by Liam Scheff
In 1997, Dr. Nancy Padian, of the University of California, Berkeley, published the longest study on Heterosexual transmission of HIV ever recorded. An above-average AIDS researcher, she was careful to exclude injection drug users in her study, as she wanted to test one thing and one thing only:
And so, 175 long-term ‘mixed couples’ (one partner ‘HIV positive,’ one ‘negative’) did it, in every possible combination of ingang and ausgang. (That is, every which way they could). About 70 percent of participants did not use condoms when they entered the study. By the end, about 75 percent did.
Consistent condom use*:
“Baseline” (day 1 – lifestyle upon entry into the study): 32% (Meaning 68% did not often, always or sometimes use condoms)
Final visit: 74% (Meaning 74% often, always or ‘consistently use,’) and that 26% do not.
Oral: Not listed. Kissing, deeply: Not listed. Fingering, Rimming: Not listed. Not asked? Not important? Not sought out?
Baseline: Zero. They all came in doing it after their many, many years of being in relationships with their “pos” partner.
After being beaten up by phone calls and fear campaigns: 14.5%. Abstention from what? Oral? Not likely. Anal? Probably? Vaginal? Probably, but perfectly? For how long? A week, a month, a day? Of what period of their entire relationship? Not listed.
* “Consistent condom use” – Hard to quantify. What do they mean? During oral (probably to certainly not), anal (some but not all), vaginal (probably but for how long and during which segments)? Some, part, only after foreplay? During cuddling? Kissing? Fingering? Rimming? After you remember to put it on? For the first orgasm, but not for the second?
The result? Here’s Dr. Padian to tell you:
“We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study [nobody became HIV positive]…This evidence argues for low infectivity in the absence of either needle sharing and/or other cofactors.”
Here she is again, the tease…
“I think HIV is more difficult to transmit than other sexually-transmitted – than a lot of, probably most other sexually-transmitted diseases. I mean, I think that’s pretty widely known.“
Click! for the study.
“Nevertheless, the absence of seroincident infection over the course of the study cannot be entirely attributed to significant behavior change. No transmission occurred among the 25 percent of couples who did not use condoms consistently at their last follow-up nor among the 47 couples who intermittently practiced unsafe sex during the entire duration of follow-up. This evidence also argues for low infectivity in the absence of either needle sharing and/or cofactors such as concurrent STDs.” – Padian, et al, 1997
ie; 25% (44 couples) and 47 couples (27%) “did not use condoms consistently,” or “intermittently practiced unsafe sex during the entire duration of follow-up.”
Is that 25% or 27% of 175 couples not using condoms regularly or consistently, and for what acts, and for what duration of the act? Still, with Zero seroconversions.
Remember, they entered the study, having already been couples for months to decades, at the 68% no condom rate upon entry. They’d done it plenty before coming in to Padian, central. Zero.
Is this a sex disease, or a drug disease?
The mainstream likes to become offended and quote the “retrospective” part of this study as though it negative the active bit.
The Mainstream Confuses The Past with the Present: RETROSPECTIVE
The Retrospective (“looking backward”) worked differently than the Prospective (looking forward). It brought in over 440 couples, tested them all, and never tested them again for change over time. Like the “Prospective” (the part we’ve discussed), it asked for couples in which at least one partner was “Pos.” In this group, they decided that 68 women and 2 men, of the 442, were “pos.” They hadn’t gone from testing “negative” in the study to testing “positive” in the study. The test came on DAY ONE of their entry in the survey. Padian wrote that this related to ‘history,’ in the past, “PRIOR TO ENTRY in the study.”
They tested, assumed the tests were accurate and specific, and then invented a scenario by which someone might have become “positive.” (But it was the test itself that made them “positive,” wasn’t it?)
And a survey is what it was: Padian’s crew then asked them a lot of questions about: the dryness of their vagina, drug use, other illness, cramping, douching, tampon use, etc, etc, etc.
They hadn’t observed anyone going from “negative” to “positive” over time. They established a baseline, and then did a lot of jumbling of numbers. Logarithms, algorithms and statistics.
They invented numbers, weighing the length of couplehood, “one month to forty-six years;” mixed with the other “data” (what kind of tampon do you use?), and came up with this number:
.0009. Nine out of 10,000.
Meaning, they believe that you can have sex 10,000 times with an HIV positive person. And during NINE of those sexual acts (jeez, oral, fingers, vaginal, what?) you can go from “negative” to “positive.”
That’s one out of more than 1,000 sex acts – not with anybody – but with an “infected” person. A person who’s been told that they are “infected” by virtue of having been given an “HIV test.”
Do you believe this number? Can you have sex with the lovely ladies, Chlamydia, Gonnorrhea or Syphilis “over 1,000 times” and be none-the-worse for wear? Is this how STDs work?
Again, they didn’t OBSERVE this number. They invented it, within a “confidence interval,” as a statistic. It’s not a real number. It doesn’t exist in reality. And that, by the way, is for women (who test “neg”) who have sex with men (who test “pos.”)
They didn’t come up with a number for men, but said it was probably “like other studies.” The commonly accepted “number” for men (“neg”) who have sex with women (“pos”) is….
Ready? You have a LOT of catching up to do.
One out of.
No, I mean. A LOT of catching up.
One out of 5,000. Or, One out of 8,000. Depending on whose bullshit algorithms you believe.
8,000 sex acts with an “infected” person to get an STD?
And remember. None of that is real. It’s all estimated – it’s two people being given two different tests. (“And how good are the tests!?” should be your next question).
Now, that’s very interesting, because it leaves you wondering why the AIDS establishment has been screeching “HESTER PRIN!” for all these yarns. In sum, we’re left with the following pickle…Either:
1) HIV is not a sexually-transmitted retroviral particle (or retro-transposon);
2) HIV tests do not test for HIV;
We at RTB lean on #2. We don’t believe HIV tests are accurate or specific, because we can read. Can you? Have a try and see what you can find. You will discover that “HIV tests” are tests for no particular thing – except high protein (antibody) count in the blood – which is what Nancy kept out by keeping IV drug users out of her study… Think about it.
Of course, her study is only one of many demonstrating the failure of “AIDS” as a sex problem.
Dr. Padian is famous for decrying those who read her study and claim that it says what it says. But she’s a “pharmaslut,” and has to protect her reputation among the worldwide eugenics population-control campaign that is AIDS, Inc. Er. I mean…she probably has her reasons. Yes, that’s it. Good, good reasons.
But what should strike the uninformed viewer to the drama as odd, is that her study – the longest and most rigorous of its kind on record – is absolutely and totally censored on the Wikipedia pages devoted to both “HIV” and “AIDS.” Even her own page does not mention the results of her longest study.
I’ve uploaded the Wikipedia pages from May, 2010, so you, the general public whom Wikipedia relies on for its Democratic Information Service Proofing (“disproof“), can verify for yourself that this is so. I make the following challenge to all human computer-interfaced pogs:
Go to the Wikipedia page, and insert “Nancy Padian” and the results of the longest study on HIV transmission into their ‘fair and balanced‘ pages.
Go on, now! Get a move on! We ain’t got all century…
And while you’re working, I thought I’d present you with what I’m sure will be riveting reading while you fight the censorship of the wiki-mafia: The brand new book by Joseph Newton. Or..er…Seth…what’s his name. (I’m sure he’ll get around to writing this soon)…