I read about portable HIV testing in this paper Am J Trop Med Hyg 2000 Feb;62(2):301-9 and found it on this web site http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10813489&dopt=Abstract

I called Abbott in Thailand and Vietnam see below--(as Dr Don) and was directed to a medical supplier which turned out to be a large drug store and got a box of 100. Put on a drop of blood, drop of reagent, than drop of cleaner and if the + sign turns red its positive. Just ask if they want a free test most seem happy to have it. I have not run into a positive even at K11. If I do run into a positive I have already decided that I would take the person for a conformation test. Conformation testing is available all over Thailand cost about $20.

Thailand
Abbott Laboratories Limited
9th Floor, Nai Lert Tower
2/4 Wireless Road
Bangkok 10330, Thailand
Telephone: 66-2267-9060

Vietnam
Abbott Laboratories, S.A.
48, Truong Son Street
Tan Binh District
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Telephone: 84-8-844-8985

You can get tested in TJ for $10 for HIV

What if Everything You Thought You Knew
About AIDS was WRONG!?

by Christine Maggiore

There is no such thing as a test for AIDS. The diagnostic tests popularly referred to as "AIDS tests" do not identify AIDS. Both the E LISA and the Western Blot tests are used to detect only antibodies to HIV, but both of these tests are non-specific for HIV antibodies and are highly inaccurate. Non- specific means that these tests respond to a great number of non-HIV anti- bodies, microbes, bacteria and other conditions that are often found in the blood of normal, healthy people. A reaction to any of these other antibodies and conditions will result in an HIV positive diagnosis. A simple illness like a cold or the flu can cause a positive reading on an HIV test. A flu shot or any other vaccine can also create positive results. Having or having had herpes or hepatitis may produce a positive test, as can a vaccination for hepatitis B. Exposure to diseases such as tuberculosis and malaria commonly cause false positive results, as do the presence of tape worms and other parasites. Conditions such as alcoholism, liver disease and blood that is highly oxidated through drug use may be interpreted as the presence of HIV antibodies. Pregnancy and prior pregnancy can also cause a positive response. The potential for cross-reactivity on HIV tests has been noted in such mainstream publications as USA Today and The Wall Street Journal which recently reported FDA (Food and Drug Administration) recalls of HIV tests for problems with high rates of "false positives."

These cross-reactions occur because the antigens used in HIV test kits react to the antibodies of many microbes, bacteria, viruses and other conditions and report them all as HIV antibodies. Since no antibody is ever specific to any one disease, it is not possible to have a specific antibody test for any one disease. An accurate antibody test can only be constructed and validated by viral isolation. Many doctors and scientists contend that the lack of viral isolation for HIV tests completely invalidates HIV tests.

Another fundamental problem with the use of HIV antibody tests is that antibodies do not indicate the presence of active infection or disease. Antibodies, in fact, are a normal, healthy response to infection and actually indicate immunity to disease.

Before Gallo's HIV hypothesis, antibodies had never been used as an indicator or a predictor of illness. There is no credible scientific evidence to suggest that this rule should now be disregarded to accommodate the HIV hypothesis.

The most outstanding problem with any HIV test is that HlV has never been proved to be the cause of AlDS.

Eunuch:

Do you have HIV?

I was thinking the same thing. Sounds like protests of denial to me.

Anger should be following next...

Explorer,

I have never been near an "HIV" test.

In about two and a half years of mongering I have had one symptom, a urinary infection that lasted about 7 days and scared the hell out of me since I never experienced painfull urination, difficulty urinating and a red urethral opening. This occured last summer shortly after my very first three BBBJs which covered about a three week period.

I have not had a BBBJ since.

Interestingly, I just recently read that "urinary infection" is on the list of Viagra side-effects (I use Viagra)....

My interest in AIDS started back when it first became news in the very early 80s since of course possibly anyone could get AIDS. Since I already had a network of "alternative" health news sources, much of my news came from those sources and after about three years I felt I had enough to decide there was no need to be paranoid about fist fights or doctor/dentist visits and no longer had the same passion for the subject.

