A NATION DECEIVED AND BETRAYED:

AIDS UPDATE
By
Stanley Monteith, M.D.

INTRODUCTION

The great tragedy facing our nation today is that much of what the American public has been told about the
HIV/AIDS epidemic is based upon myth, half-truths, misleading statements,
fraud, and frank deception. Most Americans do not understand that AIDS activists have been able to
intimidate public health officials and politicians, coercing them into going along with
the activists' agenda rather than trying to stop the HIV epidemic. Due to this, the standard public health
techniques used to control spread of other infectious diseases have not been used
with this epidemic. As a result, infants, children, and adults are dying all across our nation (and the world),
unnecessarily. (1)

The HIV virus is one of the most virulent viruses known to mankind. With what is estimated to be a 95-
100% mortality rate, fatality from HIV infection far exceeds death rates
associated with smallpox, Lassa fever, and Ebola fever. The virulence of the HIV virus is exceeded only by
rabies infection which is 99% fatal.

It is believed that between 40,000 and 80,000 Americans become infected with the HIV virus every year;
world-wide, millions of people become infected yearly. Yet, to date, efforts to
address the HIV epidemic as an "epidemic" have been effectively blocked. (2)

In the years that lie ahead, considering only those already infected with the virus, far more Americans will
die from HIV disease than were lost in all the wars that our nation has ever
fought, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World Wars I and II,
Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and Somalia combined. When all these
people are dead, this will not mark the end of the epidemic; it will really only be the beginning. The HIV
epidemic is just starting to spread into our general population in the mid-1990s.
(3)

Over one quarter of a million Americans have already died from HIV disease. Another 200,000 Americans
are in the terminal stages of HIV disease (which is referred to as AIDS) and
95% or more of them will be dead within 2-3 years. In 1993 alone, 49,000 Americans died of terminal-
stage HIV disease (AIDS), while in 10 years of fighting in Vietnam, America lost
only 47,000 soldiers in actual combat. (The remaining 11,000 Vietnam deaths were considered non-combat
casualties or MIAs)

Today AIDS is the leading cause of death among Americans between 25-44 years of age. The proportion of
people who acquire AIDS through heterosexual transmission has increased
from 2 percent in 1985 to 9.2 percent in 1993 to 10.3 percent in 1994. (4)

Of the 51,235 women with terminal-stage HIV disease (AIDS) reported by the CDC as of June 1994,
18,217 (or 35.5%) of them contracted their disease via heterosexual encounters.
(5)

Between 1988 and 1990, anonymous HIV testing on college campuses across America revealed that there
were between 10,000 and 35,000 infected college students in our nation.
Some colleges had very low rates of infection while several campuses had HIV infection rates for men over
24 years of age as high as 6.5%. Despite these frightening rates of HIV
infection, campus testing has been discontinued, and no effort is currently being made to identify those who
are infected on our campuses in order to prevent further spread of the
epidemic among college students. (6)

In Zimbabwe, 90% of all deaths are AIDS related. Zimbabwe has only ten million people, yet there were at
least 120,000 cases of full-blown AIDS in that country by the end of 1994.
It is estimated that by the year 2000 there will be 500,000 orphaned children in Zimbabwe who will have
lost both of their parents from HIV/AIDS disease. (7)

It is estimated that, at the present time, between 135 and 150 Americans die every day from terminal-stage
HIV disease. In India, recent estimates of the projected death toll defy the
imagination. On 12/11/94, Reuters News Service reported that I.S.Gilada, Secretary General of the
Bombay-based Indian Health Organization, predicted that, "some 10,000 Indians
will die each day from AIDS by the year 2000." India, with a population of almost a billion people, has
become the epicenter of the world epidemic. Starting with only a few hundred
HIV-infected Indians in 1987, the epidemic has exploded. I.S. Gilada of the IHO recently estimated that
there are currently over 4 million infected Indians. The epidemic is now
spreading rapidly from infected prostitutes into India's truck drivers, and into the villages and towns along
the trucking routes. This is the same pattern that the epidemic followed in
Africa less than a decade ago. (8)

Professor William Haseltine, Chief of the Division of Human Retrovirology at the Dana-Farber Cancer
Institute; Professor of the Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical School;
Professor of Cancer Biology, Harvard School of Public Health, estimates that as many as one billion people
will be infected world-wide by the year 2010 if the people of the world do
not alter their patterns of sexual activity, or develop a vaccine to prevent further spread of HIV disease. (9)

Despite these frightening statistics, there continues a conscious, organized effort across our land, and
around the world, to deceive and mislead the public as to the true nature and extent
of the HIV epidemic.

MYTHS

Each of the following most commonly believed statements/ misconceptions about HIV disease is a myth.

MYTH #1: THE HIV VIRUS IS VERY FRAGILE AND DIES IMMEDIATELY ONCE OUTSIDE THE
HUMAN BODY.

MYTH #2: THE HIV VIRUS IS READILY KILLED BY HOUSEHOLD DISINFECTANTS, ALCOHOL,
OR A 10% BLEACH SOLUTION.

MYTH #3: SINCE AIDS IS PRIMARILY A DISEASE OF HOMOSEXUALS AND I.V. DRUG USERS,
THE GENERAL PUBLIC HAS NO REASON FOR CONCERN.

MYTH #4: THERE IS NO DANGER OF CASUAL TRANSMISSION OF THE HIV VIRUS.

MYTH #5: YOU CAN'T GET AIDS FROM A KISS.

MYTH #6: YOU CAN'T GET AIDS FROM ENGAGING IN ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES.

MYTH #7: YOU CAN'T GET AIDS FROM AN INSECT BITE.

MYTH #8: YOU CAN'T GET AIDS VIA THE RESPIRATORY ROUTE.

MYTH #9: LATEX CONDOMS ARE HIGHLY EFFECTIVE IN PREVENTING THE SPREAD OF
AIDS WHEN USED CONSISTENTLY AND CORRECTLY.
MYTH #10: THE USE OF A SPERMICIDE SUCH AS NONOXYNOL-9 (ALONG WITH CONDOMS)
INCREASES YOUR DEGREE OF SAFETY WHEN ENGAGING IN CASUAL SEX.

Each of these myths is untrue, to a greater or lesser extent. Because these myths have been repeated so
frequently and authoritatively, however, each myth has come to be accepted as
truth.

It was William James, the philosopher, who said, "There is nothing so absurd, but if you repeat it often
enough, people will believe it."

In Mein Kampf, Adolph Hitler wrote, "The great masses of the people .... will more easily fall victim to a
big lie than to a small one." (Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, 15th Edition, p.812)

It was Daniel Webster who said, "There is nothing so powerful as truth - and often nothing so strange."
(Bartlett's... p.450)

Tragically, the American public has been intentionally deceived about the means of spread of this
epidemic. In addition, the public has not been allowed to understand that the Centers
for Disease Control in Atlanta is unable to effectively monitor the spread of HIV disease. The real epidemic
is not AIDS; the real epidemic is HIV disease. AIDS is simply the terminal
stage of HIV disease. AIDS develops, on average, between 10 and 12 years after the onset of HIV
infection. AIDS is a reportable disease all across our land, and is carefully
monitored by public health officials. HIV disease, the real epidemic, is not being monitored in the majority
of our states where the epidemic is centered. Why is this? Because AIDS
activists, with the help of the liberal media and leftist politicians, have organized across America, and have
been able to block legislation that would allow the reportability of HIV
seropositivity to public health authorities for the purpose of contact tracing, tracking of the epidemic, and
disease control. As a result, in the majority of our states where the epidemic is
centered, none of the standard and accepted public health techniques used with other sexually transmitted
diseases are being used to slow further spread of HIV disease.

Today, in America, there are only a very few reliable statistics which allow physicians to determine the true
incidence of HIV disease in our land. The study of 20 sentinel hospitals,
published in The New England Journal of Medicine under the title, "HIV Infection Among Patients in U.S.
Acute Care Hospitals", August 13, 1992, gives some idea as to the true
incidence of HIV disease in our nation. Anonymous HIV testing in 20 hospitals across America found that
4.7% of the blood specimens tested were HIV positive. Faced with an
epidemic of this magnitude, nothing has been done to try to implement the standard public health
techniques needed to bring this epidemic under control. For all intents and purposes, the
results of the sentinel hospital study have been suppressed and ignored. Because of the 10-12 year latency
period between HIV infection and AIDS, the AIDS statistics routinely
reported to the public represent the level of HIV disease in America 10-12 years ago, not the incidence of
HIV disease in America today.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of AIDS information available to the American public has only one
purpose - and that purpose is to deceive the people of our nation. Since you cannot
depend on your government for protection from this plague, you are going to have to learn the truth about
HIV disease, and how to protect yourself and your family.

