Media

+

Doctor

Canada

"HIV Testing Urged for All Pregnant Women"

Source: Globe and Mail

Published: 05 Jul 2022

Category: Diagnostic Test

Rating: (1½ stars)

what they said (Hover the mouse cursor over underlined words for more info)

All pregnant women should be routinely screened for HIV-AIDS, according to an influential U.S. task force.

"Having a test for HIV during pregnancy is one more thing a woman can to do to try to assure having a healthy infant," said Diana Petitti, vice-chairwoman of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

But in new guidelines, published today in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the blue-ribbon panel sidesteps the controversial question of whether such testing should be mandatory or voluntary.

The original article can be found at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050705/HAIDS05/TPHealth/

The original article can found in the Media Doctor archives.

how did it rate? (more information)

Criteria	Rating
Total Score	2 of 7
Availability of Test	Not Applicable
Novelty of Test	Satisfactory
Diagnostic Options	Not Applicable
Disease Mongering	Satisfactory
Evidence	Not Satisfactory
Quantification of Diagnostic Accuracy/Benefits	Not Satisfactory
Costs of Testing	Not Satisfactory
Harms of Testing	Not Satisfactory
Sources of Information	Not Satisfactory
Relies on Press Release	Not Applicable

what we said (Hover the mouse cursor over underlined words for more info)

The merits of mandatory screening all pregnant women in Canada for HIV versus voluntary screening is addressed in this article.

The article reports that the percentage of pregnant women who are screened in two regions that routinely test for HIV (unless the test is explicitly refused) is approximately 15% higher than two provinces where screening is voluntary. Although the article quotes a physician who states that "a surprising number" of pregnant women undergoing routine HIV screening are found to be positive, the article does not report on what that number actually is, and whether the difference in the level of screening found in a mandatory versus a voluntary setting translates into a different health impact.

The key issues in determining whether or not screening for HIV should be mandatory for pregnant women and the basis of a public health policy, is evidence that the number of cases of maternal-neonatal transmission are reduced with mandatory screening, or that early detection and treatment of either maternal or neonatal HIV changes the clinical outcome for the child.

The article implies that the birth of a "dozen children" with HIV every year could be prevented if mandatory testing was implemented. However, the article does not provide the total number of pregnancies so an incidence rate cannot be determined. The article also does not address the costs for routine testing, potential harms of the testing, or the ethical issues surrounding mandatory testing.

public forum

(06 Sep 2022) Croft Woodruff from independant writes,

"Testing HIV positive means one, presumably, has been exposed to the virus that is alleged to cause AIDS. More than 70 different conditions - including pregnancy, malnutrition, multiple infections, multiple sclerosis, measles, and exposure to a flu or hepatitis B shot - are known to trigger a false HIV positive.

The techniques of the HIV test have not been standardized, and the magnitude and consequences of inter laboratory variations have not been measured. Results require interpretation, and the criteria for the interpretation vary not only from lab to lab, but also from month to month.

Because of so many variables involved, the many HIV tests are seriously flawed and invalid. The consequences of this fact are that many people, including pregnant women and newborns, are being treated for a condition they do not have. In fact, the disclaimer by the manufacturers of the test kits specifically states that the tests are not to be used to diagnose or treat HIV/AIDS. They are not licensed for that purpose.

Virus tests without virus isolation? Since HIV/AIDS emerged in the early '80s, all known and accepted scientific investigative techniques have failed to prove the existence of a virus. No electron photograph (micro graph) of an isolated HIV particle has ever been published. Virologists like Robert Gallo have yet to develop a vaccine - from what they claim is HIV - that does not kill or cause serious adverse reactions. According to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (Washington Post, May 9, 2022) no safe and effective HIV vaccine exists for adults or small children.

Read the label on AZT, Nevirapine and other so-called anti retro viral drugs - these are metabolic poisons being promoted and used to treat a virus that - if it did exist - unlike bacteria, yeast, fungus and other parasites has no metabolism to poison..

No virus, no vaccine and no Nobel Prize."

voice your opinion in the forum

All comments and feedback submitted to Media Doctor are subject to editorial approval before being made viewable by the public. It may take up to a week for your comments to be approved. Additionally, no response will be given to questions posed in public comments. Media Doctor does not provide medical advice, or answers to medical questions posed by the public.
If you provide your email address it will not be displayed to the general public.
Comments may be edited by Media Doctor to remove defamatory or sensitive statements, and brand names.
Required fields are marked with an asterisk (*).