Eunuch

There is no such thing as a test for AIDS. The diagnostic tests popularly referred to as "AIDS tests" do not identify AIDS. Both the E LISA (sic) and the Western Blot tests are used to detect only antibodies to HIV,

Absolutely true.

AIDS is a clinical syndrome that requires one to be HIV positive in order to make the diagnosis, but there is no specific lab test for "AIDS". (One can make the diagnosis on laboratory criteria alone if a patient is HIV positive and has a T-cell level less than 200, but for all intents and purposes it is a clinical syndrome.) These criteria for diagnosis are based on CDC case definitions by the way. Also, it is ELISA, not E LISA and is pronounced like Eliza Doolitle, and stands for enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

but both of these tests are non-specific for HIV antibodies and are highly inaccurate.

Absolute bullshit.

ELISA is used as the initial screening test for antibodies and is more sensitive than specific. That is why the Western Blot is always performed on positives as a confirmatory test before results are reported out by the lab. The Western Blot is extremely specific.

I have significantly less confidence in the instant home HIV tests, where Western blot confirmation is not possible in that setting as it requires fancy techniques and a well-controlled environment.

I thought you said you knew about this stuff, man.

Shy Guy,

I am thinking you might be a health care professional. Is it true?

You said: "AIDS is a clinical syndrom that requires one to be HIV positive in order to make the diagnosis"

Not in Africa. No test is required to make that diagnosis in Africa. A fact.

Also, the very definition of AIDS can change as soon as you cross a border. Why would that be?

You say the tests ARE specific? I don't think so. I believe that is documented as being based on assumption.

Shy Guy, if you were a health care profesional and took up any inkling of a dissident view, what would happen. Would your mortgage be in jeopardy? Probably. So what incentive is there to question the same issues that so many are trying to discuss in open World forums?

I smell a troll. My suggestion to all (sane) members of this board: drop the subject and ignore Eunuch.

If Eunuch is serious about his stated beliefs, then the tone and content of his messages thus far indicate that he has long since made up his mind, and nothing short of a lobotomy will cause him to change his mind.

As for anyone on the fence about the subject, I have to ask you this: just how likely is it that there would be a conspiracy of THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of doctors, worldwide, who all say HIV/AIDS is real, dangerous, and transmittable, when in fact it is not?

There are lots of other conspiracies with considerably greater merit (like Elvis still being alive-- long live the KING!!!).

Let's let this discussion go, folks...

Malachy,

Just because "THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS" of parrots say something... DOESN'T MAKE IT REAL. Does it? Doctors just read reports and go with the flow. Don't they? So lets not talk about doctors.

Wouldn't it be better to look at the hundreds and hundreds of research scientists and who thinks what ?

MY ONLY INTENTION HAS BEEN TO SHARE A WHOLE LOT OF MOSTLY SUPPRESSED INFORMATION FOR THOSE WHO MAY NOT HAVE SEEN IT BEFORE. People need to make up there own mind on this. As I said before, the sum of everything on the two sites mentioned speaks for itself. Whether someone interprets it as garbage or accepts it as good food for thought is none of my business.

Eunuch

Here is a quote from the honorable Malachy, March 16, 2001:

"...I'd also like to remind my fellow readers of this fine message board: don't take anything for granted. That includes your life style, relatives, friends, health, and KNOWLEDGE. All of us care (sic) with us some false ideas about the world we live in, and we never bother to determine the validity of those ideas. As someone once said, 'Assumption is the mother of all FUCK-UPS'."

Hey Malachy, WTF?

Eunuch

Regarding the three tests currently in use , here is the tail end of an article concerning them:

The manufacturers of these tests know that their tests are of questionable accuracy, although it is doubtful that they realize just how questionable the accuracy really is. They reveal this knowledge through the following disclaimers that they include with their test kits:

1) Abbott Laboratories puts the following statement in their ELISA test kit: "ELISA testing alone cannot be used to diagnose AIDS." (Abbott 1997) This warning is not surprising, since current practice, at least in the United States, suggests that the Western blot test is the true way to assess infection.

