Since it has been so long since I actually posted anything of merit, here is a quick update. The “documentary” House of Numbers has been released, it is now available for purchase on DVD or on demand. I know everyone is really excited about that news. I actually lucked out and was able to watch it without having to pay for it (there was no way I was actually going to give them a cent). I was wondering if I would have the chance to see it since I caused such a stir on their Facebook page a few months ago. I was planning on opening up our revamped blog with a review of the movie, but I came across this note from the House of Numbers blog that has bothered me a lot more than the movie.
For anyone keeping score at home HIV dissidents belong to many schools of thought ranging from the virus does not exist, the virus may exist but has not been isolated, the virus exists but does not cause AIDS and the House of Numbers opinion that the testing is flawed. Now, none of these arguments rest on scientific fact, however this note is noteworthy for its blatant disregard for facts (presented in the original article that they actually linked at the bottom) and its lack of scientific comprehension. What really bothers me is that someone actually took the time to twist the facts and make HIV vaccine work sound like a major conspiracy. I suppose HIV vaccine trials must account for the 30+ million people that are estimated to be infected.
Here is a sample of the first few paragraphs, I encourage you to read more.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
(NaturalNews) It may come as a big surprise to most people, but HIV tests given to people today don't actually test for the presence of the HIV virus. Rather, they test for the presence of HIV antibodies that the immune system creates to defend itself against HIV. And just because you have HIV antibodies doesn't mean you actually carry HIV. In some circumstances, up to 50 percent of HIV positives are false, causing havoc with the lives of those patients who are falsely accused of being "HIV positive."
This startling fact was revealed in a recent study that's being published in the July 21 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. It shows that patients who are recruited for HIV vaccine trials often end up testing positive for HIV even though they were only exposed to the vaccine, not the virus.
"Almost half of HIV-negative people who participate in clinical trials for HIV vaccines end up testing positive on routine HIV tests -- even though they're not actually infected" reports US News & World Report.
Some vaccines caused a false positive rate of over 86 percent.
I will give your brains a moment of recovery…how about now?,. Oh a couple more seconds? I understand…. Lets now look at the first couple paragraphs from the original source which is a recap of a scientific article, I am glad people feel safe getting their health information form third hand sources like House of Numbers. I am sure that means everyone feels comfortable buying underwear from thrift stores too. Any way here is the original article’s intro….
SUNDAY, July 18 (HealthDay News) -- Almost half of HIV-negative people who participate in clinical trials for HIV vaccines end up testing positive on routine HIV tests -- even though they're not actually infected, a new study shows.
The reason: They underwent what experts call "vaccine-induced seropositivity/reactivity" (VISP), meaning that they possess immune system antibodies to the virus but not the virus itself. That's an important distinction, since routine HIV screening looks for virus antibodies only.
Experts pointed out that the results are not new or surprising, but simply underline the delicacies of conducting trials into HIV/AIDS.
"You need to make sure to use other forms of testing for HIV, for example, viral load or p24 antigen, not just HIV antibodies. And people who've been in trials need to know their antibody status by the end of the trial," said Dr. Michael Horberg, director of HIV/AIDS at Kaiser Permanente in Santa Clara, Calif. "If it is a false positive but they do not have HIV infection, that would be very important for them to know, especially if they do repeat testing as part of good preventive health.
Hopefully you recognized two totally different points of view. The (non)issue at hand here is that people who participate in HIV vaccine trials may test positive for the presence of antibodies that specifically recognize HIV. This is a fact that no one is trying to cover up. Many vaccines have been developed to illicit an antibody response. The hope is that if the right type of antibodies are made, a person would be relatively resistant to HIV infection. From the scientist’s point of view having people develop such responses is a very good thing. This is EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO, IT IS NOT SOME CONSPERIENCY IT SAYS SO IN THEIR PAPERS AND GRANTS AND TALKS! In fact this process is measured in a way that nearly identical to the antibody based HIV test. Again, this is in their methods sections, it is not hidden. For whatever reasons the House of Numbers crew thinks this is evidence that the testing is flawed. If anything, this observation supports the idea that HIV is in fact a real virus. We can take viral proteins, proteins that are identical to those in infected individuals, inject them into healthy subjects and get an antibody response. However these people do not develop AIDS. People normally do not develop auto reactive antibodies (antibodies that attack oneself), so this in some ways rules out arguments that AIDS is caused by some internal factor. Importantly, the fact that a test subject may test positive is disclosed up front at the enrollment step and measures are in place to show this person participated in a vaccine trial. I really cannot understand what the House of Numbers people are doing with this post. Honestly, this may quite possibly be the worst argument against HIV and HIV testing that I have ever read.
To put this in perspective anyone who has received the BCG tuberculosis vaccine can relate to what is going on here. Although receiving this vaccine is rare in the USA, it is standard in many parts of the world. If you take a "normal TB test” in the USA after receiving the BCG vaccine you will test positive. I have seen this happen with European friends. Does this mean that the testing is flawed? No! Every test has its limitations and those are disclosed. Are there plans in place for this very scenario? Yes! Sound familiar? In this case a simple chest X-ray can show the lack of lung damage that is a hallmark of TB infection. Along similar lines, a viral load test or antigen HIV test can rule out the possibility that an HIV vaccine trial subject has the virus. What do you think they use in clinical trials when they look at how well a vaccine protects an individual? Again these tests are outlined in the methods section of numerous papers. Maybe the House of Numbers of people missed that concept along with many other facts.
I think this note proves a point. House of Numbers and related entities do not care about facts…at all. This is one of the weakest, nonsensical arguments that has ever been written. Either the author has no concept of basic science or they choose to ignore/distort basic facts. These facts go well beyond the bounds of the “HIV industry,” they are fundamental concepts that have been in place before the first HIV patient was ever diagnosed. This also shows how utterly desperate AIDS dissidents have become to try to advance their points of view. Regardless, this note only panders to people’s insecurities and fears in an attempt to advance an agenda of AIDS denialsim and not the open mindedness they claim.