Discussion:
The TRUTH about what what happened at the ICC
(too old to reply)
PaulKing
2005-05-30 00:15:46 UTC
Permalink
he House That AIDS Built

Liam Scheff

This article deals with pharmaceutical abuse
in a children’s home in NYC. This is a most controversial story –
l, however, it’s entirely based in fact and good reporting. I hope you’ll
find it as compelling and shocking as I did investigating it.

This piece was investigated
and written in summer / winter 2003 and published in January 2004.

Liam Scheff. E-mail : ***@yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction:

In New York’s Washington Heights is a 4-story brick building called
Incarnation Children’s Center (ICC). This former convent houses
a revolving stable of children who’ve been removed from their own homes
by the Agency for Child Services. These children are black, Hispanic and
poor.

Many of their mothers had a history of drug abuse and have died. Once
taken
into ICC, the children become subjects of drug trials sponsored by NIAID
(National
Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease, a division of the NIH),
NICHD (the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development) in
conjunction
with some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies –
GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Genentech, Chiron/Biocine and others.

The drugs being given to the children are toxic – they’re known to cause
genetic mutation, organ failure, bone marrow death, bodily
deformations, brain damage and fatal skin disorders. If the children
refuse the drugs,
they’re held down and have them force fed. If the children continue to
resist, they’re
taken to Columbia Presbyterian hospital where a surgeon puts a plastic
tube through their abdominal wall into their stomachs. From then on, the
drugs
are injected directly into their intestines.

In 2003, two children, ages 6 and 12, had debilitating strokes due to drug
toxicities. The 6-year-old went blind. They both died shortly
after.  Another 14-year old died recently. An 8-year-old boy had two
plastic surgeries
to remove large, fatty, drug-induced lumps from his neck.

This isn’t science fiction. This is AIDS research. The children at ICC
were born to mothers who tested HIV positive, or who
themselves tested positive. However, neither parents nor children were
told a
crucial fact -- HIV tests are extremely inaccurate.(1,2)  The HIV test
cross-reacts
with nearly seventy commonly-occurring conditions, giving false positive
results.

These conditions include common colds, herpes, hepatitis, tuberculosis,
drug
abuse, inoculations and most troublingly, current and prior
pregnancy.(3,4,5)
This is a double inaccuracy, because the factors that cause false
positives
in pregnant mothers can be passed to their children – who are given the
same false diagnosis.

Most of us have never heard this before. It’s undoubtedly
the biggest secret in medicine. However, it’s well known among HIV
researchers
that HIV tests are extremely inaccurate – but the researchers don’t
tell the doctors, and they certainly don’t tell the children at ICC, who
serve as test animals for the next generation of AIDS drugs. ICC is run
by
Columbia
University’s Presbyterian Hospital in affiliation with Catholic Home
Charities
through the Archdiocese of New York.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sean and Dana Newberg are two children from ICC. Their mother
used drugs and was unable to care for them properly, so they were raised
in
foster care, until their great-aunt Mona adopted them. Mona Newberg is a
teacher
in the New York Public Schools, and has her Master’s degree in Education.

She adopted the children when Sean was three and Dana was six. She was
already
raising their older brother, who was never given an HIV test or AIDS
drugs.
He’s now grown, healthy and serving in the Navy.

Their mother used heroin and crack cocaine since she was
a teenager. She was given an HIV test in the late 80s and tested
positive.
“She
had three children before Sean and Dana,” said Mona. “Nobody told
us that the test cross-reacted with drug abuse, let alone pregnancy. It’s

not a valid test.”

Because of the test result, the doctors at Columbia Presbyterian
put Sean on AZT monotherapy when he was 5 months old. Use of AZT
monotherapy
is now considered malpractice because it can cause debilitating, fatal
illness
including fatal anemia.

Dana spent her first four years at Hale House, a NY orphanage
for children whose parents abused drugs. Hale house was participating in
an
AZT drug trial when Dana was there. “We can’t get the records from
Hale House, so I don’t know what happened there,” Mona said. “I
never gave Dana the drugs after I got her, but I know she arrived with a
filled
prescription for AZT.”

