"All the World's a Stage We Pass Through" R. Ayana

Tuesday 15 February 2011

AIDS: The Real Story Part 1 – The Heterosexual Myth

AIDS – The Real Story

What You Probably Haven’t Been Told

Part 1 – The Heterosexual Myth


·        Why AIDS is not a problem for heterosexuals who avoid anal sex  
·        Where did it come from?  
·        WHO is responsible

 This is a report by a researcher who has been compiling, sifting and cross-checking information on AIDS and related subjects for decades. A number of glaring inconsistencies have caught the attention of people closely observing the AIDS phenomenon in the sciences and the media. Some of these are outlined and connected below. Most of this information has been in the public domain for decades but has been consistently ignored by relevant authorities and mis-reported to the public.

           The sheer amount of disconnected information on AIDS thoroughly confuses most people regarding the true nature of this syndrome. Perhaps this series will help to replace the baseless fears that have come to be associated with human sexuality with a more enlightened attitude. 

          Please check the Glossary (coming soon) if the language becomes difficult. You won’t need any pecialized knowledge to follow this convoluted trail in pursuit of the real effects and probable evolution of AIDS.   


What Is It?

A.I.D.S. – Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome – is believed to be caused by different types of a very small virus called H.I.V. – Human Immuno-deficiency Virus. Like all viruses, HIV is made of genes wrapped up in a coat of protein. But unlike the majority of viruses and other organisms, its genetic coding is made of RNA (Ribo-Nucleic Acid) coiled at the core instead of DNA. Its coat is made f two layers of proteins inside a fatty surface layer with glycoproteins (proteins with sugars attached) embedded in it.

           In the core along with the RNA are some molecules of an enzyme called reverse transcriptase, that the virus uses to reproduce itself. That’s the virus associated with AIDS – a very simple organism called a retrovirus that requires special cells from the human immune system (T4 ‘helper’ cells) to multiply itself. 

          HIV is a member of the retrovirus sub-family called lentiviruses (Lentivirinae), or ‘slow viruses’. Three other species of lentiviruses known to exist are those causing maedi-visna disease in sheep, infectious anaemia in horses and encephalitis-arthritis in goats (CAE or Caprine-Arthritis-Encephalitis).

The Heterosexual Myth

We’ve been told that AIDS is caused by an organism transmitted by heterosexual intercourse – that people can catch it in the same way they catch syphilis, gonorrhea and other venereal diseases. We’ve been told it’s associated with promiscuity and having multiple sex partners, and that the people of the world have had to change their sexual behaviour and lifestyles to cope with this lethal threat. It would seem foolish to  gnore these warnings, logical as they seem. But how do we know they’re true? A careful review of AIDS research, statistics and related literature paints a very different picture than that portrayed by authorities and media.

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics 
Reportage of statistics often misrepresents the data and statistical data is often conceptually flawed. Some examples:

          Widely circulated statistics seemed to say that the number of heterosexual AIDS sufferers doubled in just two years, from 1986 to 1988. These figures came from the authoritative U.S. Centers for Disease Control (C.D.C.) in their Public Health Reports. They used figures released at a conference held in June 1986 to claim a rise from 2% to 4% in the percentage of heterosexually-transmitted AIDS cases.

           The CDC didn’t mention that this 100% jump to 4% came about only by lumping together two different categories of AIDS sufferers that had previously been kept distinct – native-born Americans (2%), and Africans and Haitians who had recently moved to the United States (2%). There was no actual increase in the percentage of sufferers.

           CDC chief statistician Dr Meade Morgan and AIDS program director Dr James Curran (later dismissed) also predicted that heterosexual transmission would account for 5.3% of cases by 1991. Most of the media preferred a larger figure – 9% - quoted from an anonymous study published in the same Public Health Reports
          The anonymous study included patients who had no idea what their source of HIV contact had been, blamed prostitutes, refused to be interviewed, or had died. Because some researchers thought that some of these ‘unexplained’ cases may have been caused by heterosexual contact, a statistician created the 9% figure by simply adding all these ‘unknown’ categories together and invented a ‘worst-case’ projection – that was quoted around the world. It’s impossible to say whether any of these unexplained cases belonged in the heterosexual category.