MYTH #1: THE HIV VIRUS IS VERY FRAGILE AND DIES IMMEDIATELY ONCE OUTSIDE THE
HUMAN BODY

The truth of the matter is that the HIV virus (the AIDS virus) is one of the hardiest viruses known to
mankind. According to a study from the Pasteur Institute in Paris (where the HIV
virus was initially identified), French investigators found, "unusual stability of LAV-HTLV (virus) at room
temperature." A culture of HIV virus was kept in a sealed tube in moist form.
The Pasteur Institute reported, "The unusual stability of LAV-HTLV (the HIV virus-ed) at room
temperature...No significant difference (in the amount of infectious virus-ed) was found
between zero, two, or four days, and only a slight decrease (in infectiousness-ed) was noted with a delay in
virus production, indicating a loss of a few infectious particles, after seven
days at room temperature."

In the case of the dry virus kept at room temperature for periods of four and seven days, the French
scientists reported: "A significant number of viral particles are then inactivated, but
some infectious virus is still present since release of virus was seen on day 10." The report went on to
say..."The results indicate that the virus is resistant at room temperature, either in
dry form or in liquid medium...this resistance of LAV (the HIV virus-ed) may explain the appearance of
some AIDS cases in non-risk groups...moreover, more safety precautions
should be taken in laboratories, in hospitals, and by dentists who use a vacuum pump." (10)

Shortly after the Pasteur Institute study was published in September 1985, researchers from the Tumor Cell
Biology Laboratory of the National Institute of Health in the United States
reported similar findings, stating:

"In a dried state, complete inactivation of virus required between three and seven days...(and in moist
form-ed) complete inactivation of infectious virus was seen between
11 and 15 days of exposure at 36 to 37 degrees centigrade...Even under the most rigorous heating
conditions commonly used to inactivate complement (54 to 56 degrees
centigrade), infectious virus was found three hours after exposure."

(11)

Subsequently, the CDC repeated these studies and presented their findings at the 3rd International
Conference on AIDS in Washington D.C. in June 1987. Their report stated:

"The HIV virus survives for several days after being dried and placed on stainless steel strips in a
desiccator jar at room temperature."

(12)

The virus can survive freezing, and has been transmitted to uninfected patients by surgical implantation of
infected, frozen bone specimens. (13)

Prior to 1985, thousands of hemophiliacs around the world were given units of reconstituted, dried,
hemophiliac cryoprecipitate known as Factor VIII. Unfortunately, this blood product
had not been specifically heat treated to kill the HIV virus. Thus the virus was able to survive drying,
shipping, and subsequent storage for prolonged periods of time. As a result of the
use of untreated Factor VIII, 10,000 (about half) of America's hemophiliac population became infected
with the HIV virus. (14)

In view of these readily available scientific studies that confirm the hardiness of the HIV virus, why is the
public consistently told that the virus is fragile, and dies immediately once outside
the human body? Quite simply, to allay apprehension on the part of the public, and to reassure our populace
that there is absolutely no danger of contracting HIV disease other than by
sex, blood contact, or from infected mothers to their children.

MYTH #2: THE HIV VIRUS IS READILY KILLED BY ALCOHOL, HOUSEHOLD DISINFECTANTS,
OR A 10% BLEACH SOLUTION
For almost a decade, medical personnel and the public have been assured that alcohol, a 10% bleach
solution, household disinfectants, and medical disinfectants would kill the HIV virus
on contact. This misinformation has resulted in the infection and subsequent deaths of countless thousands
of IV drug users who were encouraged to use a 10% bleach solution to
irrigate their drug paraphernalia, assured that 10% bleach was lethal to the virus. How many medical
personnel and laboratory workers have also been infected unnecessarily is unknown
since medical personnel are not routinely tested, and even if found to be infected, their disease is not
reportable to the CDC in the majority of our states where the epidemic is centered.
The initial scientific study on household disinfectants was performed at the National Institute of Health in
1985, then published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in April
1986. (15)

The researchers took cell-free viral specimens, dried the virus on metal strips, and placed the strips into
alcohol, acetone, and a 10% bleach solution. In each case, the virus was
promptly killed. Unfortunately, no one subsequently bothered to check to determine whether alcohol,
acetone, or a 10% bleach solution would inactivate the HIV virus under clinical
conditions -i.e. if the virus was contained within serum or blood as ordinarily found in laboratories,
hospitals, or in an intravenous drug user's syringe. Our nation can send a man to the
moon, and space probes to Mars and Jupiter, yet no one at the CDC bothered to check to determine whether
alcohol or a 10% bleach solution would actually inactivate the HIV virus
under clinical conditions. It was not until 1993, 7 years after AIDS activists began distributing bottles of
10% bleach solution to IV drug users (with the assurance that the bleach solution
would save their lives), that scientific studies were published dealing with the effectiveness of 10% bleach
in sterilizing IV drug users' syringes and needles. These studies demonstrated
that, in comparing two groups of IV drug users, one group that routinely irrigated their syringes with a 10%
bleach solution, the other group not using bleach irrigation, the rate of HIV
seroconversion was identical. It was subsequently recognized that both serum and blood protected the virus
from deactivation by disinfectants, and that only full-strength bleach solution
(taken directly from the container) was capable of deactivating the HIV virus contained in blood, serum, or
a blood-coated syringe. (16)

In October 1994 British researchers warned that alcohol, which is still being widely used as an HIV virus
disinfectant, could not be depended upon to kill the virus in clinical settings.
(17)

Although most disinfectants used in hospitals claim to kill the HIV virus on contact, you must call or write
to the manufacturer for specifics. Recently I was given a bottle of a commonly
used hospital disinfectant which claimed on the label that the product killed the HIV virus. Upon contacting
the manufacturer, I was sent the scientific studies to verify their claim. These
studies stated that "the disinfectant would kill the HIV virus if (1) the virus was in no more that a 5% serum
medium, (2) the virus was situated on a hard, nonporous surface, and (3) the
disinfectant solution was left in contact with the virus for 4-10 minutes." The problem is that (1) the virus
usually will be contained in a 25% or higher serum/blood medium, (2) many
surfaces are not nonporous, and (3) few nurses or hospital personnel on a busy ward have 4-10 minutes to
spend waiting before wiping off a contaminated surface. (18)

The obvious solution to this problem would be to know which hospitalized patients are infected so that
special precautions can be taken. Unfortunately, AIDS activists have blocked a
logical and compassionate approach to this problem. As a result, the lives and safety of medical and
hospital personnel continue to be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.

MYTH #3: SINCE AIDS IS PRIMARILY A DISEASE OF HOMOSEXUALS AND I.V. DRUG USERS,
THE GENERAL PUBLIC HAS NO
REASON FOR CONCERN

There are four very important reasons why you should be concerned about this epidemic:
(1) The disease is spreading into the heterosexual population.
(2) New diseases and antibiotic-resistant bacteria are suddenly developing all across America and the
world.
(3) The financial consequences of this epidemic will impact on every level of our society.
(4) Those who are dying are all human beings; they are all God's children.

(1) The epidemic is spreading into the heterosexual community. Of those with terminal-stage HIV disease
(AIDS), there were over 27,000 Americans (as of June 1994) who acquired
their disease through heterosexual contact. If you examine the statistics covering women with HIV disease
in America, you will find that of the 51,235 women who were HIV infected
(as of June 1994), 35% of them acquired their disease via heterosexual contact. In addition, if you examine
the limited HIV statistics available from states where HIV disease is in some
manner reportable, you will again find that 35% of infected women acquired their illness by heterosexual
contact. Thus we see the epidemic beginning to spread into our heterosexual
community, as the homosexual and IV drug-using communities become saturated with disease, and large
numbers die off. (19)

The epidemic is also beginning to spread slowly into America's adolescents and children. The CDC
estimates that there are between 10,000 and 35,000 infected college students in
America. Anonymous testing in colleges across America reveals that in some colleges there is little or no
disease, while "several (colleges) had HIV infection rates for men over age 24
as high as 6.5%." (20)

(2) New diseases and antibiotic-resistant bacteria are suddenly developing across America and the world.
The good news is that HIV disease is relatively difficult to acquire by casual
contact, although casual spread of HIV disease does occur (see Myth #4 below). If you and your children
avoid sexual promiscuity, deep and passionate kissing, contact sports, nursery
schools, or other situations where there is the potential for contact with blood or body secretions, there is
relatively little danger of contracting HIV disease. The real danger for you and
your loved ones is the ever-increasing possibility of contracting one of the new diseases or drug-resistant
bacteria that are beginning to develop in America and all across the world.
Tragically, every person with a suppressed immune system (which is the hallmark of AIDS) becomes a
potential incubator for new and increasingly virulent diseases that can infect both
you and your family. Whenever a person loses their ability to fight off disease, their body becomes a
breeding ground for these new and increasingly virulent viral and bacterial diseases.
Ordinarily, every normal person in a community has an immune system that protects every other person in
their community. Normal people do not harbor or spread harmful diseases;
however, if even one person in a community develops influenza, tuberculosis, Barr-Epstein virus or some
other communicable disease, they have the potential of infecting others. The
more people in any given community with a suppressed immune system, the greater the danger to the
community as a whole.