Sean has been on life support twice as a result of the AIDS
drug Nevirapine. Dana was put on AIDS drugs in 2002, even though she
wasn’t
sick. Since being put on the drugs, Dana has developed cancer.

Both children have been taken into ICC and kept there against
their will and against Mona’s wishes for one reason – Mona has questioned

the safety of the AIDS drugs AZT, Nevirapine and Kaletra and stopped
giving
the drugs when they made the children ill. In the summer and fall of
2003,
I
visited Mona, Sean, Dana and ICC. I spoke with Mona about her experience
and
her decision. (The names of Sean, Mona and Dana are aliases which they
requested
to protect their identities, but their stories are accurate and
unaltered).

Liam Scheff: What led you to question the safety of the
drugs?
Mona: When I first got Sean at three years old, he was a vegetable.
He’d never eaten solid food. He had a feeding tube that went through his
nose into his stomach. AIDS medications change the taste buds. AZT,
especially,
makes it so kids can’t stand the taste of food and won’t eat. The
nurses fed Sean AZT, Bactrim and six cans of Pediasure a day through this
tube,
which stayed in his stomach for over two years. Nobody ever bothered to
change
it.

When I got Sean, I continued to give him the drugs as prescribed
for about 5 months. But after each spoonful, he got weaker. I thought,
wait
a minute – this stuff is supposed to be making him better, why is he
getting
worse?

Sean had night sweats and fevers 24 hours a day. He had no
energy. He couldn’t play. He couldn’t get up for ten minutes without
lying down. Nurses came regularly to give him blood infusions to manage
the
AZT anemia. After the infusions, he’d be nearly comatose for two days.
He was like a limp doll.

Every time I gave Sean the drugs, he got weaker and sicker.
I didn’t know what to do but I didn’t want him to die. So I stopped
everything that appeared to be killing him. I stopped the AZT. I stopped
the
Bactrim. I stopped the nurse from coming to give the infusions.

It wasn’t immediate, but Sean started to improve. His
fevers subsided. He could eat. He gained weight. Within a couple months,
he
was actually running and playing with the other children. Sean was born
with
a chronic lung condition because of his mother’s drug use, but even his
lungs improved. I couldn’t believe it. When Sean was born, the doctors
told his mother that he was going to die. They told her to buy a coffin
for
him. He barely survived. When I took him off the drugs, he was healthy
for
the
first time in his life.

I was so happy, I told everyone - including the doctors and
nurses - what had happened. I didn’t know not to. When the hospital found

out I wasn’t giving him the drugs, they contacted Agency for Child
Services
(ACS). An ACS worker came to my door, and told me I had to register the
kids
with an infectious disease doctor – Dr. Howard at Beth Israel. I was
taking
Sean and Dana to a Naturopathic MD, and they were both healthy and
strong.
I
told them that we had a doctor. They said, “Too bad, you have to see Dr.
Howard now.”

Howard was terrible for the children. He ignored the only thing
that actually bothered Sean – his lung condition, and insisted that he
go on a new drug for HIV. He said, “There’s a new miracle drug.
It just came on the market. I guarantee if you give it to Sean, you’ll
watch the miracle happen”.

LS: What was the miracle drug?
Mona: Nevirapine. Howard put Sean on Nevirapine. Sean’s health
immediately deteriorated. He got sicker, his lungs congested, he lost
weight,
his cheekbones sunk, his liver and spleen started to go. Six months after
he
went on Nevirapine, he had complete organ failure. He was on life support
for
two weeks at Beth Israel Hospital. Then I did some research on
Nevirapine,
and
found out that it caused organ failure and death. When Sean finally got
out
of the hospital, Howard discharged him on hospice care. Six months
earlier,
he was healthy. Now they were telling me to prepare for his death.

Once I got him home, I stopped giving Sean the Nevirapine,
and he was able to eat again. He started to gain some weight back. Sean
was
so weak after being on life support, with all those tubes in him. He’d
gotten so thin. But he finally started to recover. When I took Sean to
Dr.
Howard,
he was always surprised to see that Sean was improving. Howard would ask
me,
“Are you sure you’re giving him the medication, Mrs. Newberg?”

