Is There Evidence AIDS is Sexually Transmitted?

According to Dr. David Rasnick, the facts don't support the hypothesis. Check out his letter from the British Medical

Journal online:

Sex Has Nothing to Do With AIDS

David Rasnick, Visiting Scientist, UC Berkeley

rasnick@mindspring.com

January 20, 2003

I challenge [doctors] to come up with the names, even one will do, of the persons documented to have shown that

AIDS or HIV is sexually transmitted. I know of no such study.

In fact, the scientific, medical literature is full of evidence that neither AIDS nor HIV is sexually transmitted. It is only

assumed that they are.

The results of the world's best scientific study that attempted to measure the efficiency of heterosexual transmission of

antibodies to HIV was conducted by Nancy Padian and her colleagues (Padian NS, et al. 1997:

Heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus in northern California: results from a ten-year study.

Am J Epidemiol 146: 350-7).

The most striking result of the ten-year study is that Padian et al. did not observe any HIV-negative sex partners

becoming HIV-positive from years of

unprotected sexual intercourse with their HIV-positive partners. I repeat?NOT ONE HIV-negative sex partner became

positive during the 10- year study. Therefore, the observed transmission efficiency was ZERO.

However, to avoid reporting a zero efficiency for the sexual transmission of HIV, Padian and colleagues assumed that

the HIV-positive sex partners in their study must have become positive through sexual intercourse before

entering the study. Using that assumption, they estimated that an HIV-negative woman would have to have sexual

intercourse 1,000 times with HIV-positive men before becoming HIV-positive herself. Even more astounding,

HIV-negative men would have to have 8000 sexual contacts before becoming HIV-positive.

Virtually identical figures have been reported by others (Gisselquist, D., et al., HIV infections in sub- Saharan Africa

not explained by sexual or vertical transmission. Int J STD AIDS, 2002. 13: p. 657-666; Jacquez, J.A.,

et al., Role of the primary infection in epidemics of HIV infection in gay cohorts. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr,

1994. 7: p. 1169-1184).

Given these figures and that the US Centers for Disease Control estimates that one million Americans have antibodies

to HIV raises an enormous problem for sexually transmitted HIV. Since there are around 280 million men and women

in the USA, that means that on average an HIV-negative woman would have to have random sexual intercourse

140,000 times?and a man eight times

that number?in order to become HIV-positive (assuming equal distribution of HIV between the sexes).

Below are additional examples in the literature that neither AIDS nor HIV is sexually transmitted.

- None of the husbands of HIV positive women became antibody positive to HIV over a three-year period. (Lancet ii:

581 (1985), Stewart et al.}

- No transmission of HIV was observed between couples in which all of the women were HIV positive and in which at

least 100 sexual contacts occurred. (JAMA 259: 3037 (1988), Padian et al.)

- After a mean of 3-1/2 years of unprotected intercourse, with an average of 50 sexual encounters per year, only one

hemophiliac wife became HIV positive. (American Journal of Medicine 85: 472 (1988), Kim et al.)

- No transmission of T-cell abnormalities from hemophiliacs with AIDS to their spouses. (JAMA 251: 1450 (1984),

Kreiss et al.)

- "The number of American and European heterosexuals who have had sexual relations with a prostitute, who have no

other admitted risk factors (such as drug abuse), and who have subsequently developed antibody to HIV can be

counted on the fingers of one hand. Sex with a prostitute is not even listed as a risk category by the American CDC."

(Rethinking AIDS, Root-Bernstein, 1993)

- "Non-drug abusing prostitutes have no higher risk of AIDS than other women." (AIDS: the second decade, report

from the National Academy of Sciences USA, 1990)

The same is true for prostitutes in Germany, Zurich, Vienna, London, Paris, Pardenone (Italy), and Athens. (Klinische

Wochenschrift 65: 287 (1987), Luthy et al.; Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift 98: 697 (1986), Kopp &

Dangl-Erlach; Lancet ii: 1424 (1985), Brenky-Fandeux & Fribourg-Blanc; British Medical Journal 297: 1585 (1988),

Day et al.; Scand J Infect Dis 21: 353 (1988), Hyams et al.)

