has been a recent development which I think may be significant.

According to Robert A. Giraldo, MD, who has been working for 6 years at
a laboratory of clinical immunology in one of the University Hospitals
in the City of New York, to run the ELIZA test for HIV surrogate markers
an individuals blood is diluted 1:400 with a special specimen dilutent.
This extraordinarily high dilution of the person.s serum [400 times]
took him by surprise. Most serologic tests that look for the presence of
antibodies against germs uses neat serum [undiluted]. For example, the
tests that look for antibodies to hepatitis A and B viruses, rubella
virus, syphilis, hystoplasma and cryptococus, to mention a few of them,
use straight serum [undiluted]. However, to try to prevent false
positive reactions some serologic tests use diluted serum; for example
this is the case with tests that look for antibodies to measles,
varicella and mumps viruses which use a dilution of 1:16, to
cytomegalovirus [CMV] 1:20 and to Epstein-Barr Virus [EBV] 1:10.

The obvious questions are: What makes HIV so unique that the test serum
needs to be diluted 400 times? And what would happen if the individual.s
serum is not diluted ?

To answer these questions he ran an experiment in a medical laboratory
in Yorktown Heights, New York, using the same test kit reagents that are
usually used to run the ELISA test in most clinical laboratories

He first took samples of blood that, at 1:400 dilution, tested negative
for antibodies to HIV. He then ran the exact same serum samples through
the test again, but this time without diluting them. Tested straight,
they all came positive.

Since that time he has run about 100 specimens and have always gotten
the same result. He ran his own blood which at 1:400 reacts negative. At
1:1 [undiluted] it reacted positive.

He discusses three possible explanations for why undiluted specimens of
blood always react positive at the ELISA test:

----------------------------------[begin quote]
[1] Everybody has HIV antibodies.

It is accepted worldwide that the ELISA test for HIV detects antibodies
against what is known as the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (3-6). And the
pharmaceutical company that commercializes the ELISA kits states that
HIVAB HIV-1 EIA is an in vitro qualitative Enzyme Immunoassay for the
Detection of Antibody to Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1) in
Human Serum and Plasma" (1).

Since all undiluted blood specimens react positive on the ELISA test, a
test that supposedly tests for antibodies to HIV, the results presented
here suggest that every single human being has HIV antibodies. And this
suggests that everybody has been exposed to HIV antigens.

This would mean that all of us have been exposed to the virus that is
believed to be the cause of AIDS. The people that react positive even at
a dilution of 1:400, would be the ones that have had the highest level
of exposure to HIV antigens. The rest of the people - the ones that only
react positive with undiluted serum [1:1] - would have had a lower level
of exposure to HIV.

[2] Everybody has different levels of HIV infection.

It is also believed worldwide that a person that reacts positive for
antibodies against HIV has not only been exposed to but is infected with
a deadly virus that causes immunedeficiency (3-6). Therefore, the
positive reactions of all undiluted serums would mean that everybody, or
at least all the blood samples that I have tested, including my own, are
infected with this "deadly" virus. The ones that react positive at a
ratio of 1:400 would simply have a higher level of "deadly" infection
than the "deadly" infection had by the ones that only react positive
with undiluted serum.

[3] The test is not specific for HIV.

The results presented here could also mean that the tests used for
detecting antibodies to HIV are not specific for HIV, as has been
explained previously (7-14). In this case, there would be reasons other
than HIV infection, past or present, to explain why a person reacts
positive to it. The test also reacts positive in the absence of HIV

The scientific literature has documented more than 70 different reasons
for getting a positive reaction other than past or present infection
with HIV (7,10,11,14,15). All these conditions have in common a history
of polyantigenic stimulations (15,16).

Even Abbott Laboratories is well aware of the specificity problems with
the ELISA test. This is why they state: "EIA testing alone cannot be
used to diagnose AIDS, even if the recommended investigation of reactive
specimens suggests a high probability that the antibody to HIV-1 is
present" and "Although for all clinical and public health applications
of the EIA both the degree of risk for HIV-1 infection of the person
studied and the degree of reactivity of the serum may be of value in
interpreting the test, these correlations are imperfect.

Therefore, in most settings it is appropriate to investigate repeatably
reactive specimens by additional more specific or supplemental tests"
(1). Interestingly, there are countries like Great Britain where the
diagnosis of HIV status is based on the ELISA test alone. No Western
blot or any other test is needed there.

The only proper way for establishing the sensitivity and specificity of
a given test is with a gold standard. However, since HIV has never been
isolated as an independent purified viral entity (17-19), there cannot
be a gold standard for HIV. The sensitivity and specificity of the
antibody tests for HIV have instead been defined based on the assumption
that HIV is the cause of AIDS. In this way, "The Abbott studies show
that: Sensitivity based on an assumed 100% prevalence of HIV-1 antibody
in AIDS patients is estimated to be 100% (144 patients tested)" and
"Specificity based on an assumed zero prevalence of HIV-1 in random
donors is estimated to be 99.9% (4777 random donors tested)" (1).

"At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the
presence and absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood. Therefore
sensitivity was computed based on the clinical diagnosis of AIDS and
specificity based on random donors" (1).