Professor William Haseltine, Phd., Chief of the Division of Human Retrovirology at the Dana-Farber
Institute; Professor in the Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, and
Professor in the Department of Cancer Biology, Harvard School of Public Health, stated in his classic
speech (given November 16, 1992 in Paris to the French Academy of Sciences):

"New epidemics will arise from the ever expanding population of patients with depleted immune
function. The population of people with AIDS serves as a reservoir and
breeding ground for deadly diseases. For example, the new world wide epidemic of tuberculosis arises
directly from the population of people with AIDS. Unlike AIDS,
some of these diseases will not require sexual contact for transmission. As the number of immune
suppressed people grows, it is likely that the world population will suffer
multiple, concurrent, lethal epidemics consequent to the AIDS epidemic."
(21)

New and increasingly lethal strains of tuberculosis have already developed in the immunosuppressed
bodies of those with HIV infection. In New York City alone, over 200 people have
been infected with a multiple-drug-resistant strain of tuberculosis labeled "Strain W." This disease is 50%
fatal, even with early and efficient drug treatment. (22)

Tuberculosis is on the rise in many communities across our land where the HIV epidemic is concentrated,
and tuberculosis is highly communicable to the general population. There is one
instance described in Bath, Maine, where an infected shipyard worker (with laryngeal tuberculosis) infected
417 of his fellow employees, 26 of them developing active pulmonary
tuberculosis. (23)

A tuberculosis-infected flight attendant infected 23 of her fellow employees as a result of prolonged contact
and rebreathing of cabin air during extended overseas flights. (24)

Penicillin-resistant forms of S. Pneumonia bacteria, an organism associated with pulmonary pneumonia,

has suddenly begun to appear in HIV-infected patients. (25)

The question can be raised as to how many of the new viruses and new drug-resistant bacteria can be
directly attributed to immunosuppressed patients acting as incubators for disease.
In actuality, there are no valid statistics, other than the well-documented development of multiple-drug-
resistant tuberculosis (MDR) among AIDS patients, noted previously. The
explosion of new diseases and drug-resistant bacteria all across the world at this point in time, however, is
certainly attributable, to a significant degree, to the ever-increasing number of
tragic people who have lost their immunity and begun to incubate new viral diseases and drug-resistant
bacteria.

The CDC has attempted to reassure the public that the recently reported wave of aggressive Group A
Streptococcal infections (GAS), labeled by the media as the "flesh-eating
bacteria", is nothing to be concerned about. Unfortunately, the CDC is once again deceiving our people.
Since Streptococcal infections are not routinely reportable to public health
authorities and thence to the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control has no idea exactly how many cases of
potentially lethal Group A Streptococcus (GAS) infections are occurring
across America today. In my community alone there were three cases clustered within a few weeks of one
another in late 1994 - two of the patients knew one another and two of the
patients died, despite amputations.

GAS disease was not uncommon during World War II, but had largely disappeared from the world until
recently. Suddenly, in the late 1980s, clusters of cases developed in the Rocky
Mountain states, Scandinavia, Australia, New Zealand, and other parts of the world. By late 1994, twelve
people had died of invasive Streptococcus A in England. By early 1995, 5
people had died in the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia, and four others had been seriously infected. The
reason for the recurrence of this new virulent form of GAS disease is that the
Group A Streptococcal bacteria has been secondarily infected with a virus that has made GAS much more
toxic and deadly than ever before. (26) (27)

Drug-resistant forms of Pneumococcus bacteria, staphylococcus, Gonorrhea, etc. have developed at a

frightening rate in America recently, while drug-resistant forms of cholera have
developed in other lands. New epidemics have developed, i.e, the Hanta virus in the Mid-west, the Sabia
virus in Africa, a new more toxic form of E Coli, etc. The end result of our
refusal to address the HIV epidemic as an epidemic has resulted, either directly or indirectly, in outbreaks
of new epidemics and new diseases and new drug-resistant bacteria all across
the world. (28) (29) (30) (31)
(3) The financial implications of the HIV epidemic are potentially devastating. It is estimated that the cost
of treating an HIV-infected patient, from the time of diagnosis until death, is
over $100,000.00. As millions of Americans become infected with HIV disease, tuberculosis, or the myriad
of other diseases associated with this epidemic, the welfare system, the
disability insurance system, the health care delivery system, and local governments will be overwhelmed.
Life and health insurance companies could well become insolvent (as is
happening in Africa today), and our Federal government could eventually find itself increasingly unable to
finance medical care for the terminally ill. (7)

(4) Those who are dying are all human beings; they are all God's children. In America today, outside the
homosexual community and IV drug users, the HIV epidemic is spreading
primarily into the poor and financially disadvantaged members of our inner cities. Those who are infected
are, in large part, blacks, Hispanics, Caucasians who are unemployed or
homeless, and those who use non-injectable drugs or alcohol. Because the disease has not yet spread into
the white middle class, most people are not really concerned. Yet blacks,
Hispanics, Caucasians, homosexuals, and IVDs are all human beings; they are all God's children.
Disadvantaged Americans should be protected from infectious diseases by the use of
the same standard public health measures used to protect the rest of our society. If we continue to ignore
their plight, the epidemic will eventually continue its spread into our adolescents
and college students, with tragic and terrifying results.

Even now, in areas of our country where there is a high incidence of disease, recent sentinel hospital
studies found that 1.4% of teenagers 15-16 years of age were infected. In the Bronx
Lebanon Hospital, and the University Hospital in Newark, New Jersey, 6-8% of low-risk children (mostly
black-ed) were infected. (32)

MYTH #4: THERE IS NO DANGER OF CASUAL TRANSMISSION OF THE AIDS VIRUS.

The public has been repeatedly reassured that there is absolutely no danger of casual spread of HIV/AIDS.
Yet, as of June 1994, the CDC had over 23,000 cases of AIDS where they
were uncertain as to exactly how HIV disease had been spread. About 15,000 of these cases were still being
investigated, while 8,229 cases had no identifiable risk factors. The CDC
points out that 4,100 of the 8,229 cases with no identifiable risk factors had died before investigation was
completed, which might have revealed an obvious cause for their infections.
Another 3,388 had come from countries where heterosexual AIDS is common, so those cases had not been
worked up epidemiologically; for this reason the CDC was not really sure
of their exact mode of transmission. Finally, the CDC reluctantly had to admit that there were 741 people
infected with HIV disease who had been completely worked up, and no
identifiable cause could be found for their HIV infection. Furthermore, the CDC reported 77 children under
13 years of age "whose risk is not identified." (33)

In addition, the CDC's current policy of putting all HIV- infected people into "risk groups" to explain their
source of infection is both unreliable and unscientific. In certain instances, to
explain the origin of a child's HIV disease, the CDC places a child's mother into a risk group because she
might have slept with an IV drug user or a bisexual man. Despite the fact that
the child's mother is HIV negative (and obviously not the source of her child's infection), once the mother
has been placed into a "risk group", the epidemiologist can use that
classification to explain the child's source of infection. This is not only unscientific, it is frankly dishonest.
(34)

Recently, increasing numbers of casually transmitted cases of HIV disease have been reported in the
literature. Eight documented cases of household transmission of HIV disease were
reported by the CDC in 1994, including a 70-year-old mother who cared for her AIDS-infected son, and a
5-year-old boy infected by his HIV-infected parents several years after his
birth. (35)
At the IX International AIDS Conference in Berlin, June 6-10, 1993, an epidemiologic study of an
iatrogenically (caused by treatment by a health care worker) produced epidemic in
southern Russia was presented. Two hundred and sixty children had been infected with HIV disease as a
direct result of faulty medical procedures carried out on pediatric wards at a
number of different Russian hospitals. Careful tracking of the victims, and their families, revealed that 21
of the mothers of these children had become secondarily infected. No study had
yet determined exactly how the disease was spread from the infected children to their previously uninfected
mothers. The best explanation is that the mothers unknowingly came into
contact with blood or body secretions from their infected children. Certainly, we have seen similar cases
reported in the United States. (36) (37)

An 11-month-old boy developed a mysterious case of AIDS in 1994. According to the New York Times,
the infant "was most likely infected with HIV in a New York City hospital
when he was less than two weeks old, New York City and federal health officials reported." (38)

Fortunately, horizontal spread of HIV disease in the United States appears to be relatively rare at the
present time. Large numbers of uninfected family members have lived in homes with
infected parents or children, and in the majority of instances there has been no horizontal transmission of
disease. On the other hand, the cases of verified casual transmission of HIV
disease, and the significant number of adults and children with unexplained HIV disease (noted above)
demonstrates conclusively that casual transmission of HIV disease does occur,
although admittedly only rarely. The tragedy is that once again the public is not being told the truth. The
media, public health authorities, the CDC, and AIDS activists continue to insist
that there is no such thing as casual transmission of HIV disease, despite the abundance of scientific
evidence to the contrary.