LS: In times of improvement, he suspected that you weren’t
giving Sean the Nevirapine?
Mona: Right. He only worried when Sean wasn’t sick! AIDS doctors
always think there’s something wrong if you’re not dying.

After that Howard started keeping Sean in the hospital for
longer periods of time for the lung problems we used to treat at home.
Howard
kept Sean for 25 days and fed Sean the Nevirapine himself. Sean ended up
back
in intensive care with organ failure. He was placed on life support for
two
weeks. He got a hospital staph infection because Howard wouldn’t let him
leave. He was eight years old, and just wanted to come home.

A month later, the hospital finally discharged him. Then ACS
called me for a meeting. The ACS worker told me I should put Sean into
Incarnation
Children’s Center until he was stronger. They told me that ICC was this
wonderful place. They said in four months he’d be strong enough to come
back home. ICC took Sean off the Nevirapine and put him on Viracept,
Epivir,
Zerit and Bactrim. Sean improved off the Nevirapine, but the new drugs
definitely
made him sick – just not as badly. He had trouble walking, and his arms
and legs got even thinner.

I visited Sean at ICC for five months. Then, when I wanted
to bring him home, they said, “We don’t recommend that Sean leave
here. You have a reputation for not giving meds.”

LS: ICC refused to let Sean come home?
Mona: Right. They kept him for a year and a half. I had to get a lawyer
to get him out.

LS: What was it like for Sean at ICC?
Mona: There were children in wheelchairs, on crutches, with deformations.

There were AZT babies. Their heads have a different shape, with the eyes
spaced
wide and sunken in. The drugs cause severe developmental problems. Many
children
have misshapen, weak limbs and distended bellies. Many are learning
disabled.
The kids at ICC are constantly medicated with all kinds of drugs. When
children
refuse the drugs the nurses hold them down and force feed them. Sean
wanted
to get the hell out of there.

During my visits I noticed that many children at ICC were walking
around with tubes hanging from their undershirts, and I wondered what
they
were.
Then one day, I saw the nurse come in with a whole tray of medications
and
syringes,
and I watched her inject this medication into the tubes coming out of
their
stomachs. I couldn’t believe it. I thought, my god, what’s going
on here?

Every child who had a stomach tube took their medication that
way, from the three-year-olds to the teenagers. It horrified me. I
couldn’t
understand it. When I found out what was being done, I thought, surely
this
must be illegal. There’s no way they could be doing this legally.

I expressed my concerns to Sean’s ACS case worker. I
said, “Do you know what they’re doing to those kids in there? This
reminds me of Nazi Germany.” He said, “They’re doing wonderful
things for these children.” I called Albany, the state capital, and
talked

to Dan Tietz at the New York State Department of Health’s AIDS Institute.

He said, “What are we going to do if these little children refuse to take

the medication? How are we going to save their lives if we don’t perform
this operation?”

LS: Who performs this operation?
Mona: The children are sent to Columbia-Presbyterian for the operation.
The surgeons there do it.

I was at ICC one day, and saw a fourteen-year old boy named
Daniel refusing the pills. I actually saw him run from the nurse when she
came
to give him his medication. He said, “The medication makes me sick and
I don’t want to take it.” His aunt was there, and she said, “The
medication makes him very ill.”

The ACS case worker, Wendy Wack, came in, and said to the aunt
very clearly, “Daniel has refused to take his medication. We’ve
changed it three times and he’s still refusing. Now, the only thing left
is the operation.” She said, “If you refuse the operation, we’ll
call Agency for Child Welfare – and take Daniel away from you.”
His aunt signed, and they took Daniel away. When he came back a few weeks
later,
he had a tube in his stomach.

LS: Does Sean have the tube?
Mona: No. He doesn’t want that tube in his stomach. He’s been
there long enough to know you get the tube if you say no to the
medication.
He’s terrified, so he never refuses the drugs.

