| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Completed Research
Forum: FightAIDS@Home
Thread: Anyone want to clarify? |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 18
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
It has just come to my attention that some people do not
consider the retrovirus HIV as the cause of AIDS. They offer compelling arguments why this is so. I don't care about who "wins" this argument. I do care about finding out the facts. So far I have found out that many of the facts these people gives checks out. One example, the fact that the HIV test does not test for the virus, but for antibodies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_blot It is claimed that this makes the test unreliable. (If you want more claims go to Google) As of now I am so uncertain as of the validity of HIV research that I have ended my participation in that project. However WCG have plenty of other projects that merit helping out so I am not leaving. Anybody have opinions or facts about the real nature of HIV? |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
You say "It is claimed that this makes the test unreliable." But you don't provide any details of such claims, nor does the wiki page even mention such controversy.
----------------------------------------Sorry, chris_no - this is just a conspiracy theory. Pay it no heed. edit: while a lot of it is conspiracy theory, there is also simple fraud. Please be very careful, people. Also, here is quackwatch presenting the evidence that HIV does, in fact, cause AIDS. http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/hiv-aids.html [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Nov 1, 2007 11:10:32 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Here is a quotation from quackwatch answering your specific question:
MYTH: HIV antibody testing is unreliable. FACT: Diagnosis of infection using antibody testing is one of the best-established concepts in medicine. HIV antibody tests exceed the performance of most other infectious disease tests in both sensitivity (the ability of the screening test to give a positive finding when the person tested truly has the disease ) and specificity (the ability of the test to give a negative finding when the subjects tested are free of the disease under study). Current HIV antibody tests have sensitivity and specificity in excess of 98% and are therefore extremely reliable (WHO, 1998; Sloand et al. JAMA 1991;266:2861). Progress in testing methodology has also enabled detection of viral genetic material, antigens and the virus itself in body fluids and cells. While not widely used for routine testing due to high cost and requirements in laboratory equipment, these direct testing techniques have confirmed the validity of the antibody tests (Jackson et al. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:16; Busch et al. NEJM 1991;325:1; Silvester et al. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1995;8:411; Urassa et al. J Clin Virol 1999;14:25; Nkengasong et al. AIDS 1999;13:109; Samdal et al. Clin Diagn Virol 1996;7:55. |
||
|
|
twilyth
Master Cruncher US Joined: Mar 30, 2007 Post Count: 2130 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
If you want a definitive test for HIV, it exists - PCR - Polymerase Chain Reaction. This tests directly for the viral RNA. Specifically, it looks for 4 codons specific to HIV. It will detect the virus even at extremely low levels and long before there are sufficient antibodies to show up on an ELISA test.
----------------------------------------I had the test done in 1990. PCR was still fairly new and there were only one or 2 labs in the country that were capable of doing it. At the time I was taking a nutritional supplement of yeast RNA/DNA. When the results came back they were inconclusive - there was a match for one of the 4 codons. So the lab offered to retest me for free. I stopped taking the supplement and the next test came back negative on all 4 codons. My girlfriend at the time nearly sh*t a brick, but that's a whole 'nother story. The point is, that's how sensitive the test is. The RNA sequence had to survive my intestinal tract and be absorbed into my blood unaltered. Whatever tiny fraction managed to do this was still picked up by the test. That's pretty amazing. Especially when you consider that the enzyme never would have been discovered had it not been for research on thermophilic archaea.   |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Yes I did not link to any specific claims on purpose Didactylos.
I wanted to first hear what people had to say about the test result thing. I am aware that these people have a very controversial stance. Thanks for the info on the PCR test twilyth. It helps to get all the facts on the table. Quackwatch does not tell me why antibody testing is the best-established concept in medicine. I have gotten the impression that these antibodies can be triggered by a number of different diseases. And therefore make the HIV test false very often. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
You have it backwards. The HIV antibody test is very accurate. Not perfect (nothing is), but very, very accurate. They range from 95% to 100%, clustering at the top end of the range.
What can be triggered by a number of diseases are the symptoms of AIDS. The "clinical signs associated with immune deficiency" are used for diagnosis in the Third World, when the HIV antibody test is unavailable. Here's a reference for available HIV tests: http://www.who.int/entity/diagnostics_laborat...ons/hiv_assays_rep_14.pdf |
||
|
|
twilyth
Master Cruncher US Joined: Mar 30, 2007 Post Count: 2130 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
You have it backwards. The HIV antibody test is very accurate. Not perfect (nothing is), but very, very accurate. They range from 95% to 100%, clustering at the top end of the range. What can be triggered by a number of diseases are the symptoms of AIDS. The "clinical signs associated with immune deficiency" are used for diagnosis in the Third World, when the HIV antibody test is unavailable. Here's a reference for available HIV tests: http://www.who.int/entity/diagnostics_laborat...ons/hiv_assays_rep_14.pdf From what I recall, ELISA by itself is prone to false positives, however the combination of ELISA with Western blot is very accurate. Here's a quote from Medline HIV ELISA/Western blot is a set of blood tests used in the diagnosis of chronic infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The HIV ELISA is a screening test for the diagnosis of HIV infection. If this test is positive, it must be confirmed with a second test called the Western blot, which is more specific and will confirm if someone is truly HIV positive (there are other conditions that may inaccurately produce a positive ELISA test result, including lupus, Lyme disease, and syphilis). Medline summary of HIV ELISA/Western blot test |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
Possibly this is a cost driven approach which will be perfectly acceptable to most. The ELISA giving the false positives acting (as said) as screen test, but if positive, confirm with the highly reliable Western Blot. What should one expect with e.g. a pre-phlebotomy free test. It knocks out donors carrying other ailments in one go.
----------------------------------------
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
So lets get this straight.
----------------------------------------There are three primary ways to check. ELISA (Cheap but prone to error) Western Blot (Expensive, but more reliable) PCR (More expensive??? More reliable???) Thanks for the document Didactylos it was helpful. Why do they look for antibodies instead of the virus itself? Or is that what the PCR does? To me it makes much more sense to look for the bad guy than count the cops. Cause if you have a picture of HIV in your blood there is no uncertainty. *Ah read a little more in the doc I got and there are actually tests for this. To bad they are expensive and not available to the public. [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Nov 2, 2007 5:43:47 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
After reading a ton of stuff (from both camps)
trying to get my head around this, I stumbled onto this by doing an antibodies+hiv search on Google. http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/vttests.htm This person argues rather specific against the tests we have discussed here. Basically he says that they are not reliable. Further he points out that HIV has NOT been isolated. Is this really true? Cause it would kinda be a bummer for the whole HIV thing. |
||
|
|
|