The information herein presented should not be misconstrued as justifying quarantine, or excluding those
who are HIV infected from most forms of work. Before an HIV-infected person
is allowed to work, however, the following parameters should be met:

(1) The HIV-infected person's immune system should be largely intact with a CD4 count over 200.
(2) HIV-infected patients must not be carrying other diseases that could be spread to the public.
(3) The infected individual must act responsibly.
(4) Those who may come into contact with blood or body secretions must be informed of their danger, and
be prepared to protect themselves.

Fortunately, HIV disease is difficult to contract without exposure to blood or body secretions; however,
there is no justification for current CDC policies which allow HIV-infected,
pre-school children to attend nursery schools where there may be biting, salivating, urinating, defecating,
and contact with all sorts of body secretions. In my opinion, younger children
should not be allowed to attend nursery schools unless all children are tested for HIV disease, and the
supervisors know who is infected so that they can protect themselves and the
other children. Furthermore, current CDC policies which allow older HIV-infected children attending
school to engage in contact sports with the possibility of bleeding and
contamination of their fellow players, is unconscionable. There are presently 77 HIV-infected children who
have been identified by the CDC in America where the CDC has found no
identifiable cause for their infections; some of these children may well have contracted their disease in
nursery schools or in regular schools. Until there is routine HIV testing in schools,
and teachers know which children are infected (so that special precautions can be taken), no child attending
public school is completely safe. What about HIV-infected children with
nose bleeds, cuts, or abrasions? Don't uninfected teachers and students have the right to protection?
Certainly uninfected teachers and students should have the same civil rights as those
who are infected.

MYTH #5: YOU CAN'T GET AIDS FROM A KISS

Children in schools across America are repeatedly told that, "You can't get AIDS from a kiss." The
scientific basis for this myth is based primarily upon six medical studies published in
the mid-1980s where infected parents lived in family settings with their spouses and children. From time to
time the infected parent would kiss their child on the cheek or the forehead;
none of the children became HIV infected. Based upon these 6 studies, sex educators routinely tell school
children today that, "You can't get AIDS from a kiss." Kissing someone on the
cheek or forehead, however, is entirely different from open-mouth kissing with the exchange of fresh
saliva. Open-mouth (deep) kissing involves the exchange of a potentially lethal body
fluid (i.e. saliva or saliva containing blood cells). Students are often told that there are enzymes and mucin
in saliva that have been found to kill the HIV virus. Sex educators, however,
fail to tell students that many of the so-called "scientific studies" published in the literature have been
specifically designed to demonstrate that the HIV virus is inactivated by saliva. These
studies involve either prolonged incubation of the HIV virus in saliva at elevated temperatures, or waiting
for many hours between the collection of infected saliva specimens and their
placement into culture medium. In both instances, much of the viral infectivity of saliva is inactivated by
the enzymes and mucin contained within saliva. These experiments, however, are
totally irrelevant when one is trying to determine the potential for spread of HIV disease via the exchange
of fresh, blood-tinged saliva during deep and passionate kissing. (39)

Students are often told that they can drink two quarts of cell-free saliva from a person infected with HIV
disease without danger of infection. My response to that claim is two-fold. (1)
Where in the world would anyone get two quarts of cell-free saliva from an HIV-infected person? All
saliva within the mouth contains cells! (2) Simply show me the scientific studies
where anyone has ever drunk two quarts of cell-free saliva from someone who was HIV infected. Where
are the scientific studies? Of course, there are none. This myth only tends to
verify the words of the philosopher, William James, who said, "There is nothing so absurd but if you repeat
it often enough, people will believe it."

There is little question that deep and passionate kissing has the potential to spread HIV disease. Where is
the proof?

1. Infectious virus is present in saliva. (40)

2. Canadian researchers from McGill University and the University of Montreal reported on the profuse
discharge of HIV-infected lymphocytes from the gingiva (gums-ed) into the
saliva of patients with immunosuppression (AIDS). They stated, "After blood, saliva was the second body
fluid from which HIV virus was isolated. The origin of salivary HIV is infected
lymphocytes from the gingiva. These cells emigrate into the saliva at a rate of 10/8th power per minute.
This emigration may increase 10-fold in oral diseases which are frequent in an
immunocompromised host. Recent immunocytochemical studies show a higher incidence of HIV in
salivary lymphocytes than in peripheral blood lymphocytes of dental patients with
AIDS ..... The use of saliva for the detection of HIV infection offers the following advantage(s)...High
concentration of the virus allows easy detection of the infection."
3. Researchers from the School of Dental Medicine at the University of Montreal found that, "The
incidence of HIV in salivary lymphocytes was significantly higher than in peripheral
blood lymphocytes ...salivary HIV is infective as demonstrated in vitro." (emphasis added-ed) (42)
4. A report in The Lancet told of the infection of an older brother who was bitten by his younger, HIV-
infected brother. Since the older boy had no other risk factors, his HIV disease
resulted either from the bite or from casual (horizontal) transmission within the household. (43)
5. Two homosexuals, who had consistently tested HIV negative, and participated only in insertive oral sex,
became HIV infected. This suggested that they were infected by contact of
HIV-infected saliva with their skin or urethral mucus membranes. (44)
6. Examination of saliva specimens after prolonged episodes of deep and passionate kissing revealed that
91% of salivary specimens contained hemoglobin. Blood is consistently
associated with the presence of lymphocytes, and infected lymphocytes carry the infectious HIV virus. The
authors of this study concluded: "In our opinion, the results of this study
indicate that passionate kissing cannot be considered protective sex for the transmission of human
immunodeficiency virus infection." (45)
7. The transmission of HIV disease from a prostitute to an elderly man via oral sex was reported by Dr.
Spitzer of the Lahey Clinic in 1989. (46)
8. West Palm Beach authorities reported that a 90-year-old man had tested HIV positive after being bitten
to the bone by an HIV-infected woman who had attacked him during a
robbery attempt. According to the Washington Post news story, "The man may be the first person ever to
have contracted HIV through a bite." (47)
9. Whenever you go to a dental office you will note that the dentist and his (or her) assistants routinely
wear masks, gloves, face shields, and sometimes surgical gowns. This is part of a
program called Universal Precautions and has been mandated in dental offices by OSHA, the Federally-
funded Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The reason for these
precautions is that OSHA has determined that the saliva of HIV-infected patients is potentially infectious,
and all dental personnel must be protected from both HIV infection and
Hepatitis B. Are we to believe that saliva is only infectious in dental offices, but is not infectious once
outside dental offices? The myth that you can't get HIV disease from a kiss is
without scientific basis.
10. Probably one of the most persuasive reasons for believing that HIV disease may be transmitted by deep
and passionate kissing is the video interview recorded between Dr. John
Ankerberg, television host of the John Ankerberg Show, and Dr. William Roper, Director of the CDC in
1992. When Dr. Roper was asked whether or not deep and passionate kissing
could spread HIV disease, he responded: "If the question is, what does the CDC institutionally
believe...when we say "you won't get AIDS from a kiss" we are referring to closed-mouth
or 'social' kissing...there is a theoretical risk of HIV transmission through sexual, open-mouth or French
kissing because of the potential for the exchange of blood...although there is
some virus in the saliva, it is not at high concentration...I agree that open-mouth kissing is a hazard and
may lead to the transmission of the virus...if you want to know what the Public
Health Service's advice is on French kissing, open-mouth kissing, deep kissing, we say it's a risk for
transmission of the HIV virus, and recommend against it." Despite the position taken
by the Centers for Disease Control, sex educators and AIDS activists all across America continue to insist
that, "You can't get AIDS from a kiss." Why doesn't someone do a controlled
study to be absolutely sure that deep, passionate kissing between an HIV-infected partner and someone
who is noninfected, is safe? Because of the overwhelming evidence that
demonstrates the potential for infectiousness of fresh, blood-tinged saliva. It would be immoral to carry out
such a study. Thus, in our nation where neither chemicals nor medicines can
be used if there is even one chance in a billion that they might be carcinogenic or harmful, adolescents
continue to be assured that, "You can't get AIDS from a kiss", despite the absence
of any valid scientific studies to verify that position. Why? Because AIDS activists fear that if the
American public were ever to realize that their children might contract AIDS from saliva,
there would be a public outcry demanding the use of standard and effective public health techniques to
attempt to control this horrible plague.