           “When I asked Dr Morgan about this he replied that ‘the [anonymous] report was prepared in only a day and a half to two days’, that ‘it was probably an omission’ not to state explicitly that cases of undetermined origin had been lumped together with the heterosexuals, but that ‘if somebody called we’d set them straight.’ Virtually no-one has called…”, reporter Michael Fumento wrote in 1988.[i] 

          US Surgeon General Koop used the CDC’s figures to claim that “the curve for heterosexuals contracting AIDS is going up more than twice as fast because they are not taking the precautions homosexuals have learned are essential.” The real reason the curve went up “twice as fast” was shoddy statistical practices. Surgeon General Koop also predicted that “among heterosexuals there are going to be 20 times as many cases…” (by 1990).

[ii]           This was either deliberate disinformation or culpably inept misinformation. Which was better for the Surgeon General? The real profile of a ‘typical AIDS victim’ in the US was a lower-class Negro woman who was the regular sex partner of an intra-venous (I.V.) drug user, according to his own department’s findings in September 1987. White heterosexuals made up less than half of one percent of all US AIDS cases – even including the above statistics juggling.

           In one of the most extensive contemporary studies of HIV in the general population ever conducted, only 0.04% of over a million blood donors in the US, and 0.15% of 308,078 applicants for military service (mostly single males) tested positive for HIV antibodies.[iii]
          Early figures on heterosexual spread were ‘coloured’ by false data from the US Army. The Journal of the American Medical Association reported a 1985 US Army study in which the proportion of men with AIDS reported to have engaged in homosexuality or IV drug use – the real major risk factors for AIDS – was changed from 26% of the total to 86% on closer scrutiny of cases. But not before the earlier figure had already clouded many surveys and media reports.[iv]   

          If it is possible for AIDS to be transmitted by heterosexual vaginal (or even oral) sex it’s extraordinary that this has still not been conclusively proven after a generation of multi-billion dollar research – and yet we’re consistently told that AIDS is a heterosexually transmitted disease that necessitates complete changes in normal, healthy and transformational human sexual and sensual practices. Most people have remained in a state of sexual confusion, stultification or worse since these statistical ‘errors’ were first spread around the world and they have still not been refuted and declaimed for what they are – lies. Who benefits from this?  
         Back in 1988 again, an annual survey of US women’s views showed that 71% of respondents were worried about a heterosexual AIDS epidemic – up from 56% the previous year. 26% mistakenly believed they could catch AIDS through casual contact and 70% said they were more cautious about sex.[v] This parallels other studies, some of which show that women in particular were scared into celibacy by the imaginary threat of heterosexual AIDS. In light of this, we’ll present a few more ‘official’ statistics to more clearly illustrate the flexibility of the figures.  

Yes, Minister

For instance, the Australian Government Health Department released a Bulletin in April 1987 that said three heterosexuals had died of AIDS. This was widely reported. But their Bulletin for September 1987 showed that this figure had been ‘revised’ to one heterosexual death since the ‘epidemic’ began in the late 1970s! This was not widely reported. These Bulletins were distributed throughout Australia and the world by the Federal Government and formed the basis for statistics and media reports.[vi]  

“Those who are suggesting that we are going to see an explosive spread of AIDS in the heterosexual population have to explain why this isn’t happening.”   -         US Centers for Disease Control Chief Epidemiologist, Dr Harold Jaffe[vii] 

 Back in Australia in 1988, of only seven apparent cases of ‘heterosexual transmission’, two were women where the partner was already infected; the remaining five – 3 women and 2 men – were presumed to be heterosexual even though their partners and means of infection were unknown! In the other two cases it was uncertain whether anal sex had taken place, or that the means of transmission was heterosexual and not, for instance, related to IV drug use. All information was based on voluntary interviews, not clinical research.[viii] 

          In March 1988, the Australian National Advisory Committee on AIDS (NACAIDS) announced that there were between 50,000 and 100,000 people infected with HIV in Australia. These figures were widely circulated by the press and other media (the previous August the World Health Organisation (W.H.O.) released figures claiming 60,000 reported cases world-wide and a potential of between five and ten million unreported cases).[ix] 

          In response, the chairman of Victoria’s AIDS Advisory Committee, internationally recognized virologist Professor Ian Gust, said these general figures were probably based on out-of-date and inflated estimates of the spread  of AIDS in homosexual men,[x] which was itself receding.

