[back] Medical tests
|CD 4 Test
See: Antibody Theory
"The only accepted legal medical diagnosis of cancer is by biopsy. This is not 100% accurate, for there are false positives as well as false negative biopsies. We, that is you and I, are not permitted to make a diagnosis of cancer. Nor are we permitted by law to use any system of diagnosis except biopsy for cancer diagnosis. The Medical Establishment tightly controls the diagnosis of cancer."--Dr Kelley DDS
The OTA concluded: “There are no mechanisms in place to limit dissemination of technologies regardless of their clinical value.” Shortly after the release of this report, the OTA was disbanded (1995). Death by Medicine----Carolyn Dean, MD, ND, Martin Feldman, MD, Gary Null, PhD, Debora Rasio, MD (2003/4)
"Pap smears were designed to get women back into a doctor's office.....They con women into either biopsies or surgery for their cervix before they really have a problem.....I suggest that women never get a pap smear. It's just a way that a gynaecologist makes his boat payments."----Dr Shulze (The Sam Biser Herbal Video Collection p194)
Nortin Hadler says he would sue any doctor who tried to test his cholesterol. Likewise, his bone density, prostate levels, colon cells, etc. The Harvard-trained doc, now in his sixties and a rheumatologist and professor of medicine and microbiology/immunology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says you, too, should avoid these routine tests, as well as most angioplasties, bypass surgeries and routine mammograms. That's because -- contrary to what the medical establishment tells you -- the tests and procedures don't extend most lives, he says; they just convince healthy people they're sick. Skip These Tests?
When a woman undergoes a Pap smear a number of cells are collected from her
cervix which are examined for changes which may be early warning signs that
cancer can develop. Whether the tests are an accurate test of a woman’s
gynaecological health or not is up for debate with Pap smears producing
false-negative rate of 15% to 20%
I developed an interest in The Pap Smear Test in 1980’s after I received a phone call from my local GP informing me that my recent Pap Smear test was abnormal At a visit to my gynecologist I was told I had cervical dysplasia. This is also called cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. CIN or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia can be graded into CIN I, CIN II and CIN III. The Common belief is that these abnormal cells if left untreated will develop into cancer.
The next invasive and painful procedure that was inflicted upon my body and my naïve self was that of a colposcopy. This has to be one of the most degrading and painful procedures known to woman. I describe it as like being seated in a dentist’s chair only what is in the air is your vagina which is opened up and into which a male doctor peers into the cervix. The reason for this excrutiating experience is to take a biopsy of these cervical cells. I was told this would not be painful. Other than childbirth itself, I have yet to experience such agonising pain as he sunk his sharp blade into my cervix and lifted out my wayward cells. The recommended treatment was a hysterectomy. Being thirty- five years old and the mother of three children it was assumed that I would not want to mother again so let’s just whip out the uterus! Thank goodness I sought a second opinion on the necessity or otherwise of a hysterectomy.Cervical Cancer Vaccine?
CD 4 Test
The second leg of the selection process for poisoning Africans with ARVs is CD4 cell counting, on the premise that such a count indicates a person’s immune status, i.e. his health. But as early as April 1994, having employed CD4 cell counts as a surrogate marker for drug efficacy in the Concorde trial, the researchers reported the irrelevance of this laboratory measure and its lack of a correlation to clinical health in Lancet 343(8902):871-81, noting that the results of the study call into question the uncritical use of CD4 cell counts as a surrogate endpoint for assessment of benefit from long-term antiretroviral therapy. Anthony Brink's criminal complaint of genocide laid against Zackie Achmat
It has been known since at least 1993 (when the results of the Concorde AZT study were published), and has been publicly admitted by public health officials, that the CD4 test is worthless; nevertheless, this worthless test is still being used to evaluate the alleged efficacy of toxic and worthless AIDS drugs. 'AIDS: A Death Cult' by John Lauritsen
"If you read the literature very carefully, you will find that, while there is a strong marker for the disease, there is no hard scientific evidence to support the existence of a hepatitis C virus. Clearly, a non-A, non-B hepatitis disease exists, but the science behind an associated virus is weak at best. As a scientist I am compelled to ask, how can we vaccinate people against a disease-causing agent that has not been fully characterized?"---Dr Urnovitz