Since there is no scientific evidence that the ELISA test is specific
for HIV antibodies, a reactive ELISA test at any concentration of the
serum would mean presence of non-specific or polyspecific antibodies
(20). These antibodies could be present in all blood samples. They are
most likely a result of the stress response, having no relation to any
retrovirus, let alone HIV (21,22). In this case, a reactive test could
be a measure of the degree of one.s exposure to stressor or oxidizing
agents (15,16).

The inevitable conclusion is that all positive reactions for antibodies
to HIV are simply false positives. If nobody is positive for HIV, then
people who react positive on the ELISA test do so due to something other
than HIV.

Proposal to find out the real meaning of the "HIV antibody" tests

To uncover the meaning of these tests I propose a simple experiment:
Take blood from three groups of people and run the tests highly diluted,
undiluted and at a wide spectrum of dilutions in between. The first
group would be a group of healthy people of many age groups; the second
group would be a group of people from the conventional AIDS "risk
groups"; the third group would be a group of people with clinical
conditions both related and unrelated to AIDS. All groups would be
subjected to both the ELISA and Western blot tests.

Additionally, all blood samples could be subjected to the "the viral
load test for HIV". The results of such an experiment could determine
whether these test measurements bear any relationship to an individual.s
level of exposure to stressor or oxidizing agents. If so, the tests
could be salvaged as a measure of an individual.s level of intoxication.


1.ABBOTT LABORATORIES. Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1. HIVAB HIV-1
EIA. Abbott Laboratories, 66-8805/R5. January 1997: 5.

2.EPITOPE ORGANON TEKNIKA. Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1).
HIV-1 Western Blot Kit. PN201-3039 Revision # 6.

3.FEINBERG MA & VOLBERDING PA. Testing for Human Immunodeficiency Virus.
 VOLBERDING PA. The AIDS Knowledge Base. Boston: Little, Brown and
Company, 1994: Section 2.

4.PINS MR, TERUYA J and STOWELL CP. Human Immunodeficiency Virus Testing
and Case Definition: Pragmatic and Technical Issues. In: COTTON D and
WATTS DH. The Medical Management of AIDS in Women. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, 1997: 163-176.

5.METCALF JA, DAVEY RT and LANE HC. Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome:
Serologic and Virologic Tests. In DEVITA VT, CURRAN J, HELLMAN S, et al.
AIDS: Etiology, Diagnosis, Treatment and Prevention. 4th Edition.
Philadelphia: Lippincott - Raven, 1997: 177-196.

6.WEISS SH. Laboratory Detection of Human Retroviral Infections. In:
WORMSER GP. AIDS and Other Manifestations of HIV Infection. New York:
Lippincott-Raven, 1998: 175-200.

Western Blot Proof of HIV
Infection? Bio/Technology 1993; 11:696-707.

Antibodies: Further Questions and a Plea for Clarification. Curr Med Res
Opin 1997; 13:627-634.

9.HODGKINSON N. Science Fails the "AIDS Test" In: AIDS: The Failure of
Contemporary Science. How a Virus that Never Was Deceived the World.
London: Fourth Estate, 1996: 232-262.

10.JOHNSON C. Factors Known to Cause False-Positive HIV Antibody Test
Results; Zenger.s San Diego, California, September 1996a: 8-9.

11.JOHNSON C. Whose Antibodies Are They Anyway? Continuum (London)
September/October 1996b; 4(3):4-5.

12.TURNER VF. Do Antibody Tests Prove HIV Infection? Interview by Huw
Christie Editor of Continuum. Continuum (London) Winter

13.SHENTON J. Positively False: Wrong Tests and Long-Term Survivors.In:
Positively False: Exposing the Myths around HIV and AIDS. London: I.B.
Tauris, 1998: 238-239.

14.GIRALDO RA. Milking the Market. Will Mothers Dish Out the W.H.O.
Formula? Continuum (London) 1998; 5(4):8-10.

15.PAPADOPULOS-ELEOPULOS E. Reappraisal of AIDS - Is the Oxidation
Induced by the Risk Factors the Primary Cause? Medical Hypothesis 1988;

16.GIRALDO RA. AIDS and Stressors II: A Proposal for the Pathogenesis of
AIDS. In: AIDS and Stressors. Medellín, Colombia: Impresos Begón,1997:

Isolation of HIV: Has it Really Been Achieved? The Case Against.
Continuum (London) 1996; 4(3):S1-S24.

18.LANKA S. No Viral Identification: No Cloning as Proof of
Isolation.Continuum (London) 1997; 4(5):31-33.

19.DE HARVEN E. Remarks on Methods for Retroviral Isolation.Continuum
(London) 1998; 5(3):20-21.

20.WING MG. The Molecular Basis for a Polyspecific Antibody. Clin Exp
Immunol 1995; 99:313-315.

21.SNYDER HW and FLEISSNER E. Specificity of Human Antibodies to
Oncovirus Glycoproteins: Recognition of Antigen by Natural Antibodies
Directed Against Carbohydrate Structures. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA1980;

22.BARBACID M, BOLOGNESI d & AARONSON SA. Humans Have Antibodies Capable
of Recognizing Oncoviral Glycoproteins: Demonstration that These
Antibodies are Formed in Response to Cellular Modification of
Glycoproteins Rather than as Consequence of Exposure to Virus. Proc Nat
Acad Sci USA 1980; 77:1627-1621.

-----------------------------------[end quote]

Best Regards,

Pat Fallon

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:04 MDT