2) Epitope, the maker for one of the Western Blot kits warns in their package insert: "Do not use this kit as the sole basis for HIV infection." (Epitope 1997). This is somewhat more concerning, since the Western blot is supposed to be a highly accurate test, used to confirm that the ELISA is not a false positive.

3) Roche, the maker of a popular "viral load" test kit which they call "Amplicor", state: "The amplicor HIV-1 monitor test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV, nor as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection." (Roche 1996). This is also not surprising, since viral load is not normally used to diagnose HIV infection.

So, here we have it. All the test makers deny that their test is accurate to diagnose HIV infection when used "alone". Combining three inaccurate tests will create yet another inaccurate test, especially given the evidence cited (*)above showing how severe the accuracy problems are. I continue to be amazed that these tests are relied upon daily to make life or death decisions, and I would propose that simple but thorough experiments be carried out by an independent and unbiased body of researchers composed of some conventional and some dissenters. In the meantime, I could not in good conscience recommend that anyone take one of these tests. (End)

(*)The entire article, which you may find interesting, is on this page under "Testing Questions On HIV Tests":
http://www.aidsmag.com

(Many will likely find it too long, technical and boring and surely some will find it hilarious.)

Eunuch

How many of the dissident element, who know the truth that HIV is harmless, have injected themselves with the virus to prove it doesn't cause illness?

If a significant sample size would do that and none showed any signs of illness or abnormal immune function after several years, I would be convinced.

Would you like to sign up for this study, Eunuch?

Shy Guy,

I don't really care what anybody thinks, so I probably would not participate unless my time was acceptably compensated for. I have not stated that I know the truth, as in the whole truth. But there are truths. One truth is that "HIV" has NEVER been isolated within "acceptable" science. This is the base of the whole problem. If you change science though, you can relief your frustrations and get what you want.

How can we do your study in a traditionally acceptable scientific manner if we cannot even isolate the HIV to do it?

Regarding the photos that have been said to be of HIV, I offer the words of Dr. Harven for some consideration at least:

Dr. Ettiene de Harven is said to be the first scientist to isolate and produce an electron micrograph (photo) of a retrovirus and is Emeritus Professor of Pathology at the University of Toronto.

He isolated the first retrovirus while a researcher at the prestigious Sloan Kettering Cancer Institute in New York.

"It is true that what is called HIV has never been properly isolated. It is also true that the word 'isolation' is currently being abused and used in various new ways. In AIDS research, when people speak about 'isolation' they refer to many different things, and several different methodologies, none of them being scientifically acceptable."

"When somebody claims to have 'isolated' the alleged entity HIV, he/she has said nothing of scientific relevance, unless the methodology used to support that claim is precisely outlined. As part of his methodologies, Dr. Lawrence mentions 'photographs' and the use of 'gold staining' in support of alleged claims of isolation."

"This deserves more questioning:

"1)Photographs: Since virus particles can be seen only with the electron microscope, I presume his 'photographs' are actually electron micrographs. And if these originated directly from the plasma of patients, they would represent an important new observation which, I am sure, deserves speedy publication in the scientific literature. I have not seen any publication of this breakthrough, and would appreciate the full references of such publication as soon as possible."

"2) Gold staining: Here again, we need to be more specific. Do we speak about antibodies conjugated with colloidal gold, as I presume? If this is the case, this is an area in which I have great expertise since I was one of the original developers of the technology consisting of using gold conjugated antibodies for the specific localization of cell surface antigens by scanning electron microscopy in the late 1970s, early 1980s. There are about 25 publications on this topic."

