[Spaulding]

"You should also take into account that unprotected sex with someone who is HIV-positive will not necessarily make you HIV-positive."

You beat me to it. But I'll go a bit further. There is no direct evidence that AIDS or HIV are communicated through sexual contact - of any sort. The original hypothesis from the Center for Disease Control that AIDS was lifestyle related, and in particular, the result of immune system destruction by drug use, still appears the most plausible explaination.

I've always liked the "Ice cream causes sun stroke" simily. The "fast-track" drug supported lifestyle of a sector of the homosexual community - cocaine, amyl nitrates, tetracycline, night after night after night - clearly includes sex. But drugs are well known to destroy immune systems. Growing up in San Fran, I've know many physically healthy gays in relatively long term relationships which presumably include sex, and no AIDs until after the drug crazed 60s and 70s.

No mechanism by which the tiny amounts of the retrovirus found upon autopsy could cause death has been discovered. The Nobel prize winner for the only mechanism sensitive enough to isolate the virus, Kary Mullis doesn't worry about losing his research grants, and declares flatly that there is no scientific basis for the HIV causal relationship. Where is healthy skepticism?

[js1138]

You beat me to it. But I'll go a bit further. There is no direct evidence that AIDS or HIV are communicated through sexual contact - of any sort. The original hypothesis from the Center for Disease Control that AIDS was lifestyle related, and in particular, the result of immune system destruction by drug use, still appears the most plausible explaination.

So all those dead gay guys were drug users? I think not.

[wideminded]

So when are you planning to receive an injection of pure HIV in order to prove your point?

By the way, how do you account for the many people who have contacted AIDS through tainted blood and blood-factor transfusions?