Is HIV a Sexually-Transmitted Virus?

New Studies Raise Questions, Particularly in Africa

by Liam Scheff, The Weekly Dig (Boston)



A new African AIDS study seriously challenges the widely accepted hypothesis

that HIV is a sexually transmitted virus. The study, by Dr. David

Gisselquist, et al, appeared in the International Journal of STD & AIDS, a

peer-reviewed journal published by Britain's Royal Society of Medicine.

According to Gisselquist, "The idea that sex explains 90% of African HIV

just doesn't fit the facts. We need to take a look at the alternate

explanations, in particular, healthcare transmissions, which seem to fit a

lot of facts," he told Reuters. Among the study's revelations: Sexual

practices in areas with the highest rates of infection were no different

than in those with low rates of infection; infants of HIV-negative mothers

tested positive for HIV, as did individuals with no sexual exposure; and

heterosexual couples were no more likely to transmit the virus to each other

than their European and American counterparts. Gisselquist maintains that

contaminated needle injections and other unsafe medical practices could be

the cause.

But Dr. Chris Ouma, head of the charity ActionAid Kenya1s health programs,

disagrees. 'The idea that dirty needles or blood transfusions are the main

route for HIV transmission in Africa today flies in the face of experience

on the ground. In Kenya, medical procedures have largely been made safe but

still HIV infections continue to rise." Surveys of sexual behavior in Africa

show patterns nearly identical to North America and Europe where HIV

infection rates are much lower, but clean water, food and basic medical care

are widely available.

This isn1t the first study to challenge the hypothesis that HIV is sexually

transmitted. The 10-year Padian study (1997) observed sexually active

couples in which one partner was HIV positive. The result: in 10 years, not

one uninfected partner contracted HIV, even though all participants admitted

to having sex without condoms. The study states, 'We followed up 175

HIV-discordant couples over time, for a total of approximately 282

couple-years of follow up. The longest duration of follow-up was 12 visits

(6 years). We observed no seroconversion [infection] after entry into the

study." In the three-year Stewart study (1985) not one male partner of

HIV-positive women contracted HIV. Prostitution is not even listed as an HIV

risk category by the CDC, because of the extremely low incidence of HIV

transmission to clients who have no other risk factors (i.e. drug abuse).

These findings bolster the hypothesis of some AIDS scientists that chronic

malnutrition and other environmental factors, and not a sexually-transmitted

virus, are the causes of weakened immunity in people diagnosed with one of

the nearly 30 AIDS-defining diseases (which vary from country to country).

Study after study has shown 'HIV' is not sexually transmitted, but not once has the mass media even made a mention of this. The public is fed false fears based on myths and lies. Thanks for a great posting.

AIDS is the American Invention to Discourage Sex!

Cool info!!!!

Not that I agree entirely with this study..

but NGO such as Aids foundations have a vested interest in widening the group of people at threat to the disease and thereby increasing their funding.

However keep in mind this is female to male transmission.. ie you should still wear a condom with unknown partners to protect HER. Or at least she should make you wear it.

Also I am willing to accept that

"The idea that sex explains 90% of African HIV

just doesn't fit the facts."

But it is also very plausible medically speaking that there is some level of transmission even if it is only due to her bleeding with sex or him bleeding or some other such reason.

I understand there are some studies out there that have indicated tramsmission rates (other studies besides this one) where their results indicated there was female to male transmission although significantly less than male to female.

Dear Scottie,

This great article was posted a few days ago. I copied it. It shows condoms are useless.



THE SPERM VS. THE AIDS VIRUS

A paper in the February 1992 issue of Applied and Environmental Microbiology reports that filtration techniques show the HIV-1 virus to

be 0.1 micron (4 millionths of an inch) in diameter. It is three times smaller than the herpes virus, 60 times smaller than the syphilis

spirochete, and 50 to 450 times smaller than sperm. (8)

THE FLAWED CONDOM

Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) researchers, using powerful electron microscopes, have found that new latex, from which condoms are

fabricated, contains "maximum inherent flaw[s]" (that is, holes) 70 microns in diameter. (9)

These holes are 700 times larger than the HIV-1 virus. There are pores in latex, and some of the pores are large enough to pass sperm-sized

particles. Carey, et al., observed leakage of HIV-sized particles through 33%+ of the latex condoms tested. In addition, as Gordon points

out in his review, the testing procedures for condoms are less than desirable. United States condom manufacturers are allowed 0.4% leaky

condoms (AQL). Gordon states, "The fluctuations in sampling permits many batches not meeting AQL to be sold." In the United States,

12% of domestic and 21% of imported batches of condoms have failed to meet the 0.4% AQL. (10)



PANACEA OR PLACEBO?

In conclusion, Herbert Ratner, M.D., offers the best summary of all when he says,

Actually, the major accomplishment of the condom campaign to prevent AIDS is to impress the promoters, politicians and the public at large that

something is being done; and although well-intentioned, it offers more of a placebo than a panacea.

Publicizing the condom to the four winds is, for the most part, the bravura of a puritan who is trying to prove to the world

that he is not a puritan. To concentrate on the mechanical aspects of the sex act to the exclusion of the emotional and psychological aspects (which

the condom campaign ignores) is the essence of Puritanism. The only difference between the new and the old is that whereas the traditional puritans

were alleged to believe that sex was something to be isolated and repressed, neo-puritans accept sex as something to be isolated and exercised. (28)





Reviewed by Joel McIlhaney, M.D., of the Medical Institute for Sexual Health

I will be their "devils advocate" here...

1) Their argument would be that while a condom is thin to our eye - to a HIV virus it is miles wide. therefore jsut because a virus can fit into a hole doesnt mean it can find that hole and make it all the way through.



2) I understand that less than a certain amount of exposure to aids is unlikely to cause aids. (not sure exactly why this is) but the amount of aids getting through a poor probably doesnt pass the threashold.

Of course if condom manufacturers do not meet the standards required they should face VERY stiff penalties even if there is no point to a condom they are doing somthing which "for all they know" is endangering life.

-- the bravura of a puritan who is trying to prove to the world that he is not a puritan

I think the NGO etc argument (which i did not invent ) is more infulential, although I am a person who tends to believe in structural reasons as opposed to psycological ones -- but there is an aspect to this one also.