The children at ICC who don’t have the tubes tend to
be a whole lot healthier and live a whole lot longer than the ones with
the
tubes.

I was talking to a boy named Amir. He’s 6. His stomach
was so swollen. He said, “My stomach is swollen, it got big.” He
said, ”They cut me,” and he showed a little cut on his side. He’s
had a tube for a long time. Amir was an AZT baby. His face has that wider
shape.
He also has lypodystrophy from the drugs. He has huge fat lumps on his
back
and neck. They’ve taken him away for surgery twice but the lumps grow
back.

Sean’s little friend Jesus just died. He was 12. He had
a tube. He had a stroke from the drugs. There was a little girl, Mia. She
had
a tube. She had a stroke and went blind. She died recently too. Carrie, a
14-year-old
girl died last year. She had a tube. There’s a three-year-old, Patricia.
She’s had a tube since she arrived. She’s going home with it in
her. I don’t think she’s going to make it.

I used to talk with the child care workers about the drugs.
I got to know all of them and they were all very friendly with me. I
said,
“These
drugs are killing the children.” They said, “We know.”

LS: They agreed with you?
Mona: Yes, but what can they do, they just take care of the kids. The
doctors
and nurses give the medication. Telling the doctors that the drugs make
you
sick doesn’t do anything. They just stare at you blankly. They don’t
care. Compliance is the main goal of ICC. All the kids in ICC come from
families
who’ve failed to comply with the drug regimen.

LS: ICC is part of a national program running AIDS drug
trials. Have you ever signed a waiver permitting them to use your
children
in
a drug trial?
Mona: No, never. But ACS has signed for me when I didn’t want to give
Sean drugs. When I said, “No,” the ACS case worker grabbed the form
and said, “I’ll sign it. You don’t need to.” They’re
always switching medications – they never ask me if it’s okay.

Right now, most of the kids at ICC are on Kaletra. Kaletra
was on fast-track approval. It was released before testing was complete.
But
they do know something about Kaletra. It causes cancer. It says on the
label,
that this drug causes cancer in test animals.

I fought for a year to get Sean home. ICC wanted to put him
in a foster home where someone would be paid to feed him the drugs every
day.
I got a lawyer and we finally got Sean out of there. My lawyer was able
to
get
Sean’s ICC medical records. He told me, “Sean was tortured at
Incarnation.

He was tortured.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GMCarter
2005-05-30 11:20:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 May 2005 20:15:46 -0400, "PaulKing"
Post by PaulKing
he House That AIDS Built
Liam Scheff
Unreliable source! LOL. This guy is almost a big an idiot as Gina
Kolata.
PaulKing
2005-05-30 20:42:42 UTC
Permalink
This source was the one that brought the story to the New York Post,
British Broadcasting Corporation and the many others and resulted in an
official investigation.

To excuse child torture and murder is so shocking I cannot even you could
take such a position.

You are a criminal and a really disgusting example of mankind.

PURE HUMAN FILTH - CHILD KILLER
GMCarter
2005-05-30 23:24:16 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 May 2005 16:42:42 -0400, "PaulKing"
<***@aimultimedia.com> wrote:

snip...
Post by PaulKing
You are a criminal and a really disgusting example of mankind.
LOL. You really are a wreck, ain't ya?
PaulKing
2005-05-31 23:36:40 UTC
Permalink
No. You are a child killer or at least one who supports them.
David Canzi -- non-mailable
2005-05-31 01:07:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaulKing
To excuse child torture and murder is so shocking I cannot even you could
take such a position.
You are a criminal and a really disgusting example of mankind.
PURE HUMAN FILTH - CHILD KILLER
There was a time when, if somebody was accused of being a witch,
anybody who doubted or questioned the accusation would also be accused
of being a witch. Fortunately those days are behind us... I think.

(Aside to George: I advise you to fill your pockets with rocks so
you'll be sure to weigh more than a duck.)
--
David Canzi
PaulKing
2005-06-01 11:04:08 UTC
Permalink
"Fortunately those days are behind us... I think."

