PATIENT SAMPLE

|

V

FIBROBLASTS IN VIALS FOR 48 HOURS

|

V

FIX AND STAIN FOR IE ANTIGENS

These are perfect ways to NOT finding the right answer!

The serology testing is a method of finding antibodies in the serum but results don’t give results that would be beneficial. In fact, using this particular method would show that 95% of the population positive!

The PCR (polymerase chain reaction) can detect viral DNA but gives no evidence of active infections and HHV6 is an active infection! This method is known for high false negatives because there are many inhibitors found in each sample. The CDC tested both patients and controls using these inaccurate ways of detecting active HHV6 infection. Dr. Knox and Dr. Donald Carrigan have spent 12 years studying HHV6 and rely on none of the tests used by the CDC. "The CDC should be thinking about how A is transmitted," declared Dr. Knox. Dr. William Reeves is not known by her, but she does know 2 of the other authors of the study and one, Dr. Pellet, has had most of his laboratory workers pulled from him. He is now working with a skeleton staff.

Since the government has said they will no longer look for a cause (they feel they’ve ruled out everything!), Dr. Knox listed what the CDC has not done and how they have damaged progress.

The CDC is very negative

The CDC can’t do good replicative studies (i.e. Dr. Elaine DeFreitas’ retroviral work and how the HHV6 replication study.

Their latest paper said, "They say no association (of HHV6) so, they think, since they didn’t find it, it doesn’t exist! In fact, they found more DNA in the controls than the patients!"

Since the CDC used technologies that would not find HHV6, Dr. Knox felt "the CDC doesn’t know any better...HHV6 is difficult to find. It’s not found in peripheral blood lymphocytes and that’s what they were looking at. The total leukocytes must be studied. They used serology. I don’t know why. There’s no way to separate normals from those who have active infection. They didn’t do controls for inhibitors." In summary, Reeves, et al used methods that can’t distinguish between active and latent infections yet some of the authors are top notch people but they do work that is not applicable in this type of work. This is very destructive to HHV6 research. We will address this...their data is incomplete."