There are serious problems with the idea of testing for a retrovirus called HIV.
First of all, no one has given any explanation of just how that retrovirus is thought to degrade people's immune system. As a matter of fact, it cannot be isolated in sufficient quantities in the blood or tissues of people suffering immune deficiency to be doing what a virus is supposed to be doing.
But here is a central point that Cal Crilly brings out in this article: If that retrovirus, or rather the protein fractions we associate with antibodies to that virus, are present indistinctly in healthy and sick people, why are we testing at all?
Cashing in on our Sex and Retroviruses
by Cal Crilly
What is a HIV antibody test?
Does anyone know what the HIV antigens mean?
Here are the HIV numbers, do you think they are specific?
They were picked out of a hat in 1984.
"The major antibody specificities detected in HIV-1 WB analysis include gp160, gp120, p65, p55, gp41, p40, p31, and p24. To be reported as positive, the WB assay requires reactivity against the gp41 and gp120/160 bands encoded by the env (gp160, envelope glycoprotein) gene or against either one of these env bands plus the p24 band encoded by gag [Pr55(Gag)]."
Interpretation of HIV Serologic Testing Results
So p24 antigens or 'HIV core proteins' are found in cell transport, yes a piece of 'retrovirus' appears when moving or trafficking things around the body.
The HIV antibody test sees these and the result claims you have AIDS, it is literally a lottery.