           At the same time only about 800 Australians had even been identified as having AIDS and the number of new cases of HIV infection was roughly stable, despite a huge increase in the number of tests being performed. Less than 1% of these were ascribed to ‘heterosexual’ transmission, and this classification remained dubious. The Australian Blood Bank reported in early 1988 that only one blood donation (out of hundreds of thousands carried out in preceding months) had tested positive for HIV. 

          When asked whether the public should be concerned about heterosexual spread of AIDS in 1988, pre-eminent eminent virologist Professor Peter H. Duesberg (considered the microbiologist who knew more about retroviruses – the group to which HIV belongs – than any other) replied; 

“I wouldn’t be worried at all. The virus has been around for eight years in a country with more than 200 million people and not even 1,000 women have got the disease. Whatever’s causing the disease, it’s not easy to get. I might wear a condom to avoid other diseases but not for AIDS.         “Well, maybe if I wanted to have anal intercourse with a prostitute in Port-au-Prince…” 
Only a few publications at the edges of the mainstream media clearly presented doubts about false data and erroneous conclusions being presented to a panicky public that didn’t know what to believe. Anastasia Lekatsas, ex-coordinator of investigations for the AIDS Surveillance Unit of the New York City Department of Health, followed up reports of heterosexual spread of AIDS for years. By careful investigation and questioning of patients, their friends and relatives she found that many patients had lied on the standard questionnaires (used to compile statistics on AIDS) – that many ‘heterosexual’ cases had, in fact, belonged to high-risk groups.

           The proportion of New York City’s 15,000 cases with no identifiable risk factors remained at half a percent – just 85 cases, including only 8 men who claimed to have caught the disease from a woman. Lekatsas believed almost all of these were lying, but unlike the scores of other cases she confirmed to be non-heterosexual she could find no proof – and the men were dead and couldn’t be questioned (See Rolling Stone, February 1989). 

          AIDS is not a ‘gay plague’, not a heterosexual plague, nor in fact a plague at all. The only ways to get HIV/AIDS are by intravenous drug use (with infected needles), direct blood contact with infected blood or blood products (probably including eye splashes), or anal sex, heterosexual or homosexual – and the receptive partner bears the risk; the ‘active’ partner may not be able to contract HIV at all from the ‘receptive’ partner.  

 -          R.Ayana

[i]  Michael Fumento, The AIDS Backlash, The Bulletin (Australia), 22-3-88 p.61 (our parentheses)
 [ii] Ibid, p.  62
[iii]  Dr Jonathan Mann, Director of the WHO special program on AIDS, New Scientist, 26-3-87 p. 41
[iv] via The Sydney Morning Herald 3-8-87
[v]  1988 sixth annual edition of the US Women’s View Survey
[vi] Communicable Diseases Intelligence Bulletin Nos 87/7 (April) and 87?18 (September) 1987 – Australian Federal Dept. of Health
[vii] The AIDS Backlash, The Bulletin 22-3-88 p. 62
[viii] March 1988 figures from NHMRC Special Unit in AIDS Epidemiology and Child Research (Australia)
[ix] NACAIDS, reported in Sydney Telegraph 30-8-87
[x] The Australian, 25-3-88

Images -


For further enlightenment enter a word or phrase into the search box or click on a tab at the bottom of the page @  New Illuminati:

or http://newilluminati.blog-city.com  (this one only works with Firefox)

And see

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com
 http://newilluminati.blog-city.com (this one only works with Firefox)

This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a tiny donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com


  1. Court of Appeals rules HIV not likely to be spread through unprotected sex ~
    In a landmark legal case that has received little attention outside the United States, the highest military court in the US recently overturned decades of judgements regarding the likelihood of spreading HIV through unprotected sex.

