OraQuick: New Game, Old Con

July 5, 2012

5 Jul (WASHINGTON DC) – After more than 30 years of government-funded hysteria, Americans have figured out that something is amiss with HIV.  Except for Magic Johnson and other pharmaceutically-funded activists, most Americans no longer view HIV as a serious threat – a fact reflected by the State Department’s 2009 decision to remove HIV from its list of “communicable diseases of public health significance.”

Today, leading experts admit that HIV was largely a marketing scam, a fact corroborated by negligible mortality reports from the US, Europe (2), Australia and South Africa [2007].

In 2007, HIV-co-discoverer Luc Montagnier admitted that HIV can be cured within weeks but that drug companies push drugs and vaccines because there’s no profit in clean water and good nutrition.  His opinion is contradicted by the HIV co-discoverer Robert Gallo, who was eventually found guilty of scientific misconduct.


The latest pitch comes in the form of a new HIV test, one designed to perpetuate fear and send gullible Americans running to HIV clinics.

The New York Times reports:

After decades of controversy, the Food and Drug Administration approved a new HIV test on Tuesday that for the first time makes it possible for Americans to learn in the privacy of their homes whether they are infected.”

Well, not exactly.  While OraQuick allows us to test in the privacy of our homes, it is as misleading as every other FDA-approved HIV test

A careful look at the OraQuick package insert reveals several clues about the new test’s unreliability.

For example:

“A positive result with this test does not mean that you are definitely infected with HIV, but rather that additional testing should be done in a medical setting.” (emphasis added)

This means that if the unreliable test says that you might be positive or negative, you should visit another clinician who will sell you other unreliable FDA-approved HIV tests.  But if one examines all package inserts of ALL of the other FDA-approved HIV tests, they will see that no HIV test offers more than a presumption of infection based upon antibodies that are present in the blood.

If someone gets a polio vaccine or acquires the flu in January, polio or flu antibodies will remain in the months or years later – but no one would claim that he or she is infected with polio or the flu.  While the presence of antibodies is typically considered proof of a functioning immune system, HIV doctors claim that it is evidence of an infection that requires drugs like Atripla and Retrovir, which are known to compromise immune function that HIV drugs allegedly prevent.

Before 1996, manufacturers would not have gotten away with this deadly scam.


In 1972, Congress established the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to serve the legislative branch as an independent source of information and analysis about complex scientific and technical issues.  OTA construed health technology broadly, including “all elements of medical practice that are knowledge-based, including hardware (equipment and facilities) and software (knowledge skills)… the set of techniques, drugs, equipment, and procedures used by health care professionals in delivering medical care to individuals and the systems within which such care is delivered.”

By 1978, the OTA produced a shattering report on the state of scientific medicine, Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies.  The report stated:

Evidence indicates that many technologies are not adequately assessed before they enjoy widespread use… Many technologies which have been used extensively have later been shown to be of limited usefulness”…and ” … only 10 to 20 percent of all procedures currently used in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial.”

The report implied that 80% to 90% of all routinely-performed procedures are unproven – a conclusion that implicates the technology of flow cytometry that uses immunophenotyping to identify antigen markers on various cell populations.

The U.S. News and World Report issue of 23 November 1987 raised further questions about HIV tests:

With public health officials and politicians thrashing out who should be tested for HIV, the accuracy of the test itself has been ignored.  A study last month by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment found that HIV tests can be very inaccurate indeed.  For groups at very low risk – people who do not use IV drugs or have sex with gay or bisexual men – 9 in 10 positive findings are called false positives, indicating infection where none exists.”

OTA’s warning continues to be ignored by the medical and scientific communities and the politicians, agencies and regulators that enable them.

In 1996, Congress disbanded the OTA, leading to the systematic deregulation of the various medical technology industries.  The U.S. Supreme Court sealed the fate of future scientific transparency by ruling in favor or corporate interests in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010).


A careful examination of the package insert raises numerous red flags:

Under “Test Performance”, a clinical study compared OraQuick® test results with laboratory test results performed by a “trained professional,” who compared the test with other FDA-approved tests (that do not detect HIV).

Who are these trained professionals?

Last March, two of the largest HIV testing labs were accused of bilking taxpayers of billions of dollars in Medicare fraud – months after LabCorp and Quest paid $50 million and $241 million (respectively) to settle other felony charges.  In 2007, the FDA cited ViroMed Labs for reckless testing practices (jpeg) when they conducted all HIV testing for the US military.  Bernie Madoff was a trained professional.

Because none of these tests detect HIV or “HIV antibodies”, it’s impossible to say what these tests were compared to.  This is akin one liar’s word to be corroborated by other liars.

99.9% of people (4,902 out of 4,903) correctly reported a negative test result.  The lab and (test) found the same result…

Unfortunately, the clinical study compared the same outcomes to the same flawed technology.  If a clock measures time in 21-hour days and another clock is built using the same design, both clocks might track within 99 percent accuracy of each other, although neither will accurately measure time.

91.7 % of HIV positive people (88 out of 96) tested reported a correct test result…

So-called “HIV positive people” can only parrot what other unknown persons using other HIV tests have told them.

If you are HIV positive, or are on treatment or preventive treatment for HIV, this test is not meant for you.

Of course not – patients who test negative can cost clinics millions of dollars.


The package insert claims:

This test works by looking for your body’s response (antibodies) to fighting the HIV virus.

FALSE – These tests look for antibodies (not HIV antibodies) that most other law-abiding tax-paying citizens have.  This means that if you’re pregnant, had the flu, received vaccinations, or have any of the dozens of other conditions that are known to cause false-positive tests, the test might flag you as HIV-positive.

The bottom line – if you never take an HIV test, you will never get sick or die from HIV. 

To understand the flaws of HIV tests, read Do HIV Tests Detect HIV?

Tags: ,

You must be logged in to comment

Log in