HIV tests ''not reliable''

[belfast_birty]

http://www.lukeisback.com/?p=14419

[Deuce Bigolo]

Thats an absolute shocker

Never assume anything thesedays where profit is in play

[Ron T. Storm]

HIV DNA tests DO test for HIV unlike the Anti-Bodies test mentioned in the link.

All involved in the recent outbrake in America had HIV DNA tests.

[videokim]

There is no 100% positive test for HIV & HEB C, they can show up during routine monthly tests if their incubated enough.
People taking antibiotics should not have a test till up to a month after finishing them as again its masks all the tests results, you hear of people being ill with chest infections (for which most need antibiotics) then working a couple of weeks later doing bareback which is dangerious to them & their fellow workers.
Serious education is needed in the industry & fly by night clinics giving out full mickey mouse certs on just a blood test should be shut down, as usual people think they are quicker & we can work quicker so they are the easy option.
The test Ron is talking about is fast but its not recognized by the NHS yet as accurate otherwise this method would be used for screening police, soldiers, fireman who sometimes find themselves at risk from needles, injuries etc.
The industry is so mish mashed in the UK that any outbreak would spread quite easy & this is why we campaign week in week out for the introduction of condoms.

[jimslip]

This is certainly not shocking to me ie:

"(an) individual who has antibodies to HIV is presumed to be infected with the virus."

This has always been the basis of the tests. Over here with the Western Blot technique and in the States with their "DNA" they look for proteins supposedly left by the virus.I think it's the basis for most diagnostic tests, you look to see if the body has been in contact with the offending virus, by making antibodies for it.

I haven't read the whole piece but I suspect we are talking about some very clever legal semantics being employed to rubbish someone's claim against another person, claiming some kind of "criminal infection". So if a lawyer can ask of a clinician, "Well, did you actually find the HIV virus?" the answer from any microbiologist would have to be, "No sir, we found HIV antibodies". "I ask you again, did you or did you not, find the HIV virus in the claimants body?"...."No sir we did not"

Case not proven.