Actually we now have worthless tests for a myth called 'AIDS' instead of
worthless tests for a myth called demon possession.

Possession is now called infection but the insanity is much the same.

Call it 'HIV' or the Devil it has the same puritan roots and the same
blind hysteria driven emotional appeal.
David Canzi -- non-mailable
2005-06-01 21:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaulKing
Actually we now have worthless tests for a myth called 'AIDS' instead of
worthless tests for a myth called demon possession.
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

http://groups.google.ca/group/misc.health.aids/msg/a4bb117ba5177f34?dmode=source
(I have reason to believe you would trust the person who posted that.)
--
David Canzi
PaulKing
2005-06-02 01:40:35 UTC
Permalink
NONSENSE

Unreliable Tests

A September 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article considered the "beauty"
of testing. It told the story of 59 year-old veteran Jim Malone, who'd
been told in 1996 that he was HIV positive. His health was diagnosed as
"very poor." He was classified as "permanently disabled and unable to work
or participate in any stressful situation whatsoever."

In 2004, his doctor sent him a note to tell him he was actually negative.
He had tested positive at one hospital, and negative at another.

Nobody asked why the second test was more accurate than the first (this
was the protocol at the Veteran's Hospital). Having been falsely diagnosed
and spending nearly a decade waiting, expecting to die, Malone said, "I
would tell people to get not just one HIV test, but multiple tests. I
would say test, test and retest."

In the article, AIDS experts assured the public that the story was
"extraordinarily rare." But the medical literature differs significantly.

The Numbers

In 1985, at the beginning of HIV testing, it was known that "68% to 89% of
all repeatedly reactive ELISA (HIV antibody) tests [were] likely to
represent false positive results." (New England Journal of Medicine.
1985).

In 1992, the Lancet reported ("HIV Screening in Russia") that for 66 true
positives, there were 30,000 false positives. And in pregnant women,
"there were 8,000 false positives for 6 confirmations."

In September 2000, the Archives of Family Medicine stated that the more
women we test, the greater "the proportion of false-positive and ambiguous
(indeterminate) test results."

The tests described above are standard HIV tests, the kind promoted in the
ads. Their technical name is ELISA or EIA (Enzyme-linked Immuno-sorbant
Assay). They are antibody tests. The tests contain proteins that react
with antibodies in your blood.

False Positives

In the U.S., you're tested with an ELISA first. If your blood reacts,
you'll be tested again, with another ELISA. Why is the second more
accurate than the first? That's just the protocol. If you have a reaction
on the second ELISA, you'll be confirmed with a third antibody test,
called the Western Blot. But that's here in America. In some countries,
one
ELISA is all you get.

It is precisely because HIV tests are antibody tests that they produce so
many false-positive results. All antibodies tend to cross-react. We
produce anti-bodies all the time, in response to stress, malnutrition,
illness, drug use, vaccination, foods we eat, a cut, a cold, even
pregnancy. These antibodies are known to make HIV tests come up as
positive.

The medical literature lists dozens of reasons for positive HIV test
results: "transfusions, transplantation, or pregnancy, autoimmune
disorders, malignancies, alcoholic liver disease, or for reasons that are
unclear..." (Archives of Family Medicine. Sept/Oct. 2000).

"[L]iver diseases, parenteral substance abuse, hemodialysis, or
vaccinations for hepatitis B, rabies, or influenza..." (Archives of
Internal Medicine, August 2000).

The same is true for the confirmatory test the Western Blot. Causes of
indeterminate Western Blots include: "lymphoma, multiple sclerosis,
injection drug use, liver disease, or autoimmune disorders. Also, there
appear to be healthy individuals with antibodies that cross-react...."
(ibid).

Pregnancy is consistently listed as a cause of positive test results, even
by the test manufacturers." [False positives can be caused by] prior
pregnancy, blood transfusions...and other potential nonspecific
reactions." (Vironostika HIV Test, 2003).

Inflated Africa Numbers

This is significant in Africa, because HIV estimates for African nations
are drawn almost exclusively from testing done on groups of pregnant
women.