"It became clear, also, what's happening in the field of hepatitis. They are not dealing with a virus. Of course, there's a possibility to enrich certain kinds of proteins in blood products, which then cause severe autoimmune reactions, but only in very stressed-out people, never in non-stressed people. When they learned to take out these proteins from the blood products, or dilute them, there are not hepatic problems anymore.....there's no such thing as infectious hepatitis (and no hepatitis viruses)."--Dr Lanka www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/mgglanka.htm
Hepatitis C: Read Inventing the AIDS Virus by Duesberg (Phantom Viruses and Big Bucks p83-87)
BSE/AIDS/Hepatitis C Infectious or Intoxication Diseases? By Claus Köhnlein
If commerce laws were applied equally, the “knowing is beautiful” ads for HIV testing would have to bear a disclaimer, just like cigarettes: “Warning: This test will not tell you if you’re infected with a virus. It may confirm that you are pregnant or have used drugs or alcohol, or that you’ve been vaccinated; that you have a cold, liver disease, arthritis, or are stressed, poor, hungry or tired. Or that you’re African. It will not tell you if you’re going to live or die; in fact, we really don’t know what testing positive, or negative, means at all.”----- The Hidden Face of HIV – Part 1 By Liam Scheff
I'm absolutely sure that no antibody test in medicine has any absolute meaning. Especially in HIV antibody testing, it is clear that the antibodies that are detected in the test are present in everybody. Some people have them in higher concentrations, and some in lower concentrations, but only when you reach a very high level of antibodies -- much higher than in any other antibody testing -- are you considered to be "positive." This is a contradiction in terms because in other antibody tests, the lower your level of antibodies, the higher your risk for a symptomatic infection. But with HIV they say you are "positive" only when you have reached a very high level of antibodies. Below this level, you are said to be negative.  INTERVIEW STEFAN LANKA
Neither of the "HIV-antibody" tests -- the Elisa or the Western Blot -- has ever been properly validated, which means that no one knows what their results mean. The tests are chemical reactions to antigens, which are substances that provoke an immune response. Many dozens of conditions can produce a positive result on these tests, including drug abuse, flu vaccinations, past infection with malaria, pregnancy, and liver disease. Nevertheless, physicians still use these worthless tests, assume that positive results mean HIV infection, and give their patients doom-diagnoses of "HIV-positive" or "AIDS". 'AIDS: A Death Cult' by John Lauritsen
"There is no proof that the use of the PSA blood test to screen symptom-free men will spare anyone a prostate cancer death, yet it is associated with a considerable amount of unnecessary treatment with after effects that can be both severe and permanent. All of the treatments for early prostate cancer carry the risk of impotence and incontinence. In short, cancer researchers do not know whether PSA screening saves more lives than it ruins....close to 40% of men who undergo a radical prostatectomy will have a PSA relapse within two years. This means that they had disease that was outside of the prostate that was not obvious to the surgeon or the pathologist. It means that if the man lives long enough, metastatic disease will kill him....the more aggressive cancers are less likely to benefit from screening......It bothered me, though, that my P.R. and money people could tell me how much money we would make off screening, but nobody could tell me if we could save one life. As a matter of fact, we could have estimated how many men we would render impotent..." --- PSA Screening Test for Prostate Cancer: An Interview with Otis Brawley, MD By Maryann Napoli
"Researchers say men put at risk of impotence. Thousands of men may have unnecessarily undergone an invasive operation to remove their prostate, sometimes suffering impotence and incontinence as a result, because of a screening test which was yesterday written off as all but useless."--- [Media Sept 2004] Prostate test 'all but useless'
Thousands of men may have unnecessarily undergone an invasive operation to remove their prostate, sometimes suffering impotence and incontinence as a result, because of a screening test which was yesterday written off as all but useless. [Media Sept 2004] Prostate test 'all but useless'
Many of Davis's findings simply stunned me. Consider the invasion of
computerized imaging technology (CT scans) in modern medicine. Since its
invention in the 1970s, CT scanning has become a $100-billion industry that
creates nifty three-dimensional images, yet exposes patients to radiation. CT
scans have become such a favoured technology that one in every three scans
recommended for children is probably unnecessary.
In the last 25 years, the amount of radiation zapping North Americans from scanning and the like has increased fivefold. Now ponder this stunner: "Modern America's annual exposure to radiation from diagnostic machines is equal to that released by a nuclear accident that spewed the equivalent of hundreds of Hiroshimas across much of Russia and Eastern Europe." Most physicians don't know that a typical CT scan equals 400 chest X-rays. A group of researchers at Yale now estimate that radiation from CT scans of the head and abdomen will kill 2,500 people a year. The Secret History of the War on Cancer