Problem is that there is no commonly available test to prove the presence of any particular virus. And the most commonly used tests are antibody tests, which are notoriously inaccurate. In fact there are over 65 known causes for false positives on HIV antibody tests, primarily due to a problem known as serological cross reactivity. In short his means antibodies of like structure or of low affinity can cross react on antigen test targets yielding false positives. Some examples of this occur from a number of vaccines, hepatitis, consumption of BLV contaminated beef or dairy, autoimmune conditions, etc.
To make matters worse when this testing first came out they used a less accurate antibody tests to "confirm" the first test. They did this for financial reasons since the more accurate test was less expensive than the confirmation test. Still using a less accurate test to "confirm" an inaccurate test in the first place is just pure stupidity!
Another problem with these tests is that exposure without chronic infection still yields a positive antibody response. A simple way to understand this is that if a person has a viral infection such as the flu (influenza) virus, or they are simply exposed to that virus, they will develop antibodies to that virus. If they go down a month or few months later and get tested for influenza antibodies they will still test positive. Does this mean they are infected? Of course not. The immune system successfully fought off the virus partially through the production of those antibodies. The same applies to HIV. In fact studies have shown that HIV is easily transmitted through a variety of mechanisms, but is not highly infectious. It was found that the HIV virus COULD NOT infect CD4 cells of healthy individuals even with direct manipulation. The ONLY cells that HIV researchers were able to infect were those from severely immune compromised patients such as leukemia patients. Same reason other leukemia/lymphoma viruses are not causing widespread leukemias and lymphomas despite their easy transmission.
It is also interesting to note that there are various cases of what have been called "spontaneous remissions" of AIDS reported by the medical establishment. All of these cases had things in common. Each of the patients DID NOT become sick until they started on the AIDS drugs, which are well known for wiping out the immune system leading to AIDS, which is a syndrome, not a disease. And when these people went off these drugs they developed these "spontaneous remissions" and they now tested negative for HIV. So how does this happen? Simple. These people tested false positive for HIV to begin with, and developed chemical induced AIDS from the antiretroviral drugs. So when they went off the drugs their bone marrow was able to regenerate raising their blood cell counts, including CD4 counts, and the antibodies that had caused the false positive had time to dissipate.
This is actually a well known, but rarely talked about side effect of some of these drugs. In particular AZT (zidovudine) and related drugs. In fact, the largest study ever done on AZT, the Concorde Study, found that AZT SHORTENED the lifespan of AIDS patients, not lengthened them. Another rarely mentioned fact about this deadly drug was that it was not invented for AIDS. AZT was developed back in 1962 as a chemotherapy drug. But it was found to be so deadly that it was originally banned for human use. It was not until AIDS "appeared" that they bought it back on the market to try and recoup some of their financial losses knowing the drug was still going to kill people.
There are some people who will try to claim that polymerase chain reaction (PCR, viral load) confirms the presence of viruses, such as HIV, and their activity. Neither is true. PCR is unable to differentiate viruses since it only amplifies segments of genetic material, not the whole sequence. In fact, in one study they said that doctors could not agree on what virus they were looking at with PCR something like 30% of the time. And that is when they were told what they were looking for. If they had no idea what to look for then that number would skyrocket since you cannot identify a pathogen by a segment of its genetic material.
Another big problem with PCR is called product carry over, which basically means cross contamination of wells. A great example of this came out years ago when researchers tried claiming that a British sailor died from HIV back in the 1950s, long before the virus was even created. Samples of the man's tissues were preserved in paraffin. So when PCR became available they did the PCR test and found what was determined to be HIV genetic material. It was not until 2 years later when everyone forgot about it that they quietly announced that the samples had been contaminated in the lab and that the tissues did not have any HIV related genetic material. Same thing happened with monkey cultures, which led to the green monkey hypothesis of the origin of HIV.
PCR is also prone to other forms of contamination other than product carry over. And other factors affect the outcome of the test including sample storage, annealing time, calibration of the machines, technician training, etc.
So anyone claiming that either HIV antibody testing or PCR has any significant accuracy is dead wrong.