by Liam Scheff
Please take your seats. Michael, please stop bothering Cynthia. Susan, please stop showing your bottom to everyone.
Today, we’re going to review antibody testing for HIV, a reckless process used in the dark ages of medicine, in the late 20th and early 21st Century.
Let’s begin with handout A:
As you look for the term “cows, goats, babies”you will find a medical article on a ‘false positive’ in a baby humanoid. You will note that “heterophile” antibodies have caused this HIV test to be determined as “positive,” because of a reaction with cow and goat proteins:
“Heterophile antibodies are a well-recognized cause of erroneous results in immunoassays. We describe here a 22-month-old child with heterophile antibodies reactive with bovine [Cow] serum albumin and caprine [Goat] proteins causing false-positive results to human immunodeficiency virus type 1 and other infectious serology testing.”
Yes, Cynthia? Yes, Cows. The kind that moo.
So, these researchers determined that their “false positive” was due to interaction between components in the test – cow, goat, and also milk proteins – with the baby’s blood. The cow protein was used in the test, as a reagent.
Yes, Duane? Yes, ‘reagent.’ No, it’s not a verb. A substance with which other substances react. May we continue?
Let’s have a look at handout B:
“We believe the positive test results observed in this patient were due to heterophile antibodies reactive with BSA and caprine proteins. All of the positive tests observed used BSA [bovine serum albumin] as a blocking agent for the preparation of the microELISA reaction wells.”
Again, the “positive” was as a result of response to milk, goat and bovine (BSA) proteins. And, they say, this could be ‘quite common’:
“Anti-BSA antibodies have previously been investigated in the pathogenesis of diabetes mellitus (1), but their prevalence and interference in immunoassays are not known. Conceivably, anti-BSA antibodies could be quite common, since most immunoassays use BSA in the specimen diluent, so that in most instances these antibodies would be preabsorbed and not detected.”
Yes Tanya? Yes, you may go to the bathroom. You don’t have to ask, just quietly go and return, but quickly Tanya. It is not a social visit.
Let’s look at handout C:
It seems that even though they knew of the possibility of positives due to the test materials, they did not study it (“not well characterized”):
“Heterophile antibodies reactive with other molecules used in immunoassays have not been well characterized but can also cause false assay results (4).”
What have we determined? That the HIV tests used by the AIDS eugenicists were positive for…HIV tests! What a scandal. Thank goodness that after the Eugenic wars of 2042, all that was laid permanently to rest. It’s all much easier now that only the Brezunumians control breeding.
Let’s look at handout D:
In this study, we note that many animal proteins used in the tests, including those of mice, cause HIV tests come up positive:
“Monoclonal antibodies used in diagnostic assays are produced using animal cells, usually from mice. The Achilles heel of this apparently highly specific assay principle is that many individuals, possibly up to 40% of the general population, possess naturally occurring antibodies to animal immunoglobulins (eg, to mouse, rabbit, cow, rat, goat), termed heterophilic antibodies.”
Did you catch that? “Heterophilic” Liking (philo) Many (hetero). These proteins “like” “many” other proteins. And so create reactions.
“If an individual with heterophilic antibodies against mouse immunoglobulins has a test by an immunoassay that uses mouse monoclonal antibodies, then the heterophilic antibodies can also form links between the capture and signal antibodies, generating a false-positive signal” White GH. Trusting numbers: uncertainty and the pathology laboratory. Med J Aust. 2002 Aug 5;177(3):153-5.
Yes, this will be on the test….
Susie? Please. What did I say about showing your bottom?