The Package insert for the OraQuick antibody test states, "The OraQuick Advance Rapid HIV-1/2 Antibody Test is intended as an aid in the diagnosis of infection with HIV-1 and/or HIV-2. AIDS and AIDS-related conditions are clinical syndromes and their diagnosis can only be established clinically."
If one is healthy, is it logical to be tested for an infectious disease based on antibodies? The package insert states that a diagnosis is based on "clinical syndromes" not on their antibody test. And yet we take a healthy population...and most pregnant women are a healthy group of people and we test them for antibodies. Healthy people have antibodies--its how our immune system works. It doesn't mean we are ill, it means our bodies picked up the disease and successfully fought it off. Otherwise, we would be sick or dead. But by current medical dogma, if you test positive for hiv, you are sick and will eventually get AIDS. The testing companies know that antibody testing on healthy populations will create a high level of false positives--its the reason for this statement in their package insert. The test was not meant to be a diagnostic. And yet we are using this test on almost all pregnant women. The prenatal clinics (one of the few places where hiv testing is available) in Africa use the number of positives on hiv tests to predict hiv/aids cases in Africa. So they predict an epidemic based on antibody testing. How accurate can that be??? Pregnancy is not a disease...women are going to prenatal clinics not because they are sick but because they want care for a biologically normal condition. One of the reasons for a false positive hiv test is pregnancy. Is antibody testing of pregnant women logical? Seems like a receipe for disaster. Heck the company told us in the package insert that it shouldn't be used as a diagnostic. They have wormed their way out of their liability.
Copyright 2008 Valerie W. McClain