So what? The article is called The Big Lie...that my friend, is hogwash, pure and simple. Hiv is spread a number of ways. One of them is unsafe vaginal sex. If legal, I could provide you with the names and phone numbers of people infected by vaginal intercourse. I wish you could meet them and explain to them that they didn't really have HIV.
Clearly the number of transmission via normal heterosexual intercourse have been inflated to serve an agenda; that is The Big Lie (thought that is not the title of the article).
Your reply does not address the point of my comment, not even 1%.
Of course HIV can be spread, by any number of means. So what?
The fact that HIV is very widespread in African women (if that is indeed the case, and I don';t know that it is) does NOT indicate recent infection by some sort of widespread vector.
It is an epidimiological indicator of a very OLD infection. The truth is that all HIV epidemiological studies all over the world indicate that the reservior of infection is almost constant over time. This is a very mature viral infection in humanity. Epidemiologically it is impossible to know about infection rates 2 or 3 hundred years ago, but it is undisputable that HIV infection was extraordinarily widespread in humans decads before the start of the AIDS epidemic. HIV infection has probably been common in man for millennia.
"...HIV-based definition of AIDS (see § 3) can not be used in Africa to distinguish AIDS-defining from otherwise indistinguishable diseases, because as of 1985 the WHO decided at a conference in Bangui, Africa, to accept African AIDS diagnoses without HIV-tests (see § 3)."
and
"Indeed, all available data are compatible with an old African epidemic of malnutrition and poverty-associated diseases under a new name..."
1.2 African epidemic
A new AIDS epidemic was also claimed to have emerged in sub-Saharan Africa in 1984 (Bayley 1984; Piot et al 1984; Seligmann et al 1984; Van de Perre et al 1984; Quinn et al 1986, 1987). In sharp contrast to its US/Euro- pean namesakes, the African AIDS epidemic is randomly distributed between the sexes and not restricted to beha- vioural risk groups (Blattner et al 1988; Duesberg 1988; World Health Organization 2001a). Hence sub-Saharan African AIDS is compatible with a random, either micro- bial or chemical cause.
The African epidemic is also a collection of long-establi- shed, indigenous diseases, such as chronic fevers, weight loss, alias “slim disease”, diarrhea and tuberculosis (table 2), (Colebunders et al 1987; Konotey-Ahulu 1987a, b, 1989; Pallangyo et al 1987; Duesberg 1992). However, the distribution of AIDS-defining diseases in Africa dif- fers strongly from those in the US and Europe (table 2).
For example, the predominant and most distinctive AIDS diseases in the US and Europe, Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and Kaposi’s sarcoma, are almost never diag- nosed in Africa (Goodgame 1990; Abouya et al 1992). According to the WHO the African epidemic has in- creased from 1984 until the early 1990s, similar to the epidemics of the US and Europe, but has since leveled off to generate about 75,000 cases annually (figure 1c), (World Health Organization 2001b, and back issues). By 2001, Africa had reportedly generated a cumulative total of 1,093,522 cases (World Health Organization 2001b). However, there are three reasons for questioning these numbers:
(i) During the African AIDS epidemic, the sub-Saharan African population has grown, at an annual rate of about 2?6% per year – from 378 million in 1980 to 652 million in 2000 (US Bureau of the Census International Data Base 2001). Thus Africa had gained since 1980 274 million people, the equivalent of the whole population of the US!
Therefore, a possible, above-normal loss of 1 million Africans over a period in which over 200 millions were gained is statistically hard, if not impossible to verify – unless the African AIDS diseases were highly distinctive.
(ii) However, the African AIDS-defining diseases are clinically indistinguishable from conventional African morbidity and mortality (see above).
(iii) Further the HIV-based definition of AIDS (see § 3) can not be used in Africa to distinguish AIDS-defining from otherwise indistinguishable diseases, because as of 1985 the WHO decided at a conference in Bangui, Africa, to accept African AIDS diagnoses without HIV-tests (see § 3). This was done because these tests are unaffordable in most African countries (World Health Organization 1986; Fiala 1998; Fiala et al 2002). Thus without the CDC’s HIV standard (§ 3), the diagnosis of African AIDS is arbitrary.
In view of the many epidemiological and clinical distinc- tions of African AIDS from its US/European namesakes and the many uncertainties about the diagnosis of African AIDS, both the novelty of African AIDS and its relation- ship to the US/European AIDS epidemics have been cal- led into question (Hodgkinson 1996; Fiala 1998; Shenton 1998; Gellman 2000; Stewart et al 2000; Malan 2001; Fiala et al 2002; Gisselquist et al 2002; Ross 2003). Indeed, all available data are compatible with an old African epide- mic of malnutrition and poverty-associated diseases under a new name (Konotey-Ahulu 1987a, b; Oliver 2000; Stewart et al 2000).
In the following we will try to find the most probable causes for the various AIDS epidemics based on epide- miological, clinical, microbial and biochemical evidence.
http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html