Hey, the US is getting more like SA every day....

good info. thank you for this news.

what do heterosexual AIDS deniers like Prager say about the massive amount of heterosexually transmitted HIV in Africa? does it not count because they're black, or something?

Actually, there is a compelling Aids skeptic movement, which is not ideologically based, but scientifically based. World class virologist Peter Duesberg has risked his career to point out that the HIV-causes-Aids hypothesis is questionable in many, many ways. Unfortunately, scientific consensus does not guarantee accuracy, particularly in a field (unlike climatology) in which research objectives are severley distorted by powerful interests seeking to protect or expand their turf: the drug companies, the AMA, the CDC etc. Consider that a 2004 study in the Journal of Clinical Oncolgy found that chemotherapy treatment, which is routinely prescribed and costs around $100,000 per patient, has only a 2% chance of increasing 5 year survival rates. “It is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival,” the researchers wrote. “To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required.”

Remember this the next time someone you know has a cancer diagnosis.

True, the chemotherapy issue is not so much a question of bad research, but as Duesberg points out masterfully in his book, the synergies of the players and incentives within the medical establishment often result in putting the needs of the patient last.

I think this Harvard Study perfectly illustrates just how dangerous these denialists can be. Only when they are held accountable will they end their deadly diatribe. Peter Duesberg himself should go to prison forever. He has asked for certain evidence over the years and it has all been given to him (See 1994 SCIENCE article by Jon Cohen, "The Duesberg Phenomenon")
Depsite the evidence, his ego will not allow him to admit the error of his ways, and thus take responsibility for the innumerable deaths he is personally responsible for.
Sincerely,
J. Todd DeShong
www.dissidents4dumbees.blogspot.com

what do heterosexual AIDS deniers like Prager say about the massive amount of heterosexually transmitted HIV in Africa? does it not count because they're black, or something?

Belle:

I've dealt with these people before. They tend to be homophobes and racists and think that all those Africans are on the down-low (or even screwing animals). Seriously.

"what do heterosexual AIDS deniers like Prager say about the massive amount of heterosexually transmitted HIV in Africa? does it not count because they're black, or something?"

It really isn't valid to compare heterosexual transmission rates of HIV in, say, Africa with, say, the rate in the US. It has nothing to do with race, it has a great deal to do with poverty and culture. But before I mention those factors, I want to deal with an essential dishonesty in Adam Serwer's post.

Serwer is conveniently obscuring something when he qualifies the "nearly third" of HIV transmission in the US due to heterosexual contact as "high risk". "High risk" in the CDC report doesn't mean "without a condom". It means, as footnoted in the report, "heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection". That is a distinct qualification from heterosexual contact in general.

Furthermore, when you look in detail at transmission—and there's a long, long history of good science on this—you see that in general, it is not that easy to transmit HIV through plain old intercourse.

The essential characteristic is what we've all been taught: sharing of bodily fluids. Mostly (but not entirely) that doesn't include merely semen in the vagina (or mouth). HIV can be transmitted that way, and any risk at all is worth protecting against, but it's very unlikely.

No, what makes the biggest single difference is blood transmission. This is why anal intercourse is such a prime vector, and why there's a much higher risk in some specific subsets of all other kinds of sex. If there's tearing of the labia minora or vaginal wall, there's much higher risk. Rape is an example. More importantly, when there's some other forms of STDs present, especially with any open sores, the risk is much, much higher. This includes oral, if there's semen.

This also is why the heterosexual transmission rates are generally asymmetric with regard to gender: it's much more likely for male-to-female transmission to occur than female-to-male. For the same reasons, the rate of transmission between lesbians is the lowest of all populations. It's basically unheard of.

It's important for healthy people engaging in heterosexual activity to be safe. Even if the risk is small, it's important to avoid it. But it is simply true that non-anal heterosexual intercourse between healthy partners is not very likely to result in transmission.

Besides injuries and other STDs, another factor increasing risk is generally poor health and an already damaged immune system.

Now we can talk about the high rates in Africa. They're the sorry combination of a number of factors (most of which aren't present in the US, except to some degree in the worst inner-city ghettos where drug-abuse and other STDs are rampant). First and foremost, in many African cultures there is a high utilization of prostitutes. The prostitutes all have always had some STDs, they now all have HIV, and the large portion of men who frequent them also have STDs, which make them susceptible to getting HIV from the prostitutes. The men then transmit the other STDs to their wives and girlfriends, which causes open sores and greatly increases the chances of their transmitting HIV, too.

There are high rates of a number of other diseases, as well as poor nutrition, all of which general weaken the immune system and make everyone more susceptible to HIV. A few—not all or most, but a few—prefer intercourse to occur without the female lubricated, which results in vaginal scraping and tearing and greatly increases the chance of HIV transmission.

As an adamant gay rights supporter, a long observer of the HIV epidemic, and someone who is both sex positive and is a strong believer in sex and health education, I am partly bemused and partly annoyed at this post. I certainly recognize that there is a homophobic attempt to re-characterize AIDS as a "gay disease" and that we should fight them. I also recognize the danger of thinking of Africans as "the other" when we think about the HIV epidemic there.

Even so, that shouldn't excuse exaggerating or, worse, outright lying in opposite direction to stake out an (important) political position. Maybe the general public oughtn't be aware of the relative risks of various behaviors and should instead simply be taught to be safe. But I think that doesn't really excuse what seems to me to be the essential dishonesty in this blog post.

There is no "compelling" AIDS skeptic movement, just a rag tag of around a few hundred disaffected individuals, the vast majority of whom have no science credentials whatsoever.
The AIDS denialism movement is certainly not based on scientific evidence, but is ideologically driven.
It's poster boy, Duesberg, is rather tarnished by other strange things he has bought into.

Terrible

Thanks for your information, good