"It is an extremely powerful method, but obviously, its significance depends entirely on the specificity of the antibody used. Unfortunately, HIV proteins, enzymes or nucleic acid could never have been scientifically demonstrated as 'HIV markers' simply because HIV has never been purified, as recognized by Prof. Luc Montagnier himself, co-discoverer of HIV, purification meaning rigorous separation from cell debris of non-viral origin. If total uncertainty prevails on what are called HIV proteins, the same level of uncertainty prevails on the corresponding antibodies. And having no HIV specific antibody, conjugation of such non specific antibodies with colloidal gold particles can likely give pretty pictures, even under the optical microscope."

"Unfortunately, these pictures are totally devoid of any scientific significance."

Shy Guy, the first thing we need is real, live HIV. Not assumptions.

In one article above, a doctor working at Cornell University Hospital decided to rerun previously negative blood samples back through the ELISA test without diluting them at the required 400:1. He says he eventually ran about 100 samples, including his own, and every single one came up positive at 1:1.

So what does that mean? I think it SUGGESTS that there are some problems. And perhaps people suffer needlessly.

Over half of the available scientific based information is not available in the mainstream media. The information disseminated to the masses is about as unbalanced as it gets...

There are plenty of respected men of science who question HIV, and some of them are then suddenly no longer respected.

There must be a chapter in "The Human Condition" that explains that.

Eunuch

I am pretty sure today is national aids awareness day or something like that. This thread is over 3 yrs old, but today I listened to Christine Maggiore on a radio program. Her website is aliveandwell.org. I haven't read too much of the website, but they seem to maintain that the cure could be as dangerous as the symptom. I have learned that AZT is kind of like of chemotherapy for cancer patients, a treatment that kills cells. And not knowing much about that, it is alarming to me.

Well the " symptom " kills you, so the treatment couldn't be much worse.

I'm looking for Aids test kit with instant results.

I thought that was the topic. No such test is available??? Anyone knows how and where to get it?

Wasn't it you who posted the URL for miratest a while back ?? That's about as instant as it gets.

There is no instant test that uses the PCR technique to detect the virus ,not antibody. That would be the ultimate home test. I could throw away my condoms.

Here is a link to a portable home HIV antibody
test:

http://www.usabiomed.com/homepage.htm

(They have tests for HepB, drugs and pregnancy, as well, so you can find out all kinds of important information about your chica.)

This is an ELISA test for antibodies to HIV. This is the "ruling in" part of a standard HIV
test anywhere in the world. However, it does have a false-positive rate of ~2%, maybe even more for this kit. So, if you (or she) is positive, go get the real test. This includes a confirmatory Western blot with no false positives.

This test result will not be positive for the first few weeks after someone is infected. Most HIV+ patients will develop enough antibodies to turn the test positive around 3 weeks after contracting HIV. There have, however, been cases of people who did not develop antibodies for up to 6 months.
The tests for HIV RNA, which are sensitive enough to detect virus during most of this window period (but still not the first 7-10 days after infection) are not available in a kit. (This test requires a thermocycler, which I'm assuming most of you don't pack on trips to Rio.) You could find this test in a lab at an HIV clinic, if you really wanted to. Since it is not normally used to test for new infections, you might have to tell them that you (or "your friend") was HIV+ and wanted to check a viral load. This test is used for screening in the porn industry.

A couple of related points:

1) If you really think that you got HIV last night, you should seriously consider a post-exposure treatment. For this to have a good chance of preventing infection, you would need to start within 72 hours of exposure. The sooner the better, however; if it were me, I wouldn't wait 24 hours. Although many doctors would counsel you to take a full course of 3, 4 or 5 drugs for this purpose, there is substantial evidence suggesting that a single, well-tolerated drug would have a significant chance of preventing infection.

The above applies doubly if you really think that you are going to be exposed to HIV tonight. Hopefully you would take other measures to prevent this, but, if not, consider the ounce of prevention.

2) You could take a HepB test with you, as well. However, if you have been properly vaccinated against HepB, then you might not much care. I strongly recommend that any monger who has not had the HepB vaccine get it. The virus is transmitted *much* more easily than HIV, and there are better ways to die than liver cancer.