In all probability, salivary spread of HIV disease is not a major means of HIV transmission. But with a
disease that is known to be 95-100% fatal, our children and adolescents deserve
to be told the truth. Furthermore, deep kissing, with the exchange of saliva, can spread Hepatitis B,
Hepatitis C (D,E, and F),Barr-Epstein virus, Cytomegalic virus, Herpes, Herpes
VI,and a host of other viral and infectious diseases that can plague and disable our youth for life. It is time
to tell our children the truth about the very real dangers they face when
engaging in deep, open- mouth, French kissing in the 1990s. (48)

MYTH #6: YOU CAN'T GET AIDS FROM ENGAGING IN ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES

This myth is extremely dangerous and flagrantly untrue. In May 1987, the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) reported that three health care workers had become infected with the HIV
virus by simply getting HIV-infected blood onto their skin or mucus membranes. These cases came to be
known as "the three splash cases." The first woman was a nurse who simply
held her finger on a patient's groin where there had been an unsuccessful attempt to insert a femoral
catheter; she had a small spot of blood on the tip of her finger for perhaps 20 minutes
before washing if off. The second woman was drawing blood from an HIV-infected patient when the top of
the blood-filled tube flew off and she got blood onto the skin of her face and
into her mouth. The third woman spilled blood onto her hands and forearm in the laboratory. All three
women became HIV-infected. In none of the three splash cases were there breaks
in the patient's skin to act as a site for introduction of the HIV virus. (49)

Later in 1987, Dr. L.R. Braathen, a Swiss physician, published a letter in "The Lancet" (November 7,
p.1094), demonstrating that the primary target cell for transmission of the HIV
virus was the Langerhans cells which lie in the subcutaneous and submucosal layers of the body i.e. the
vagina, the mouth, the urethra, and the skin. These cells send out tiny hair-like
filaments into the skin that can pull the HIV virus or other substances into the Langerhans cells and thence
into the body. Dr. Braathen's findings were confirmed by Professor William
Haseltine of the Harvard School of Public Health, and presented at the International AIDS Conference in
Florence, Italy, in June 1991. (50)

A 25-year-old athlete from Varese, Italy had tested HIV negative shortly before colliding with an HIV-
infected player during a soccer game. There were lacerations on both players,
and the exchange of blood. Shortly thereafter the uninfected player tested HIV positive. (51)

A 32-year-old, heterosexual, male, American tourist who was traveling in Africa, had tested negative for
HIV disease in August 1987. In December 1987 he was involved in a minibus
accident outside Butare. Both he and several of the African occupants of the minibus incurred lacerations,
and there was a good deal of blood contamination at the accident site. Shortly
after the American returned to the United States, he was found to be HIV infected. (52)

A nurse at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston "traces her (HIV) exposure back to 1987 when a
Walpole Prison inmate vomited blood on her scratched hand." (53)

Ruben Palacio, WBO boxing champion, was barred from further fighting in London in 1993 when he was
found to be HIV infected. WBO Championship Committee president, Ed
Levine, stated, "We can't risk the life of another boxer by letting him fight...It's the kind of disease that can
be spread via blood contact, and boxing is a sport where that is likely to
happen." (54)

The Centers for Disease Control has recommended that if anyone engaged in contact sports has blood on
their skin or their uniform, they should be promptly removed from the playing
field. Surgeon General Novello, the surgeon general under the presidency of George Bush, in her "Surgeon
General's Report to the American Public On HIV Infection and AIDS",
published in 1993, offered this advice:

"Based on current knowledge, participation in sports carries virtually no risk for getting HIV. This is
because most sports do not involve contact likely to cause bleeding. If
bleeding occurs, however, you should minimize contact with an injured person's blood. It is also
advisable to remove the injured person from further play until bleeding is
controlled."

(55)

The Global Program on AIDS, a committee organized by the World Health Organization, recommends:

"If a bleeding wound occurs (in sporting events-ed), the individual's participation should be interrupted
until the bleeding has been stopped and the wound is both
 cleansed...and covered...As in the health care settings, protective gloves should be worn (by health care
personnel-ed)."

It is indeed strange that the program managers of the World Health Organization accept the fact that there
is a potential danger to health care personnel from coming into contact with
HIV-infected blood; thus health care workers must wear gloves to protect themselves. On the other hand,
there is no concern for the safety of players who may come into contact with
that very same, potentially HIV-infected blood on the playing field. (56)

Earvin "Magic" Johnson was one of America's all-time, great basketball players. When Earvin Johnson
discovered that he was HIV infected, he initially retired from basketball, only to
return some months later to resume his profession. One evening, shortly thereafter, during a specially hard-
fought basketball game, Johnson's arm became abraded and started to bleed.
That was the night that Earvin "Magic" Johnson retired from basketball for the second time...because of his
sincere concern for the lives of his fellow players.

Members of the AIDS lobby immediately attacked Johnson's decision to retire as being based on "fear and
ignorance." Dr. Mervyn Silverman, one of the leading spokesmen for the
AIDS lobby, was quoted by the Associated Press as saying, "There hasn't been a single documented case of
AIDS spread during a game."

That statement is characteristic of the half-truths and frank disinformation which is circulated by the AIDS
lobby. Admittedly, other than the instance reported in Varese, Italy, noted
above, there are no documented cases of the spread of HIV disease during athletic events. That, however, is
not because transmission does not occur, but rather because the AIDS
lobby has very effectively blocked all efforts to introduce widespread HIV testing of athletes. Without
routine HIV testing, how is it possible to "document" the spread of HIV disease
during contact sports?

Since the inception of this epidemic, one of the major efforts of the AIDS lobby has been to block the
routine HIV testing needed to effectively track and stop this epidemic.

What is needed in America and throughout the world today is routine HIV testing of all athletes engaged in
contact sports. With an average latency period of 10 to 12 years between
HIV infection and progression of HIV disease to its terminal stage (AIDS), physicians have no idea how
many high school, college, or professional athletes are infected and spreading
HIV disease during sporting activities. If health care workers, paramedics, and emergency workers are
required to use gloves and universal precautions whenever encountering blood in
hospital or emergency settings, why shouldn't athletes, who are constantly getting scrapes and abrasions
and coming into contact with blood, be required to take similar precautions? Is
blood only infectious in a hospital or emergency setting...just as saliva is only considered infectious in
dental offices? This is madness. Every person engaging in contact sports should be
routinely tested. In England, an HIV-infected champion prizefighter was disqualified from the ring;
whereas in America, the AIDS lobby encouraged Magic Johnson to continue playing
basketball, despite the fact that his teammates recognized the obvious danger.

Tragically, as of mid-1995, Magic Johnson once again returned to basketball, convinced by members of the
AIDS lobby, and those who are uninformed, that he is not dangerous to his
fellow players. In my opinion, his actions have the potential for spreading HIV disease to those who are
uninfected. (57)

MYTH #7: YOU CAN'T GET AIDS FROM AN INSECT BITE.

I should state at the outset of this discussion that I do not believe that insect transmission of HIV disease is
a major factor in the spread of HIV disease. On the other hand, one of the
first things that a student learns in medical school is that he (or she) must never say "Never" or never say
"Always." Medicine is not that exact.