This article confirms the point you are making: -



Sex And HIV: Behaviour-Change Trial Shows No Link

The East African (Nairobi)

March 17, 2003

Posted to the web March 19, 2003

By Paul Redfern, Special Correspondent

Nairobi

A UK funded trial aimed at reducing the spread of Aids in Uganda by

modifying sexual behaviour appears to have had little discernible

effect.

The trial, carried out on around 15,000 people in the Masaka region,

involved distributing condoms, treating around 12,000 victims of

sexually transmitted diseases and counselling.

However, while the trial led to a marked change in sexual behavioural

patterns, with the proportion reporting causal sexual partners falling

from around 35 per cent to 15 per cent, there was no noticeable fall

in the number of new cases of HIV infection, although there was a

significant reduction in sexually transmitted diseases such as

syphilis and gonorrhoea.

The trial results, which were reported in the British medical journal

The Lancet, have already aroused some controversy.

The team leader of the trial, Dr Anatoli Kamalai, acknowledged that

there was "no measurable reduction" in HIV incidence with "no hint of

even a small effect."

But the research team's view is that the spread of HIV was already

declining in the area and the trial might not have been big enough to

detect any additional change.

There is, however, another view which has recently been put forward

which claims that inadequately sterilised needles across Africa have

led to a greater rate of HIV infection than sexual contact.

It is a view put forward by a mainly American group of scientists,

including Dr David Gisselquist, who told the Times of London that

"Results from the Masaka study add to the already long list of

findings from other studies that don't fit the hypothesis that most

HIV in African adults is from sexual transmission.

"These results from Masaka are similar to results published earlier

from a similar study in Rakai, Uganda, where interventions that

reduced STD prevalence had no impact on HIV incidence." However, such

a view is by no means mainstream in the latest thinking on the spread

of HIV in Africa.

Most scientific research still believes that HIV is mainly spread by

sexual transmission and that people suffering from STDs are

particularly prone.

The trial was the first systematic attempt on a large scale to assess

whether modifying sexual behaviour and better management of other

sexual diseases could cut the transmission of HIV in Africa.

In a commentary in The Lancet, Judith Stephenson and Frances Cowan of

the Royal Free and University College Medical School in London

acknowledged that "many people will be disappointed by the lack of

reduction in HIV incidence, despite an apparently appropriate

intervention that reduced other STDs and was implemented on a huge

scale with great care and commitment."

The two researchers suggest that it might have been "the right trial

and the wrong time" - when HIV incidence was falling and when there

were already substantial reductions in risk behaviour.

Copyright © 2003 The East African. All rights reserved. Distributed

by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).

http://allafrica.com/stories/200303190482.html

http://allafrica.com/stories/printable/200303190482.html

if poeple dont get aids from sex then from where since so many people have it

From the front page of the Mail & Guardian (South Africa) Jan. 24, 2001

The AIDS Blunder by David Rasnick, PhD

Member of Thabo Mbeki's AIDS Advisory Panel (South Africa)

The contagious, HIV hypothesis of AIDS is the biggest scientific, medical blunder of the 20th Century. The evidence

is overwhelming that AIDS is not contagious, sexually transmitted, or caused by HIV. I have come to realize that

embarrassment is the main obstacle to exposing this simple fact.

So why are we barraged, almost daily, by an endless litany of AIDS horrors and HIV statistics? Why do virtually all

doctors and public health officials profess their unswerving allegiance to the unproven hypothesis that AIDS is

contagious and sexually transmitted when the evidence is greatly against it?

There are more than 100 thousand doctors and scientists who have built

their careers and reputations by simply accepting the articles of faith

about AIDS. At this late date, it is simple human embarrassment that is

the biggest obstacle to bringing the AIDS insanity to an end. It is the fear

of being so obviously and hopelessly wrong about AIDS that keeps lips sealed, the money flowing and AIDS rhetoric

spiraling to stratospheric heights of absurdity.

The physicians who know or suspect the truth are embarrassed or afraid

To admit that the HIV tests are absurd and should be outlawed, and that the

anti-HIV drugs are injuring and killing people. We are taught to fear

antibodies, and to believe that antibodies to HIV are a harbinger of disease and death ten years in the future. When

you protest this absurdity and point out to health care workers that antibodies are the very essence of anti-viral

immunity your objections are met with either contempt or

embarrassed silence.

