Sign the petition

Durban Declaration Rebuttal

Commentary

Dear Folks.

I've noticed a major discrepancy I wanted to tell you about. Perhaps it's something you're already aware of.

It's accepted by the AIDS establishment that, based on studies like Nancy Padian's*, women are about eight times more vulnerable to the "HIV" virus than men are; i.e., they have a 1 in 1000 chance of "catching" it from a man due to a single sex act, and men have just a 1 in 8000 chance of getting it from a woman in a single sex act.

That raises several important questions. Why is AIDS still overwhelmingly male in the U.S., Western Europe and Australia? Granted, it started out in gays but if the "virus" has been around for 30 years (as it must have been, with the first U.S. AIDS cases appearing around 1980 and an average 10-year latency period, meaning the first cases could have gotten infected in 1970), there's been PLENTY of time for bisexuals to bring it into the hetero population and for women to start to assert their natural 8-fold superiority in "catching" it.

But it gets still more puzzling, for the CDC assures us that in Africa, AIDS is primarily heterosexual and that there is a 50-50 male-female distribution of the disease in the African population. How can that be, if women are eight times more likely to "catch" it? Shouldn't it be an overwhelmingly female disease in Africa?

And in India, USAIDS tells us that there are more HIV-positive cases than any country in the world, 3.5 million. (Haven't they claimed more than that in S. Africa?) And these Indian cases are 79% male, 21% female. There, too, it is said to be primarily a heterosexual disease. And there, too, it just doesn't make sense.

UNAIDS tells us that in Thailand, AIDS is 81% heterosexual. For 1996-1998, there were 7,298 male heterosexual cases, and 1,942 female heterosexual cases. Again, about 3-1/2 times more men than women. And all the mainstream AIDS authorities agree that women are eight times more vulnerable to catching the virus.

UNAIDS doesn't have a heterosexual/other mode breakdown for China, but they do claim that AIDS cases in China for 1996-98 total 256 males and 18 females in the most populous country in the world. A raging epidemic!!!

I haven't spent the time to look at the epidemiology in other countries, but I'd guess it's probably the same story.

We've all known that it was overwhelmingly male for a long time, but I'm not sure anyone has pointed out the huge discrepancy with accepted figures on male/female vulnerability to the virus before.

I think we have another telling discrepancy here, further proof that the whole paradigm is bullshit. Wanted to share it with you. If you agree, let's all spread the word.

Marcel Girodian

* Padian NS et al (1997). Heterosexual Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in Northern California: Results from a Ten-Year Study. Am J Epidemiol 146: 350-7.

For more on the Padian study go here.

TORONTO

tel/fax:(416) 406-HEAL

Webmaster: Robert Johnston
jaunts@mailcity.com