On what scientific evidence do public health officials assure the public that there is absolutely no danger of
insect transmission of HIV disease? The Centers for Disease Control carried
out an epidemiologic study in Belle Glade, an impoverished, mosquito-infested region of Florida, with one
of the highest rates of HIV infection found anywhere in the United States.
Testing of adults between the ages of 18 and 39 revealed a 6% infection rate, while testing of 138 children
ages 2 to 10 and people over age 60 (where presumably there was little or no
sexual activity) revealed no positive HIV antibody tests. Since mosquitoes and insects could be assumed to
bite both children and the elderly at the same rate that they would bite adults,
the absence of positive HIV tests in children and the elderly suggested that insect transmission of HIV
disease was either not occurring, or was occurring very infrequently. (58)

What then can be said on the other side? The best work available on insect transmission of HIV disease was
obtained from the CDC in 1992 under the Freedom of Information Act. It
was a report from the Office of Technologic Assessment of the Congress of the United States entitled, "Do
Insects Transmit AIDS", released in 1987. Pointing out that insect
transmission of HIV was certainly not a major means of transmission of HIV disease, a group of
distinguished AIDS researchers concluded:

"Experiments with mechanical transmission of other viral diseases have shown that, under the right
conditions, transmission through insect vectors can occur...Experiments
designed to answer the question of whether HIV can survive in bloodsucking insects long enough to be
transmitted if interrupted feeding occurs have shown that it is
theoretically possible; however, based on conditions necessary for successful transmission of other viral
diseases, and on the biology of HIV infections in humans, the
probability of insect transmission is extremely low (p.15)...further investigations are needed of the
tentative findings of Chermann and his colleagues at the Pasteur Institute
that some insects in areas endemic for HIV infection contain HIV-like nucleic acid sequences in their
DNA.(p.17)...While the data from insect studies indicate transmission
of HIV infection as extremely improbable, situations may exist in which some insect transmission might
occur." (p.22)

The report then went on to estimate that insect transmission of HIV disease might occur in 1 in 10 million
mosquito bites, or 1 in approximately 1000 to 4000 bedbug bites. The report,
"Do Insects Transmit AIDS", initially available from the CDC under the Freedom of Information Act, has
been effectively suppressed, and is no longer available through government
channels.

Although insect transmission of HIV disease is admittedly not a major means of spread of this epidemic,
valid scientific studies suggest that insect transmission of HIV disease is
theoretically possible. Thus it is impossible to say categorically that, "You can't get AIDS from an insect
bite." (59)

MYTH #8: YOU CAN'T GET AIDS VIA THE RESPIRATORY ROUTE

Respiratory spread of HIV disease has not been documented but is certainly a theoretical possibility. If it
occurs, it is most assuredly not a major means of transmission. On the other
hand, the evidence which is available clearly suggests that there may well be occasional instances of
respiratory spread of HIV disease. What is that evidence?

In September 1987 it was announced that a laboratory worker, working with the HIV virus at the National
Institute of Health, had contracted HIV disease. Genetic typing demonstrated
that the worker had contracted the same identical strain of HIV virus that he had been working with. Since
the worker had used standard protective techniques and worn protective
clothing at all times, the only possible means of contamination was by the respiratory route. Jim Brown, a
spokesman for the U.S.Public Health Service, stated, "We do not know how
this laboratory worker became infected, but we believe that (laboratory-ed) workers are safe." (60)

In October 1987 a second laboratory worker was found to be infected with the same identical virus that
they had been working with. Since he (or she) used all the standard protective
clothing, and there were no reported breaks in laboratory technique, it was assumed that the second
laboratory worker may also have been infected by the respiratory route. (61)

Dr. Jewett, Professor of Orthopedic Surgery at the University of California in San Francisco, carried out
studies demonstrating that the HIV virus could be aerosolized in the operating
room. He also demonstrated that infected aerosolized particles, generated by a bovie unit or by drilling in
the operating room, were small enough to go through a surgeon's mask. His
studies verified similar studies carried out in the Department of Orthopedic Surgery at Stanford University.
Dr. Jewett reported his findings at an OSHA meeting in January 1990; he
spoke to this same subject at the International AIDS Conference in San Francisco in June 1990. (62)

The next logical step was to determine if aerosolized HIV- infected particles could infect animals or
humans. Dr. Lorraine Day, former Chief of Orthopedic Surgery at San Francisco
General Hospital, subsequently made arrangements with the U.S. Army laboratory at Fort Dedrick,
Maryland, to carry out an experiment to determine whether or not chimpanzees
could be infected with HIV-contaminated particles via the respiratory route. According to Dr. Day,
representatives of the CDC intervened and blocked that scientific study. Why?
When asked why the study was blocked, it is purported that one AIDS expert replied, "What would we do
if we found that HIV could be spread by the respiratory route?" Thus, the
CDC can authoritatively state, "There are no recorded cases of HIV transmission via the respiratory route".
(63)

MYTH #9: LATEX CONDOMS ARE HIGHLY EFFECTIVE IN PREVENTING THE SPREAD OF
AIDS WHEN USED CONSISTENTLY AND
CORRECTLY

Don Feder, columnist for the Boston Herald, wrote in his book, "A Jewish Conservative Looks At Pagan
America":(p.125) "Condom distribution in public schools has nothing to do
with disease prevention and everything to do with normalizing a sexual ethic."

The CDC states in the MMWR of August 6,1993 that "latex condoms are highly effective in preventing the
spread of AIDS when used consistently and correctly."

Which statement is correct?

The CDC, sex educators, the liberal media, and the AIDS lobby have undertaken a coordinated program
across our nation to convince America's children that condoms are safe to use,
and are highly effective in controlling the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. In the
MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report) of August 6, 1993,
pp.589-591, the CDC published their definitive article on the prevention of spread of HIV disease. Their
article devoted just three lines of the 126-line article to the advantages of
abstinence. The remaining 123 lines stressed the reliability of condoms in preventing transmission of the
HIV virus, and other sexually transmitted diseases. (64)

Upon careful analysis of the CDC's August 6, 1993 article, it becomes readily apparent that either: (1) The
authors of that CDC position paper interpreted the scientific literature used to
justify their position differently than the authors who were quoted, or (2) there was an intentional effort to
deceive the public as to what the quoted articles actually said about the
effectiveness of condoms.
Let us then examine this very important CDC position paper to determine exactly what the CDC says about
condom efficiency, then attempt to determine how the CDC arrived at their
conclusions. The August 6, 1993 CDC article states, "A recent laboratory study (6) indicated that latex
condoms are an effective mechanical barrier to fluid containing HIV-sized
particles."

The # (6) in the statement quoted above refers to a study done by Dr. R. F. Carey et al from the Federal
Drug Administration in Rockville, Maryland. Dr. Carey's study consisted of
taking condoms, filling them with viral-sized particles in a fluid suspension, pressurizing the system,
placing the condoms onto a simulated male sex organ, and then inserting the apparatus
into a simulated vagina. No motion was incorporated into this study which largely invalidates Dr. Carey's
findings, since motion, in all probability, would have dramatically increased the
flow of viral-sized particles through the submicroscopic holes present in latex condoms. Even without
motion incorporated into the system, however, at least 29 of the 89 condoms
which were studied leaked viral-sized particles. Admittedly, condoms decreased the number of viral-sized
particles by 10 to the 4th power, but when dealing with one of the deadliest
diseases known to mankind, the presence of any infectious viral-sized particles penetrating an intact
condom is unacceptable. Thus, the allegation made by the CDC to the effect that
"latex condoms are an effective barrier to fluid containing HIV-sized particles" is invalidated by the very
FDA study that the CDC quotes. (65)

In that same MMWR article of August 6, 1993, the CDC chose four other scientific papers, selected from
the world's literature, which supposedly validate the CDC's contention that,
"Latex condoms are highly effective when used consistently and correctly."

The first scientific paper quoted was a study done by Susan C. Weller Phd. from the University of Texas in
Galveston. She reviewed all the medical articles published anywhere in the
world literature dealing with transmission of HIV disease between discordant couples, i.e. where one sexual
partner was HIV infected. Dr. Weller found a 31% a year failure rate among
those who regularly used condoms. (It should be noted, however, that not everyone always used condoms,
although some did.)

Dr. Weller summarised her findings as follows:

"Although contraceptive research indicates that condoms are 87% effective in preventing pregnancy,
results of HIV transmission studies indicate that condoms may reduce
risk of HIV infection by approximately 69%."

Obviously those at the CDC who used Dr. Weller's research to justify their position that condoms are
"highly effective" had either (1) never read her article or (2) they misinterpreted
what she said or (3) they hoped that the public would never check their source of reference. A 31% a year
failure rate is hardly "highly effective." (66)

The second paper that the CDC quoted to justify their support of condom usage was written by Willard
Cates Jr. who was actually employed by the CDC. Since Willard Cates Jr. was
a CDC employee, his study could hardly be considered unbiased, yet Cates reported:

"A European study (by Dr.Isabelle de Vincenzi- see below - ed) of serodiscordant couples showed a
powerful protective effect of "systematic" condom use. Another
partner study in Kenya showed no association between condom use and seroconversion...further
investigations will help clarify the behavioral and biological determinants of
effective condom use...the typical contraceptive failure rate is at least 12%."

