Many states have laws
about a patient’s right to “informed consent.” For example, the California
Patient’s Guide says that you “have a right to know all risks, benefits, and treatment
alternatives before consenting to any treatment.” This Patient’s Guide goes on
to say that “informed consent is more than merely your agreement to a
particular treatment or procedure. Informed consent is your agreement to a
proposed course of treatment based on receiving clear, understandable
information about the treatment’s potential benefits and risks.” The case law
cited by the Guide for this statement (Cobb v. Grant) says that you must
“receive sufficient information to make a meaningful decision” regarding your
However, chances are
that you were not given “sufficient information” or “clear, understandable
information” by your doctor or hospital or clinic doctor about the benefits and
risks of taking an HIV test, either prior to taking the test or after receiving
the test results. Therefore, you probably did not have the opportunity to give
your informed consent to the procedure.
Read through the
following list of things that would constitute lack of informed consent, and if
you find one or more that are true in your own case, keep reading when you’re
finished with the list…
- 1. I was not informed that there were risks
associated with merely taking an HIV test, as stated by the Los Angeles
County Department of Public Health on their website.
- 2. I was not informed that the FDA has never
approved any test for the diagnosis of HIV infection.
- 3. I was not informed that the so-called HIV
tests are not a test for HIV, but for HIV antibodies.
- 4. I was not informed that “there is no
recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies
to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood,” as stated on the printed insert that
comes with an HIV ELISA Antibody test. In fact, I was never shown that
- 5. I was not informed that the proteins used
in any HIV Antibody test have never been proven to be unique or specific
for the HIV virus, or that many of the proteins used in the test kits have
been found to be associated with things other than HIV in the human body.
- 6. I was not informed that no HIV test has ever
been validated; that is, there is no controlled study that proves what
percentage of people testing HIV-Positive have been confirmed to have
active HIV virus in their blood by a viral isolation culture, and what
percentage of people testing HIV-Negative have been confirmed not to have active HIV virus in
- 7. I was also not informed that scientific
studies have shown that the HIV ELISA Antibody test can be wrong as much
as 90% of the time, or warned that I might have a false positive test
result and what that would mean.
- 8. I was not informed that there are over
seventy conditions that can cause a false positive reaction on an HIV
Antibody test, or asked prior to or after taking the test whether I might
have had one or more of those conditions that could create a false
positive on my own test.
- 9. I was not informed that if my test came
back positive, it only signified that I might have the antibodies to HIV. However, in
every other case, having the antibodies to a virus means that a person is
said to be immune from the disease that virus could cause, and I was not
shown the scientific studies or the medical basis for claiming that having
the antibodies to HIV is any different.
- 10. I was not informed that the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention had made an arbitrary decision in 1987 that
a positive HIV test results equaled a current infection with HIV, and yet
gave no scientific basis for that decision.
- 11. I was not informed that processing my HIV
Western Blot Antibody test varies from laboratory to laboratory. Nor was I
informed why my doctor had decided that the laboratory results he received
would be correct in my case and the scientific basis for that decision.
- 12. I was not informed that there are many
different ways to interpret an HIV Western Blot Antibody test, depending
on whose standards are being used. I was not informed that the results of
my test could be different if interpreted using either one of the CDC
standards compared to the Red Cross standards compared to the FDA’s
standards, for example. Nor was I informed which standard would be used to
interpret my test or why my doctor had decided that the standard being
used would be correct in my case and the scientific basis for that
- 13. I was not informed that Great Britain and other countries refuse to allow the use of the HIV Western Blot Antibody test, or the reasons why.
- 14. I was not informed that the so-called HIV
viral load tests use “probes” and “primers” based on the same un-validated
non-specific proteins used in the HIV Antibody tests, and therefore were
not proven to identify HIV in my blood. I was also never shown the printed
insert that came with an HIV viral load test that states that the test was
“not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or to confirm HIV
infection.” Nor did my doctor explain why he was using the test for
exactly that purpose despite the disclaimer, or show me the scientific
studies which prove it could be used to determine the viral load of HIV.
- 15. I was not informed that the so-called HIV
viral load test results vary greatly from laboratory to laboratory, or why
my doctor had decided that the laboratory results he would receive would
be correct in my case and the scientific basis for that decision.
