The Dilemma of HIV/AIDS testing. Which is better? To be tested or not to be tested? Some people believe that it is better not to know. But im of the opinion that when you know, u can properly manage the virus and live a fulfilled life. What do YOU think? Vote in my poll! www.ellamaris..com

knowledge is power. so its advisable and profitable to know ur status.

Its better to be tested than live in fear of the unknown. Know your status so u can get to take care of yourself better. As for me I did mine resently and it was negative, at least it difused the fear. so its better to know your status , so that if its negative , you maintain it, if positive , then you start taken care of yourself ontime.
The fear of not knowing your staus can even affect you healthwisel.Life no get duplicate o.

* "HIV tests" yield high levels of false-positive results by cross-reacting with antibodies to a host of "indicator diseases" and materials in blood plasma. Mumps, diptheria, tuberculosis, malaria, venereal warts, and approximately 50 other conditions will produce antibodies that can yield a "positive" on the "AIDS tests". Some people test positive, but then test negative a few months later on. Or someone may test positive at one laboratory, and the same blood sample will test negative at another lab. Even flu-shots and antibiotics a person may be taking may trigger a false positive reaction, as well as foreign proteins in the blood, which occur from blood transfusions and/or injection drugs. The role of "HIV" in triggering disease symptoms, as well as in triggering a positive reaction to the Western Blot and Elisa "AIDS test", remains unproven, and use of these tests, in spite of their widespread "acceptability" by mainstream medicine, constitutes a highly questionable and unscientific method for rendering a "diagnosis". See the following controlled experimental evaluations of the "AIDS tests":

Eleini Papadopulos-Eleopulos, et al: "Is a Positive Western Blot Proof of HIV Infection?", Biotechnology, Vol.11, June 1993, p.696-707. Article posted at the Sumeria web site.

Oscar Kashala, et al: "Infection with Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1) and Human T Cell Lymphotropic Viruses among Leprosy Patients and Contacts: Correlation Between HIV-1 Cross-Reactivity and Antibodies to Lipoarabinomannan", J. Infectious Diseases, 1994:169:296-304.

If you or a loved one has "tested positive" be aware that the only scientifically valid statement which can be made from the Elisa or Western Blot (or home AIDS test kits) is that the individual has, either in the recent past or present, been subjected to some kind of immunological stress. The "tests" say nothing concrete or objective about the presence or absence of HIV. For this and other reasons, more and more scientists and laypeople are objecting to the entire structure of the HIV theory of AIDS, and the misdirected multi-billion dollar public scare campaign and social engineering experiment our government and "medical authorities" have embarked upon.

It is apparently not a wise idea to do home tests. these apparently have a high chance of yielding false positives.

But also just a flue or a bad mood can cause p24 antigens which are really the bodies reaction to threats.

This i hear is a more common problem with Elisa, which is not accurate. But the Western Blot is accurate after testing at month one and month 6.

A negative Western blot at month 1 and month 6 is apprently 100 percent negative.

I personally wouldnt test my blood for the sake of. Test as you have to like:

- To know your status
- When you meet a new partner (at month 1 and again at month 6)
- Pregnancy
- When travelling
- When donating blood
- For monitoring viral loads, cd4 counts etc.

But if you just doing it for the sake of or you know your status and know your 100 percent ok, and still keep fiddling, thats not a good idea.