Thus, careful reading of Willard Cates Jr.'s paper reveals that the CDC's own investigator describes a
Kenyan condom study where regular condom use was found to be totally
ineffective in preventing spread of HIV disease. Despite that fact, CDC officials persist in telling the public
that "condoms are highly effective in preventing the spread of HIV disease."
(67)

The third paper quoted by the CDC was authored by Dr. Alberto Saracco of Milan, Italy. Dr.Saracco
supervised a multicenter European study of 343 women who were married to
HIV-infected men. After discovery of the infectious status of their partners, 305 of the women continued
having sexual relations with their husbands. Dr.Saracco found a yearly HIV
infection conversion rate of 9.7% among women who never used condoms, a 5.7% conversion rate among
women who used condoms intermittently, and a 1.1% yearly infection rate
for women who always used condoms. Thus, we find a 10% condom failure rate comparing those who use
condoms consistently and correctly (1.1%), and those who do not use them
at all (9.7%). Although condoms obviously offer a measure of protection to the uninfected, a 1% a year
failure rate is unacceptable when dealing with a disease that is 95-100% fatal. If
a commercial airline had a 1% a year fatality rate, how many people would advise their children or family
members to fly on that airline? If the brakes on a certain model of automobile
were known to fail completely 1% of the time every year, would that car be allowed on the roads of our
nation? Of course not. Yet today, in America, the CDC is recommending that
our children use a product that they acknowledge has a failure rate of at least 1% a year when having sexual
relations with someone who is HIV infected. (68)

The fourth article that the CDC quotes is the only paper that might appear to support the CDC's position:
i.e. that "latex condoms are highly effective when used consistently and
correctly." The primary author of the fourth paper was Dr.Isabelle de Vincenzi, a French physician who
supervised a second European study of discordant couples. When contacted by
several independent American investigators, Dr.Isabelle de Vincenzi told both investigators that she could
not understand how the CDC could possibly base America's condom policy
on her findings. What did she discover? Dr. de Vincenzi and her associates followed 256 discordant
couples in Europe where one sexual partner was HIV infected. Of the 256 couples,
only 124 of them used condoms consistently and correctly, while the other 121 couples used condoms
intermittently or not at all during the 22 months of the study. There were 11 other
couples who refused to answer questions as to their condom usage.

Of the group that used condoms consistently and correctly, none became HIV infected. Of those who used
condoms intermittently, 4.5% became HIV infected.

To understand the significance of this study, you must understand that Dr. de Vincenzi's study dealt with
(1) adults (2) these adults knew that their sexual partners were HIV infected,
and (3) each participant was initially given an intensive education on HIV disease, then recounseled every 6
months to remind them of the lethal consequences of contracting HIV
disease. What was so surprising to Dr. de Vincenzi was that almost half of the adult participants in her
study refused to use condoms routinely, despite the fact that they knew that their
partners were infected, and they were counseled at regular intervals to remind them of their danger.

To transpose the results of Dr. de Vincenzi's study of European adults who knew of their partner's
infectious status to (1) American adolescents (2) who don't know that their partner is
infected (and are certain they are not) (3) who feel invulnerable, and (4) are not being constantly
recounseled as to the dangers of HIV infection, is hardly logical. Dr de Vincenzi told a
representative of Citizen magazine who spoke with her by telephone in her office near Paris in February of
1994:

"In a lot of studies of high-risk people, you often find that it's quite difficult to have more than half of
them using condoms systematically...It is very difficult to extrapolate
from a couple's study (in Europe-ed) to single individuals in another country or of another age... the
relationship is not at all the same when you are in love and a
monogamous couple, or when you meet someone for the first time."
Mr. John Harris, who works for Josh McDowell's ministry, also contacted Dr.Isabelle de Vincenzi by
telephone. He was told essentially the same thing. Copies of an interview with
John Harris, describing his interview with Dr. de Vincenzi, are available from Radio Liberty. (69)

Dr. de Vincenzi's study certainly demonstrated that condoms can impede the transmission of HIV disease,
but should the CDC base America's entire public health effort to control the
HIV epidemic on one European study where almost half of the adults studied failed to use condoms, and
4.5% of them became infected?

Furthermore, Dr. de Vincenzi's study failed to evaluate the CD4 count of the HIV-infected partners to
determine their level of infectiousness. This fact alone, to some extent, invalidates
her findings. Physicians know that if a patient's CD4 count (the T4 lymphocyte count) is over 400, an HIV-
infected person has a very low level of viremia, and thus is not highly
infectious. In such cases the incidence of HIV transmission is negligible, even with unprotected sex. Dr.
Saracco's study evaluated the CD4 count on all his patients; Dr. de Vincenzi's
study did not. In addition, the editorial comment from the New England Journal of Medicine concerning
Dr. de Vincenzi's paper is revealing for those who are unacquainted with the
significance of statistical analyses. The editorial comment stated:

"Even with this large, carefully followed cohort, the sample was not large enough to exclude the
possibility of a transmission rate of up to 1.5 per 100 person years."

Thus, statistically, the condom failure rate demonstrated in Dr. de Vincenzi's study could still be in the
neighborhood of 1%. (70)

Why should we caution our youth against the use of condoms and insist that only sexual abstinence is
acceptable? The message that America's youth gets from condom instruction and
condom distribution is that sexual experimentation and sexual activity before marriage are socially
acceptable. Educators cannot give mixed messages to adolescents. Teachers cannot
say that abstinence is the best course, but condoms are an acceptable, safe alternative. Condoms are not an
acceptable, safe alternative in the age of AIDS, and rampant venereal
disease. Why?

(1) A condom failure rate of 1% a year with a 95-100% fatal disease is unacceptable. Over a 10-year
period, a 1% yearly failure rate corresponds to a 10% fatality rate.

(2) Neither the majority of adolescents nor the majority of adults will use condoms consistently and
correctly. This fact is readily apparent from the following studies:

(A) A recently published study evaluated the incidence of HIV disease among homosexuals between the
ages of 18 and 29 in San Francisco. Despite extensive, repeated, condom
education by public health authorities and Gay organizations in San Francisco, 17.9% of the young men
tested were HIV positive. This represents a failed condom policy, and a failed
public health policy. (71)

(B) After years of condom education and indoctrination across America, a study recently published in
Family Planning Perspectives magazine documented that the older boys become,
the less frequently they use condoms. (72)

(3) The rate of condom breakage and slippage is unacceptable in the age of epidemic level STDs and AIDS.
The Journal of the NIH (National Institute of Health) reports: "Latex
condoms can and do break - according to some estimates, at a rate as high as 8.6 times per 100 -
particularly if they are exposed to air or heat, or if they are used with oil-based
lubricants or for anal intercourse." (73)
(4) In America today there are 56 million people infected with a sexually transmitted, incurable, viral
disease. That figure means that one in every five Americans is infected with an
incurable, viral, venereal disease. Since a significant portion of Americans are beyond the age of
promiscuity, and a significant proportion of our population is made up of pre-adolescent
children, the chances are between 30-50% that any person you have sexual relations with (who has been
previously sexually active) will be infected with one or another incurable, viral,
venereal disease. (74)

(5) A recent study of co-eds at the University of California in Berkeley found that 46% of those examined
had evidence of Human Papilloma Virus genital infections, a precursor to
cervical carcinoma. (75)

(6) Every year in America there are 12 million new cases of sexually transmitted diseases, two thirds of
them in people under 25 years of age, and one quarter of them in teenagers, i.e. 3
million teenagers acquire a venereal disease each and every year. (76)

(7) Several hundred thousand adolescents and young women become sterile every year from the ravages of
Chlamydia and gonorrhea infections spreading to their fallopian tubes. One
incident of gonorrheal pelvic inflammatory infection (PID) gives a 12-13% chance of a girl becoming
infertile for life; one incident of PID from Chlamydia gives a 25% chance of sterility
for life. In addition, the incidence of tubal pregnancy has increased 400-500% in America during the past 2
decades because of tubal scarring secondary to venereal disease. (77)

(8) Although some clinical studies quoted by the CDC suggest that condoms can slow the transmission of
Chlamydia and Human Papilloma Virus, other well-documented studies
demonstrate that condoms are ineffective in preventing spread of these two devastating venereal diseases.
In America today, it is estimated that there are 4 million new cases of
Chlamydia infection every year, and between 500,000 to 1 million new cases of HPV infections occur
yearly. (78) (79) (80)

(9) Condoms have an overall contraceptive failure rate of 15.7%, but in teenage girls 18 years and younger,
the failure rate is 18.4%. Thus, teaching adolescents that condoms are an
acceptable alternative to abstinence is to condemn successive generations of America's youth to unwanted
pregnancies, epidemic levels of STDs, the spread of HIV, and the emotional
consequences of early sexual experimentation. Condoms work part of the time. Abstinence works 100% of
the time. In schools across America where abstinence-based education has
been introduced, the results have been rewarding. Schools must abandon comprehensive sex education and
return to moral-based, abstinence-oriented, biologically directed sex
instruction. The time has come to return to the type of sex education that was utilised in America for almost
200 years, prior to the introduction of the current failed concepts of
"comprehensive education for sex." Parents across America must organize and work to reintroduce moral
concepts into our educational system if we hope to save our next generation
from disease, disability, and early death.

