You haven't shown me any data on the subject.
How come there were whole areas where the only people to be found were grandparents raising grandchildren.
The hardest hit areas have at most a 25% infection number, and that is only in some areas of Southern Africa. Most sexually mature adults are not infected.
I could ahve told you of the stuff i myself have seen, but you would have probably told me that was only hearsay
As you can see from the above quotes, you can't keep your story straight. I'm willing to listen but when you go from telling me that all sexually mature adults are wiped out to only 25% are infected, your credibility suffers.
It does not take 'thousands' of sexual contacts to contract HIV .....it only does that if you work with averages since fewer people here are infected with the disease.
The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta were the first to publish in 1989 in the New England Journal of Medicine that it takes about 1,000 unprotected sexual contacts with an HIV-positive person to become positive. The CDC's numbers are based on thousands of "discordant" hemophilia couples, in which the husband was positive from a transfusion and some of their wives became positive over time.
I hope president Bush and the CDC qualify as legitimate sources,
I'm afraid I don't know what "legitimate" means in this context. Both are primarily political not scientific.
Geez!
As you can see from the above quotes, you can't keep your story straight. I'm willing to listen but when you go from telling me that all sexually mature adults are wiped out to only 25% are infected, your credibility suffers.
Geez raised to the nth power! There are villages where the only people to be found are grandparents takign care of their grandkids. That is true. And the hardest hit nations (specifically those in Southern Africa) have at most a 25% infection rate. There is a difference between 'infectio rates' and 'wipeouts.' Please read my post well before you try to make a straw man out of it.
I'm afraid I don't know what "legitimate" means in this context. Both are primarily political not scientific.
Wow, i specifically chose the president's statements, as well as the CDC, and your answer is that they are both political and not scientific sources. I can see how the president would be a political source, but why would Bush lie? And as for the CDC .....calling it a political source and not a scientific one, YET you provide links to scientists who are regarded as 'renegade'(to be polite) by the main scientific body, just goes to show your myopia. You have made it up in your mind that AIDS is a farce and the dead were merely killed by nothing more than normal ailments. And nothing i can do or say would change that view.
Which is why you would discount the findings of the CDC as merely 'political.'
But the good thing is other Freepers will look at both our posts. And they will make up their own minds. And i doubt most of them will think president Bush is cooking up his fact sheets, or that the CDC is a political puppet.