- 16. I was not informed that people who have
tested HIV-Negative on an HIV ELISA Antibody test or an HIV Western Blot Antibody
test have been found with high HIV viral load results, posing severe
questions about the accuracy of the HIV viral load tests.
- 17. I was not informed that the HIV viral load
tests failed in 90% of the cases studied to predict the loss of CD4 cells,
and accurately predicted the “progression to disease” (AIDS) in only 4% to
6% of HIV-Positives, or why my doctor decided that my HIV viral load test
results would be accurate in predicting my “progression to disease” and
the scientific basis for his decision.
- 18. I was not informed that CD4 cell counts
vary greatly from day to day and hour to hour in a normal human being, and
that “"variance in CD4 from… non-HIV related longitudinal
fluctuations needs to be accounted for in analysis of the prognostic power
of CD4 in HIV infection.” I was also not informed that perfectly healthy
people can have low CD4 cell counts. Nor was I informed why my doctor had
decided that the CD4 cell count in my case would be indicative of anything,
much less an indication or marker for AIDS, and the scientific basis for
- 19. I was not informed that the diagnosis of
AIDS in the United States
can be based
strictly on being HIV-Positive and having a CD4 cell count of 200 or
below. I was also not informed that this definition of AIDS is not
accepted by other countries
(Canada, for example),
and that by moving to
I would no
longer have AIDS. Nor did my doctor explain how a disease can change
definition when it crosses a national border or provide the scientific
basis for that explanation.
- 20. I was informed of my HIV-Positive
diagnosis after only an HIV ELISA Antibody test without an HIV Western
Blot confirmation test, in violation of the CDC’s protocol.
- 21. I was also not informed that the Highly
Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy (HAART) drugs that I was prescribed have
been known for five years to cause more deaths from their side effects
than the deaths recorded from AIDS-related illnesses. Nor was I informed
that the newer HAART drugs are worse than the ones prescribed ten years
- 22. As a result of having this information
withheld from me prior to agreeing to take an HIV Antibody test/HIV viral load
test/CD4 cell count, or taking the HIV drugs that I was prescribed, I was
unable to give my informed consent and have suffered emotional and
psychological trauma, family stress, and social rejection as a result of
my doctor’s unsubstantiated HIV-Positive diagnosis and treatment.
If one or more of
these statements is true for you, you may have grounds to file an official
complaint about your doctor, clinic, or hospital for violation of your right to
Informed Consent. These complaints are filed with your state’s appropriate
medical review boards, who must investigate your
complaint and hold a hearing for the accused doctor, clinic, or hospital.
particular, are terrified of their medical review boards, because these boards
have the right to discipline these doctors up to and including taking away
their license to practice medicine in that state.
Please understand that
this is not some personal vendetta on my part toward the medical profession. I
would not be alive today, or walking, had not a highly
qualified surgeon fixed my broken neck.
I am also not accusing
any doctor or clinic or hospital of intentionally deceiving you about these HIV
tests or the HIV drugs. I don’t believe there are many doctors who have a clue
what these tests do or don’t do, have never seen the printed inserts that come
with the tests, and believe what they have been told by the pharmaceutical
companies about the HIV drugs.
However, as Dr.
Richardson said in this book, ignorance is no excuse. Your doctor, clinic, or
hospital has an obligation to confirm the information they are given before
treating you for any disease or performing any procedure. They also have an
obligation to inform you about what they know and receive your informed consent
prior to proceeding.
It is not enough any
more for doctors to simply make a proclamation and expect you to follow their
orders. It is also not enough any more for you not to question the medical
profession or require them to live up to the standards set by Informed Consent
While filing a
complaint against your doctor or clinic or hospital will not change the results
of your own HIV test, it may make you feel better; and it can definitely help
those who come after you. If we can at least get all the doctors in the world
telling their patients the truth about the HIV tests and HIV drugs before anything happens, we will
probably have a lot more people saying, “No" to the tests.
If one or more of the
statements above is true for you, you may also have a legal case against your
doctor, clinic, or hospital. However, lawyers cost money and trials take a lot
of time and energy. Filing a complaint with your state’s medical board is free,
and takes very little time or effort. You don’t even have to appear at the
If you would like to file an official complaint against your doctor, clinic, or hospital,
and need help at any point filling out the necessary paperwork , or have questions about your particular situation, please email me with the details, what state you live in, etc., and I will be happy to help.
Close This Window