While these ‘researchers’ were watching, for six years of up, down, in and out sex, nobody managed to trick their surrogate marker assay (that’s “hiv test” in the press), from negative to positive.
- “We followed up 175 HIV-discordant couples [one partner tests positive, one negative] over time, for a total of approximately 282 couple-years of follow up… No transmission [of HIV] occurred among the 25% of couples who did not use their condoms consistently, nor among the 47 couples who intermittently practiced unsafe sex during the entire duration of follow-up…”
- “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.”
That is, these people were having sex with “positives” for six years, and managed not to become “positive” themselves.
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?
“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%, 27% or 52% Of 175 couples not using condoms regularly? Still, with Zero seroconversions.
Is this a sex disease, or a drug disease?
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).
It’s the Tests, Stupid.
Why the quotes around “positive?” Because the tests are actually more or less “reactive.”
“Positive” or “negative” is implied, (not inferred) later, on the basis of the perception of “risk” in the person being “tested.”
A lot of quotes, but there are so many undefined, overly-broad, and imprecise words used in Aids-speak, it’s necessary to take a step back and understand what it is they’re actually talking about.
So, Padian. Zero seroconversions in 6 years of humping, (in every orifice, she records). But the reality is, that the tests are surrogate markers – stand-ins. They don’t record the presence of a specific particle anyway.
They grab a variety of proteins, with synthetic molecules that are manufactured these days, in bacteria, according to consensus agreements of how much they ‘should’ weigh.
The proteins have shown an affinity for just about any condition of illness, and even many non-illnesses. So, pregnant women, drug users, hemophiliacs, children, mice, dogs, goats and cows, all have proteins that trick the tests into being “reactive.”
“Positive” comes later, when you think you’re testing someone who is “at risk.”
It’s not science, but it’s popular, nonetheless.