In Zimbabwe last year, the rate of HIV infection among young women
decreased remarkably, from 32.5 to 6 percent. A drop of 81 percent
overnight. UNICEF's Swaziland representative, Dr. Alan Brody, told the
press that, "The problem is that all the sero-surveillance data came from
pregnant women, and estimates for other demographics was based on that."
(PLUS News, August, 2004).

Flawed Samples

When these pregnant young women are tested, they're often tested for other
illnesses, like syphilis, at the same time. There's no concern for
cross-reactivity or false-positives in this group, and no repeat testing.
One ELISA on one girl, and 32.5 percent of the population is suddenly HIV
positive.

The June 20, 2004 Boston Globe reported "the current estimate of 40
million people living with the AIDS virus worldwide is inflated by 25
percent to 50 percent." It said that HIV estimates for entire countries
have, for over a decade, been taken from "blood samples from pregnant
women at prenatal clinics."

But numbers about "AIDS deaths, AIDS orphans, numbers of people needing
antiretroviral treatment, and the average life expectancy" are all taken
from that one test.

I've certainly never seen this in a VH1 ad.

At present there are about six-dozen reasons given in the literature why
the tests come up positive. In fact, the medical literature states that
there is simply no way of knowing if any HIV test is truly positive or
negative:

"[F]alse-positive reactions have been observed with every single HIV-1
protein, recombinant or authentic." (Clinical Chemistry. 37; 1991). "Thus,
it may be impossible to relate an antibody response specifically to HIV-1
infection." (Medicine International. 1988).

Ambiguous Results

And even if you believe the reaction is not a false positive, "the test
does not indicate whether the person currently harbors the virus."
(Science. November, 1999).

The test manufacturers state that after the antibody reaction occurs, the
tests have to be "interpreted." There is no strict or clear
definition of HIV positive or negative. There's just the antibody
reaction. The reaction is colored by an enzyme, and read by a machine
called a spectro-photometer.

The machine grades the reactions according to their strength (but not
specificity), above and below a cut-off. If you test above the cut-off,
you're positive; if you test below it, you're negative. So what determines
the all-important cut-off? From The CDC's instructional material:
"Establishing the cutoff value to define a positive test result from a
negative one is somewhat arbitrary." (CDC, 2003)
David Canzi -- non-mailable
2005-06-02 04:35:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaulKing
Unreliable Tests
[Anecdote about a single false positive snipped.]
Post by PaulKing
In the article, AIDS experts assured the public that the story was
"extraordinarily rare." But the medical literature differs significantly.
The Numbers
In 1985, at the beginning of HIV testing, it was known that "68% to 89% of
all repeatedly reactive ELISA (HIV antibody) tests [were] likely to
represent false positive results." (New England Journal of Medicine.
1985).
All Scheff tells us about his source is: New England Journal of
Medicine, 1985. It would be impractically difficult to search a
whole year's worth of NEJM for a brief quote that might be in there,
somewhere. If Scheff read the article this came from, he knew the
title, the author and the page numbers, and could have made it easy
for others to find the article. If the quote, in its original context,
really supported Scheff's point of view, he would have wanted to make
it easy to find. He didn't, so it follows that he doesn't want his
claims verified. This is strong evidence that Scheff is dishonest.
Post by PaulKing
In 1992, the Lancet reported ("HIV Screening in Russia") that for 66 true
positives, there were 30,000 false positives. And in pregnant women,
"there were 8,000 false positives for 6 confirmations."
Scheff doesn't mention that 29.4 milliuon people were tested.
He doesn't want people to notice that only 1/1000th of the people
tested had false positive ELISAs. Scheff doesn't mention that a
confirmatory test reduced the 30,000 mostly-false positive ELISAs to
66 confirmed positives. Scheff doesn't mention that, in the countries
where most of his readers live, a similar confirmatory test is used
before anybody is diagnosed as HIV positive. By omitting relevant
information, Scheff tries to convince his readers that the figure of
30,000 false positive ELISAs is the figure that's relevant to their
risk of being falsely diagnosed HIV positive. It isn't. Scheff lies
by omission.
Post by PaulKing
In September 2000, the Archives of Family Medicine stated that the more
women we test, the greater "the proportion of false-positive and ambiguous
(indeterminate) test results."
If this were true as stated, testing 20,000 randomly selected women
would result in MORE THAN twice as many false positives as testing
10,000 women. Perhaps that quote doesn't mean the same thing, in
its original context, as Scheff is trying to force it to mean here.

If Scheff was smarter his lies would make sense.
--
David Canzi
Chris Noble
2005-06-02 23:47:05 UTC
Permalink
David,
Next time you come across a Scheff citation do a google search.
For some strange reason you always get this website coming up!

http://www.rethinking.org/aids/cite/topic_027.html

Here we find where Scheff gets his citations.

Screening donated blood and plasma for HTLV-III antibody: facing more
than one crisis?.

Osterholm MT et al.
"68% to 89% of all repeatedly reactive ELISA tests are likely to
represent false positive results...each year we might expected to find
175 to 209 truly antibody-positive donors [in Minnesota] and between
371 and 1701 falsely positive donors among those who have repeatedly
positive screening tests"
NEJM. 1985;312:1185-8.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2984568&query_hl=3

Unfortunately, there is no abstract for this article in pubmed. I am
not rushing off to the library to read the rest of the article.

However, we can search pubmed for other articles by Osterholm to try
to get a more representative idea of his work.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2648922
Ann Intern Med. 1989 Apr 15;110(8):617-21.

Performance characteristics of serologic tests for human
immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) antibody among Minnesota blood
donors. Public health and clinical implications.

MacDonald KL, Jackson JB, Bowman RJ, Polesky HF, Rhame FS, Balfour HH
Jr, Osterholm MT.

Minnesota Department of Health.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate performance characteristics of sequential
enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and Western blot human immunodeficiency virus
type 1 (HIV-1) antibody testing in a low-risk population. DESIGN:
Three-year prospective study of a selected sample from a
community-based population. SETTING: Two blood collection facilities in
Minnesota. POPULATION: Minnesota blood donors. RESULTS: During the
study period, 630,190 units of blood (donations) from an estimated
290,110 Minnesota-resident donors were screened for HIV-1 antibody.
Seventeen Minnesota-resident donors were identified as positive for
HIV-1 antibody. Sixteen donors were available for follow-up HIV-1
culture: all were culture positive. The other donor, who was not
available for follow-up culture, was likely infected with HIV-1 based
on a history of high-risk behavior and positive serologic findings for
hepatitis B surface antigen. Using 95% binomial confidence intervals,
performance characteristics for sequential EIA and Western blot HIV-1
antibody serology were as follows: false-positive rate by number of
donations, 0% to 0.0006%; specificity by number of donations, 99.9994%
to 100%; predictive value of a positive test, 81% to 100%. CONCLUSIONS:
In this low-risk population, the false-positive rate of serologic tests
for HIV-1 antibody, using HIV-1 culture as the definitive standard for
infection status, was extremely low and test specificity was extremely
high.

PMID: 2648922 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

A specificity of 99.9994% to 100% sounds pretty good to me. Even in the
low-risk population the positive predictive value was very good.

Scheff is a hack!
All he did was go through dissident websites and copy out of context
citations. I see no evidence that he actually read the articles.

Chris Noble

David Canzi -- non-mailable
2005-06-02 05:51:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaulKing
In September 2000, the Archives of Family Medicine stated that the more
women we test, the greater "the proportion of false-positive and ambiguous
(indeterminate) test results."
Scheff's statement above would be true if the proportion of false
positives rose from 0.001 to 0,01. It would also be true if the
proportion rose from 0.00000001 to 0.0000001. Scheff's statement
is consistent with *any* probability, from the horrifyingly large
to the vanishingly small, and therefore reveals nothing at all about
the actual probabilities of false test results.

At a casual glance, Scheff's argument seems to support his claim
that HIV tests are inaccurate, but on examination it turns out to be
nothing but smoke.
--
David Canzi
Loading...