HIV is More Difficult to Transmit than Most STDs – Dr. Nancy Padian, from her 10-Year Study

What do you know about AIDS and Sex? Who is Nancy Padian, and why is her study – the longest and best on HIV transmission – censored from the Wikipedia pages on both HIV and AIDS? Why does Dr. Padian’s own Wikipedia page censor all of her findings?

by Liam Scheff.

nancy_padian-lg – Image from House of Numbers Click to enlarge.

Dr. Nancy Padian on HIV and sex. As part of her 10-year study on HIV transmission, she enrolled 175 couples, one partner HIV-positive, one HIV-negative. These individuals had sex – vaginal and anal – with and without condoms over the study period. They were continuously tested. Drug abusers were kept out of the study, to emphasize the role of sex in transmission.

The results: At the end of the study, how many people who tested negative became positive, after repeated sexual intercourse with their HIV-positive partners?

Was it 50?

Was it 25?

Was it 20?

No.

The answer is – Zero. Zero people who tested negative became positive. From the study:

“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.”

Nancy Padian:

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.

Is it “pretty widely known,” Doctor Padian?

It is now.

Tired of being lied to by the AIDS industry? Read the Study. See the Movie – House of Numbers.

. . . . . . .

5 thoughts on “HIV is More Difficult to Transmit than Most STDs – Dr. Nancy Padian, from her 10-Year Study

  1. We’re Aidstwoof and we declare Nancy Padian a denialist!! Who is she to report a study like this? Clearly she didn’t follow instructions: Do not contradict AIDStwoof!!

    – Sincerely John PeeMoore and Jean Burgleman

  2. Promiscuity not behind HIV epidemic
    The Times of India
    October 2009

    ….

    While it is widely believed that promiscuity or overlapping multiple sexual partners are driving the HIV epidemic, Brown University researchers have found that there is not much scientific evidence to support the idea .

    Thus, they have said that more research is needed to prove that the sexual practice of concurrency has accelerated the spread of HIV in Africa.

    “People have just accepted at face value that this is the main thing that’s driving the epidemic. But the evidence that concurrency is a major factor is very weak,” said epidemiologist Mark Lurie, assistant professor community health and medicine.

    In their argument, Lurie and co-author Samantha Rosenthal have said that there is no conclusive evidence that overlapping multiple sexual partners increases the size of an HIV epidemic, accelerates the speed at which the virus is transmitted or makes HIV more persistent in a given population.

    They drew their conclusion by looking at previous studies that examined concurrency in any way. And this, they say, is because HIV epidemics can’t be explained by a single variable-a number of factors are more likely, with some factors more important in some geographic areas than others.

    “The studies you need to prove causality don’t exist. None of those studies have been done,” said Lurie. While the researchers don’t dispute the notion that concurrent sexual relationships could “theoretically” play a major role driving HIV transmission through networks of people, but to prove this true, a number of research initiative are needed, they said.

    And thus they have proposed improved methods for measuring both sexual behaviour and the duration or overlapping of sexual partnerships. Other than that, a common definition of concurrency is also needed.

    There is a need for longitudinal studies that measure both concurrency and incidence of HIV infection. Without the added data, Lurie said, there is a risk that public policy-makers, development agencies, and aid organizations are spending too much money on campaigns against taking on overlapping multiple sexual partners when other causes may matter more.

    “We are also worried about the unintended consequences of concurrency interventions. If you are giving a message that says ‘Don’t have concurrent partnerships,’ then people can easily take away from that the message to have lots of partnerships as long as they don’t overlap,” said Lurie.

    The study has been published in an upcoming issue of the journal AIDS and Behaviour .

  3. I have always found this to be such an incredible, outrageous, unbelievable study, in light of the fact that the establishment has taught the EXACT OPPOSITE for 2 decades.
    That’s right, 20+ years of school children learning a total, complete, outright LIE. Add it to all the other lies they teach!
    If I were part of the “establishment of genocide”, I’d want this buried too!

  4. It’s always interesting to consider WHY the other side doesn’t like this perfectly reasonable information getting out. After all, we’re talking about two levels here: scientific, peer-reviewed literature, and the mass-media version that “everybody knows.” Everybody knows that sex kills.

    Seth Kalichman said it best, in his Newsweek video. Something about the danger being not in what we say, but whom we say it to.

    So I guess in this context — sex — certain people can’t handle the information that sex with an HIV-positive person. They’ll just go out and do it like bunnies.

    Look at how freely they admit their agenda: Keep everybody ignorant because they can’t handle the information, and keep everybody afraid of having sex. Those are the goals, and the information has to line up behind them. Not the other way around.

    It’s also interesting how Kalichman’s example of the wrong people finding out things is South Africa. Notice the assumption behind that — that South Africans haven’t figured this all out for themselves.

    If we really wanted to win against the AIDS orthodoxy, we would just go out in the street in any ghetto in America and tell the people living there the truth. This possibility scares the hell out of the mainstreamers, drives them absolutely nuts. But very rarely do we do this — in fact, mention it and you get a pretty hysterical response from our own kind. I can’t figure that out. Perhaps we’re as sexually hung up as they are?

  5. Here´s my assumption:

    “It” is comparable e.g. with people behaving in regards of environmental protection. The utmost number of “ordinary people” live in a way to consume as little as possible energy and produce as little as psoosible emsissions. For a number of reasons. Money might be one. “Cleverness” another.

    The majority of “ordinary” people “know” (may be the verb is better described as “feel” or “think”) since years and probably decades that unprotected (heterosexual ?) sex can not be the reason for the AIDS-“pandemic”. But they would´nt say so, neither in public nor in privacy. But they will just behave differently – condome use neither was nor is on the rise (nowhere ?).

    Why do I assume so? e.g. in the recent hysteria in regards of the danger to die of swineflu, despite a massive media campaign in order to get people vaccinated, in Germany less than 5% of the general population followed the “advice” trumpetted about everywhere and anytime in the media. The OUTMOST ordinary people (95%) might have “felt” or “thought”, that there MUST BE something completely “wrong” or wondrous, if they were continuously URGED to do something – considering, if something is REALLY good and helpful, everybody would know by word-of-mouth or other very efficient informations streams anyway. Everybody “knows”, media tend to “lie”, to “overdo”, to exaggerate and so on. Thanks-to-god, nobody has to (and can) tell ordinary people anything …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *