Most of the information about the HIV does not equal AIDS theory seems to focus on two issues: 1) HIV tests are often inaccurate and 2) HIV does not cause AIDS. But if HIV doesn't cause AIDS, why are we even concerned with the reliability of HIV tests?
I think you’re on to something here but that the order of logic may be reversed: A scientist must first find the microbe believed to cause a disease before providing evidence for a causal relationship. In my opinion, this puts the issue of the reliability of the diagnostic test used to determine the presence of the hypothesized casual agent before the issue of proof of cause. Only after you identify the microbe can you begin to establish if or how it causes disease.
In a better world, the suggestion that HIV might cause AIDS would not have even been considered until scientifically sound proof that HIV itself (not supposedly representative proteins or suggestive enzymatic activities) could actually be found in AIDS patients.
With specific regard to the AIDS debate, I think it's important to examine and challenge all the assertions used to support the HIV hypothesis, from the supposed accuracy of the tests to the alleged efficacy of the drugs. I’ve noticed over the years that highlighting one obvious area of contradiction in the HIV = AIDS paradigm only leads to more questions about other aspects of the argument. For example, the most perfect presentation on the lack of evidence for a causal relationship between HIV and AIDS invariably leads to the question “Yeah, but what about Africa?”
Due to 20 years of relentless “AIDS awareness” campaigns and countless uncritical media reports touting the party line, I think we’ve ended up in what hypnotherapist Michael Ellner calls a state pf cultural mass hypnosis and that we can only break this spell by addressing all claims that appear to support the idea that HIV causes AIDS.
HIV Antibody Test Certificate of Accuracy
to T Cells and Viral Load