The National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the

Medical Research Council of South Africa, and the World Health

Organization are terrorizing hundreds of millions of people around the world by their

reckless and absurd policy of equating sex with death. Self preservation

compels these institutions to not only maintain but to actually compound

their errors, which adds to the fear, suffering, and misery of the

world-the antithesis of their reason for being.

The only way we can free ourselves from the AIDS blunder and bring an

End to the tyranny of fear is to have an open international discourse and

debate on all things AIDS. Anger will be a natural response to facing

the enormity of the scandal of AIDS. Anger has its place but it should be

put aside quickly. It is a mistake to focus on villains and on whom to

punish. The AIDS blunder is a sociological phenomenon in which we all share a

measure of responsibility.

Ultimately, the AIDS blunder is not really about AIDS, nor even about health and disease, nor even about science and

medicine. The AIDS blunder is about the health of our democracies. A healthy democracy demands that it’s citizens

keep a skeptical, even suspicious, eye on its institutions in order to prevent them from becoming the autonomous,

authoritarian regimes they are now.

The AIDS blunder shows that we need to rethink and restructure our

institutions of government, science, health, academe, journalism and media.

We must replace the National Institutes of Health as the primary gatekeeper of research funding with numerous

competing sources of funding. We must restructure the peer review processes of scientific publishing and funding so

that they do not promote and protect any particular dogma or fashion of thought or exclude competing ideas. A robust

and mean investigative journalism must be revived, rewarded and cherished.

Finally, as citizens we must take back the authority and responsibility

for our own health and well being and that of our democracies.





CLICK LINK TO LEARN MORE

The following requirements are a few of the scientific protocols that are necessary but in the case for an infectious

agent in

the causation of AIDS have been ignored. Standard rules of science demand “observation.”

The Rules of Isolation

The rules for isolation of a retrovirus were thoroughly discussed at the Pasteur Institute, Paris, in 1973, and are the

logical minimum requirements for

establishing the independent existence of HIV. They are:

1. Culture of putatively infected tissue.

2. Purification of specimens by density gradient ultracentrifugation.

3. Electron micrographs of particles exhibiting the morphological characteristics and dimensions (100-120nm) of

retroviral particles at the sucrose (or

percoll) density of 1.16 gm/ml and containing nothing else, not even particles of other morphologies or

dimensions.

4. Proof that the particles contain reverse transcriptase.

5. Analysis of the particles' proteins and RNA and proof that these are unique.

6. Proof that 1-5 are a property only of putatively infected tissues and can not be induced in control cultures.

These are identical cultures, that is,

tissues obtained from matched, unhealthy subjects and cultured under identical conditions differing only in that

they are not putatively infected with a

retrovirus.

7. Proof that the particles are infectious, that is when PURE particles are introduced into an uninfected culture or

animal, the identical particle is

obtained as shown by repeating steps 1-5.





Koch's postulates define the steps required to establish a microorganism as the cause of a disease:

(a) it must be found in all cases of the disease;

(b) it must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture;

(c) it must reproduce the original disease when introduced into a susceptible host;

(d) it must be found present in the experimental host so infected.





AIDS does not meet the classic epidemiological criteria of an infectious disease:

1. Infectious diseases do not discriminate between sexes. The first epidemiological law of viral and microbial diseases

holds

that men and women are affected equally, because no virus or microbe discriminates between the sexes. This law

applies to all known infectious diseases

affecting large populations.

2. Farr’s law: Infectious diseases spread exponentially. Early in the last century the British epidemiologist William

Farr first recognized the

seasonal rise and fall of microbial epidemics. A new infectious disease rapidly explodes in a population - just as

rapidly as microbes are transmitted from

person to person. Then it declines within months because it is stopped by the elimination of susceptible victims either

by death or more often by natural

immunization.

This is the most ridiculous bullshit I've ever heard.

After scanning article I didn't see any creditable alternet rerason for the spread of HIV/AIDS. There point is fuck everybody you can without protection, it's ok! I sure hope these nit-wits are fucking each other, one way to eliminate genetic garbage.