STRAIGHT AIDS MYTH SHATTERED

Pagesix ^ | 03/19/04 | Pagesix

[laredo44]

Michael Fumento, who wrote

I stopped right there.

You have an aversion to the truth?

[Atlas Sneezed]

...a lot of black women might not realize who their boyfriend is playing around with on the side. That would cause a upsurge in straight black female AIDS statistics.

---

That movie-of-the-week scenario just doesn't happen. Healthy men do not contract AIDS from sex with women. The heterosexual infidelity vector just doesn't happen (except for third world populations who are covered with untreated genital sores from other STDs.)

Really. AIDS does not punish promiscuity or infidelity the way that some folks would wish. It punishes sticking infected things into places of ones body that weren't intended for them (needles in arms, etc.)

[mhking]

He is one of the most important conservative writers out there. His writings were the catalyst that turned me from a liberal to a conservative.

Perhaps, but I've found his stuff to be in the same ballpark as Dick Morris. If you must, call me cynical.

[Dark Knight]

I hadn't heard there was any proof yet. It seems to be the global warming of the medical world.

Here's Duesberg's version of being proved wrong:
http://www.duesberg.com/faq.html

No one involved in research is given funding if they don't believe in the HIV theory of AIDS. No one has done the necessary studies to show HIV and AIDS are related. The numbers don't even make sense. If there are a million people in the USA with HIV, and HIV has a ten year latency for death there should be (and thank God there are not) about 100,000 deaths per year from AIDS. It is not happening. Karposi's Sarcoma, one of the AIDS diseases, is caused by amyl and butyl nitrate abuse, not HIV. But the CDC is not even requiring testing to show the HIV is present in an AIDS death anymore.

AIDS is a political disease.

DK

[Robert A Cook PE]

"Farber exposed the conspiracy between profit-hungry drug companies, researchers who wanted more funding, homosexuals who didn't want the disease to be known as "the gay plague," and conservatives who wanted to turn back the sexual revolution.

What isn't clear though, is whether straight, morally-correct men and women who DON'T screw around on their spouses (or dates) are at risk from AIDS or not.

Hint: Now that blood supplies are tested, those who follow the Law are not at risk from any VD. Now, are the millions of AIDS cases in Africa actually being spread by mosquitoes and biting flies - like dozens of other blood-transmitted diseases are?

[Atlas Sneezed]

Perhaps, but I've found his stuff to be in the same ballpark as Dick Morris. If you must, call me cynical.

---

Dick Morris is a political analyst with opinions on strategy.

Micheal Fumento is a science journalist who reports the facts of what scientific research has shown.

When you ignore a factual report because of the messenger, you are something other than a "cynic."

[Oberon]

Healthy men do not contract AIDS from sex with women. The heterosexual infidelity vector just doesn't happen.

It may be that healthy men don't get AIDS from women, but it's entirely possible that a healthy woman can get AIDS from an infected bisexual man.

[Fury]

"...and there were stories a couple of month's ago about college age black men who have sex with other men, but still consider themselves straight"

That sounds like something John Kerry might say.

[G L Tirebiter]

It isn't the largest growing group, but it is the FASTEST growing group. Apparently significant numbers of black man are 'on the down low' and serving as an AIDS vector into the hetero black community.

Correct. The Atlanta paper ran a lengthy piece a couple of weeks ago outlining the rapid growth of HIV amongst black male college students in North Carolina. Public health officials there have been tracking blood test results for several years and there is a clear upward trend to the HIV numbers.

Almost all of the infections are attributed to homo/bi sexual behavior. And the bi's are the vector for their lady friends.

An interesting side note to the article: When it came time to say "who's to blame" the author found people who pointed to the federal gov't (not enough $$, free condoms, too much emphasis on abstinence, etc.) and to conservative black clergy whose attitudes keep homosexual black men in the closet.

Nary a mention of personal responsibility.

[Guillermo]

Well, if AIDS cases went from 1 to 2, that would be a 100% increase in the AIDS rate of ___ group.