    In late February, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) unanimously threw out a 2011 conviction against a US airman, Sergeant David Gutierrez of Kansas, for committing "aggravated assault" when exposing multiple sex partners to HIV at swinger parties in Wichita. According to defence attorney Kevin McDermott, the decision reversed a 25-year precedent that had allowed military personnel to be convicted of aggravated assault solely on the basis of a positive HIV test.

    "The key to the decision was that the convicted airman was not accused of actually infecting anyone with HIV, only of having had sex with them after a positive HIV test, and his conviction was overturned because the US government could not prove that any of his acts were likely to transmit HIV to his partners. The second highest court in America has unanimously rubbished the myth that being found HIV positive makes someone an automatic risk to others."

    So said Joan Shenton, London-based author of the recently republished anniversary edition of the book "Positively False - Exposing the Myths around HIV and AIDS".

    Shenton continued: "The US government was unable to prove a likelihood that an HIV person is a risk, even during unprotected sex, because there is no proof. And if the transmission of HIV is now in such doubt, the entire edifice of the infectious hypothesis for AIDS will surely come tumbling down."

    The absence of any definitive medical evidence about HIV transmission was highlighted when defence lawyers argued the risk ranged from a 1-in-10,000 to 1-in-100,000 chance per sexual encounter and prosecutors countered that the exposure risk was closer to 1 in 500. The court determined that even if the risk were 1 in 500, transmission of the disease was not "likely" to occur.

    Clark Baker, of the Office of Medical Science and Justice (OMSJ), which was the driving force behind Sergeant Gutierrez's appeal, said this week:
    "While gratified that the highest US military court unanimously agrees that HIV does not pose the existential threat claimed by government-funded propagandists, I am sickened by the millions of innocents around the world whose lives have been destroyed by this $400 billion marketing scam to promote unreliable tests to sell deadly HIV drugs. This ruling is long overdue."

    David Crowe, president of Rethinking AIDS, said this week:
    "HIV is the only disease to be highly criminalized in the modern era. If courts truly believed in 'beyond a reasonable doubt', they would not rely on tests that produce false positives that cannot be eliminated, nor on biased analyses that cannot tell the direction of transmission, but do set juries in the direction of conviction. Society talks about privacy of an HIV diagnosis, but then mandates that all HIV+ people reveal their status, unless they want to remain celibate for life while still facing the likelihood of isolation, prejudice and violence if their status becomes public."...

    Continues @ https://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/releases/c993927/Court-of-Appeals-rules-HIV-not-likely-to-be-spread-through-unprotected-sex.html

  2. My name is Nathalia Lucas, 42 years old and female.From Brazil. I was diagnosed a couple of years ago with COPD and I was beyond scared! My lung function test indicated 49% capacity. After having had the flu a year ago, the shortness of breath, coughing and chest pains continued even after being treated with antibiotics. I've been smoking two packs a day for 36 years. Being born without a sternum caused my ribs to be curled in just one inch away from my spine, resulting in underdeveloped lungs. At age 36 I had surgery and it was fixed. Unfortunately my smoking just caused more damage to my already under developed lungs. The problem was that I enjoy smoking and don't want to give up! Have tried twice before and nearly went crazy and don't want to go through that again. I saw the fear in my husband and children's eyes when I told them about my condition then they started to find a solution on their own to help my condition.I am a 57 now who was diagnosed with COPD emphysema which I know was from my years of smoking. I started smoking in school when smoking was socially acceptable. I remember when smoking was permitted in hospitals. It was not known then how dangerous cigarettes were for us, and it seemed everybody smoked but I was able to get rid of my COPD lung condition through the help of  Dr James  total cure herbal medicine. my husband saw his testimony on the internet. He used his powerful medicine to cure different diseases. we contacted his email   [drjamesherbalmix@gmail.com}   He has the right herbal formula to help you get rid and repair any lung conditions and other diseases, will cure you totally and permanently with his natural organic herbs,We received the medicine through courier delivery service. I wish anybody who starts smoking at a young age would realize what will eventually happen to their bodies if they continue that vile habit throughout their life.


Add your perspective to the conscious collective