Low rates of heterosexual transmission and the HIV theory of AIDS 24 March 2003
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos,
Department of Medical Physics, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Western Australia 6009,
Valendar F. Turner, John M Papadimitriou, Barry A. P. Page, Helman Alfonso, David Causer, Sam Mhlongo, Anthony Brink

Send response to journal:
Re: Low rates of heterosexual transmission and the HIV theory of AIDS

We agree with Tony Floyd that “Studies showing LOW rates of heterosexual transmission do not [necessarily] support alternative AIDS theories…” Now the vast majority of people (millions) who are said to be HIV positive are said to have acquired it through sex. This is not possible if the transmission is zero or even low which means that either HIV was acquired by means other than sex or the HIV antibody test is non- specific and thus they are not infected.

According to Gisselquist and his colleagues “HIV is not transmitted by ‘sex’, but only by specific risky practices”1, that is, passive anal intercourse.2 It is also our view that a positive antibody test (“HIV”) is acquired by the same means, that is, passive anal intercourse. But no proof exists that it can be transmitted to the active partner.

The Padian study is considered to be the best study of its type in which the author vigorously strived to prove heterosexual transmission. We would be interested to be shown where in the Padian study (“the study in which “Condom use increased substantially during the study period”, and yet EVEN AT THE END OF THE STUDY 25% of couples were not consistently using condoms) is there proof that HIV can be sexually transmitted. Alternatively, is there any prospective study which PROVES bidirectional sexual transmission of HIV?

We can understand Tony Floyd’s comment in his extensive online debate with David Rasnick and Rodney Richards “Can you blame me for being sceptical given the plethora of other errors in attempts to support alternative AIDS theories?” Instead of simply pointing out errors on either side and accepting or dismissing what the authors claim, a return to basic principles is needed.

In HIV/AIDS the two cornerstones are the antibody test and sexual transmission. If the specificity of the antibody test is not determined as David Rasnick stressed in the debate, everything else is totally irrelevant. To claim proof for the specificity there MUST BE at least one study and a few confirmatory studies where the antibody antigen reaction (assuming that the antigens are HIV) is compared with the presence or absence of HIV, that is, with HIV isolation/purification. This study must include a statistically significant number of both patients who have AIDS as well as patients who do not have AIDS but are sick. In addition, the tests must performed blind.

Any study claiming proof for heterosexual transmission MUST satisfy at least the following conditions:

· Be prospective
· Use tests which have been proven to be specific
· Have a statistically meaningful population
· The results must be statistically significant and must exclude any other possible route of infection

Until at least these two basic issues are resolved, scientists have no option but to question the HIV theory of AIDS.


1. Brewer DD, Brody S, Drucker E, Gisselquist D, Minkin SF, Potterat JJ, et al. Mounting anomalies in the epidemiology of HIV in Africa: cry the beloved paradigm. International Journal of STD and AIDS 2003;14:144-147.

2. Brody S, Lack of evidence for transmission of human immunodeficiency virus through vaginal intercourse. Arch Sex Behav 1995; 24(4):383-393.

Competing interests:   None declared