[DaGman]

I find this entire discussion absolute lunacy. "Studies" that imply low or no corelation between heterosexual sex and HIV transmission are highly suspect given the vast amounts of research that indicates the contrary. The information in the article is in no way definitive and absolute. For some reason there seems to be more a desire to vindicate the conservative ideological view of HIV as a behavioral disease by now declaring invalid tons more research that contradicts this viewpoint.

We know that if you put a bullet into the chamber of a 6 shooter revolver, spin it then point it at your head and pull the trigger, there is a 1 in 6 chance you will blow your brains out. If you put 2 bullets in, the chances become 1 in 3, 3 bullets is 1 in 2, etc. Similarly, if you or a clean male or female and have sex with someone that has HIV, there is some chance you will become infected with HIV. The only difference is whereas we know how many bullets the revolver holds and how many bullets are in the gun, but we aren't certain how many times one can have sex with an infected person before he/she contrats HIV. One thing is certain though, the more times you do it, the greater the chances you WILL contract HIV.

Sorry if this post offends but it scares the hell out of me that someone will read this then think, "Ah ha! I knew it!" then go out and have unprotected sex with someone they don't know.

Sorry, no one has been vindicated by this. Nothing has been proven that contradicts the vast bulk of HIV research. And, the Great Flood of Noah didn't create the Grand Canyon.

[aruanan]

No one involved in research is given funding if they don't believe in the HIV theory of AIDS.

Not true.

No one has done the necessary studies to show HIV and AIDS are related.

Not true.

The numbers don't even make sense.

See how much of life makes sense to an infant. Infancy is where AIDS/HIV research was back in the 80's. If someone is basing his current understanding on the information available in that era, there'll be all sorts of things that don't make sense.

[HamiltonJay]

Agreed, the point I was making was women are more at risk than men. And I can also assure anals sex is not simply somethign that men on men do... lots of men/women couples engage in it as well.

Women by very nature are more at risk from sex with an infected man, than a man is from sex with an infected woman. Just the way it works.

[Dark Knight]

I would love to be shown wrong, but "not trues" don't help.

I love citations, who is given government funding that either disbelieves or is undecided about the HIV/AIDS link?

What are the studies that relate HIV/AIDS?

Of course basing information on the 80's data is silly and unproductive, but basing understanding on misinformation from the 80's is worse.

Where are your numbers and citations?

If anyone wants to see where the controversy is, start at
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data2/introduction.htm

DK

By the way, I remember the misinformation from the 80's like the Haitian connection, which "confused" the CDC for years.

[sharkhawk]

Healthy men do not contract AIDS from sex with women.
I meant that the woman might not realize she is isn't just sharing her man with the sisters.

[Atlas Sneezed]

It may be that healthy men don't get AIDS from women, but it's entirely possible that a healthy woman can get AIDS from an infected bisexual man.

---

Yes. And IF he was bisexual, and IF he was infected, the medical studies show that it would take 500-1000 unprotected sex acts for her to become infected.

Which is why is it almost unheard of.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Apparently significant numbers of black man are 'on the down low' and serving as an AIDS vector into the hetero black community.

---

This may be true, but your "vector into the community" wrongly implies that once it gets into the hetero community, it will spread readily. It won't, and that is because even if the small number of women who defy the odds by becoming infected then start up with other male partners, it is essentially impossible for those men to become infected unless they have open genital sores. The only ones affected are those women who sleep with bisexuals or who sleep with IV abusers.

[LN2Campy]

yes, that more accurate acronym unfortunately lasted for only about a week and a half in 1982

[Atlas Sneezed]

Agreed, the point I was making was women are more at risk than men. And I can also assure anals sex is not simply somethign that men on men do... lots of men/women couples engage in it as well.

---

Indeed. And the reason that such women aren't being infected is because the men don't have AIDS to transmit, because they never received anal sex or used IV drugs.

[blanknoone]

While the risk factor for women is quite possibly higher for women than men in hetero contact, the statistics fumento is using (from CDC) don't support that it is anywhere near as difficult for men to get AIDS from women as you imply.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1402/table3.htm

Men getting AIDS from women is about 4,000 to 5,000 per year and women getting AIDS from men is about 6,300 to 7,500 per year.

What is your source for your estimated number (500-1000) of risk encounters necessary for transmission?