I believe that Don Feder was absolutely correct when he observed that, "Condom distribution in public
schools has nothing to do with disease prevention and everything to do with
normalizing a sexual ethic." (81) (82)

MYTH #10: THE USE OF A SPERMICIDE SUCH AS NONOXYNOL-9 (ALONG WITH CONDOMS)
INCREASES YOUR DEGREE OF SAFETY
WHEN ENGAGING IN CASUAL SEX

All across America, in sex education classes and AIDS seminars, young people are being told that the
spermicide Nonoxynol-9 will give them an added measure of protection against
acquiring HIV disease. This is a dangerous deception. The tragedy is that Nonoxynol-9 has been
scientifically shown to increase the spread of HIV disease. The classic study on the use
of Nonoxynol-9 in humans was carried out in a group of 138 prostitutes in Nairobi, Kenya. (The results of
that study can be found in the Journal of the American Medical Association
(July 22-29, 1992, Volume 268, No.4, p.477) That study demonstrated that the use of Nonoxynol-9
produced a significant increase in the incidence of vaginal ulcers. The authors
postulate that the ulcers resulted from the caustic properties of the spermicide, and that the ulcers acted as
portals of entry for the HIV virus.

Comparing the two groups of prostitutes studied, one group using condoms and a placebo, the other group
using condoms and Nonoxynol-9, in the group using condoms and a
placebo, 36% of the young women became HIV infected, while in the group using condoms and
Nonoxynol-9, 45% became infected. Thus, the use of the very same spermicide being
recommended to the youth of America today has been found to significantly increase the spread of HIV
disease among prostitutes in Nairobi.

Surgeon General Novello, in her Surgeon General's Report released in 1993, stated:

"Studies show that some spermicides kill HIV (virus-ed) in the test tube. However the ability of a
spermicide to kill HIV in the vagina during sex is uncertain... when used
with a condom, the spermicide (gel, foam, film, or suppository) should be put directly inside the
vagina...spermicides may cause vaginal sores or irritation in some women
and irritation of the penis in some men. These sores or irritations, like any sore or irritation of the vagina
or penis, may make it easier for HIV to get into the bloodstream."

In essence, Surgeon General Novello is saying that (1) there is no scientific evidence that spermicides are
effective in preventing the spread of HIV disease, (2) Nonoxynol-9 (and other
spermicides) can produce sores or irritation of the vagina and penis, and these sores can lead directly to
HIV infection, (3) go ahead and use Nonoxynol-9 and other spermicides,
despite the evidence that you can acquire a lethal disease from their use.

The tragedy of today is that public health authorities have known of the potential danger of Nonoxynol-9
use since the results of the Nairobi spermicide study were first presented at the
International AIDS Conference in Montreal, June 1989 (which I attended). Yet, to this very day, sex
educators across America continue to tell our children that, "The use of spermicides
such as Nonoxynol-9, along with condoms, increases your degree of safety when engaging in casual sex."
(83) (84)

WHAT YOU CAN DO!

As I wrote at the beginning of this treatise, over 450,000 Americans have now been reported to the CDC
with end-stage HIV disease (AIDS). Over a quarter of a million of them have
already died, and of the remaining 200,000, almost every one of them will be dead within three years.
These figures do not include the tens of thousands of Americans with HIV infection
who have been reported to the CDC, but have not yet progressed to end-stage disease; their names are not
included among the 450,000 AIDS cases. It is only a matter of time,
however, until their disease progresses to the terminal stage, and in almost all cases, certain death.

In addition, there are tens of thousands of other Americans who are known to be HIV infected, but their
cases cannot be reported to the CDC because of state confidentiality laws.
Also, there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million or more, Americans infected with the HIV virus,
but they do not yet know of their infectious status. Unfortunately, many of them
are spreading HIV disease unknowingly.

It is vitally important that you come to realise that public health authorities in America are treating HIV
disease as a civil rights issue, not as a communicable, lethal disease. Fortunately,
casual transmission of HIV disease is infrequent, although it does occur. If you study and understand the
myths outlined in this treatise, you will be able to protect yourself and your
family. Remember, however, that the greatest danger to you and your family is not from HIV disease, but
rather from the spread of other diseases constantly being incubated in the
bodies of the tragic victims of this epidemic. We must always treat those who are infected with compassion
and concern, but we must also do everything we can to protect our families.
We must also do everything within our power to try to stop further spread of this plague. (85)

What can you do? First, you must become informed as to the truth about the spread of HIV disease in our
land and throughout the world. Then you must inform others. Finally, you
must make sure that your legislative representatives, both at the state and national level, understand the
truth about HIV disease, and what needs to be done medically to bring HIV
disease under control. If your legislative representatives are unresponsive to your message, it is your
obligation to see that they are replaced with moral, responsible citizens who will do
what is medically correct to begin to control this epidemic. (72)

The following books and pamphlets are recommended:

(1) AIDS: The Unnecessary Epidemic.

(2) VHS video, AIDS: The Unnecessary Epidemic.
(3) Do Insects Transmit AIDS?...This is a government report obtained from the CDC under the Freedom of
Information Act. The report is currently unavailable from the CDC and has
been reprinted by HIV-Watch.
(4) The HIV-Watch newsletter. A free copy is available on request. Back issues are also available for a
nominal fee.
(5) Audio tapes recorded by Radio Liberty with Dr. Lorraine Day, Gene Antonio, Dr. Donald Francis of the
CDC, Gus Sermos-epidemiologist, Richard Smith-epidemiologist, Dr.
George Walter on AIDS in Africa, Dr. William O'Connor, Shepherd Smith of ASAP.

For further information, contact HIV-Watch, P.O. Box 1835, Soquel, CA, 95073, or call
1-800-5-HIV-WAR.

1: a) "AIDS: The Unnecessary Epidemic": Covenant House: S. Monteith, M.D.: p. 13. See also the video,
AIDS: The Unnecessary Epidemic, containing a speech by a a Gay activist
who calls himself Luke Sissyfag, stating, "The Gay community has the ability to stop AIDS, and we've
chosen not to."
b) "And The Band Played On": St. Martin's Press: Randy Shilts, prologue, page xxii, stating, "The bitter
truth was that AIDS did not just happen to America - it was allowed to
happen....."

2: "Toward a Comprehensive HIV Prevention Program for the CDC and the Nation" Francis, Don M.D.:
Journal of the American Medical Association, September 16,1992, Vol 268,
No 11, p. 1444

3: ibid, p.1444

4: a) "AIDS Epidemic Spreads": Houston Chronicle, December 2,1994, p. 7A.

b) CDC AIDS Daily Summary, December 3,1994. Also, MMWR, Vol 44/No 4, February 3,1995, p.65.

5: HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, CDC, June 1994: p.10

6: AIDS ALERT, November 1994, pp. 154-156: quoting Edlin, B. et al: "Seroprevalence of HIV-1 Among
College Students, United States, 1988- 1990"; presented at the 34th
Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy: Orlando, FL: 1994, abstract #308

7: The Sunday Mail, June 26,1994, p.11: author, Phkirayl Deketeke, discussing financial losses of
insurance companies in Zimbabwe due to AIDS.
8: "AIDS to Kill 10,000 Indians a Day by 2000 - Expert": Reuters: December 11,1994: also quoted in the
CDC AIDS Daily Summary.

9: "The Future of AIDS", a speech delivered by Professor Haseltine to the French Academy of Sciences,
November 16, 1992. Copies of that speech are available from HIV-Watch,
P.O. Box 1835, Soquel, CA, 95073.

10: The Lancet, September 28,1985: F. Barre-Sinoussu et al: pp. 721-722

11: "Stability and Inactivation of HTLV-LAV under Clinical and Laboratory Experiments: L. Resnick,
M.D. et al: JAMA, 1986: Vol 225, No 14: April 11, 1986: pp. 1887-1891

12: a) "Survival of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Under Controlled Drying Conditions, III
International Conference on AIDS, Washington, D.C. 1987: No.M.P. 229, S.L.
Loskoski et al.
b) "AIDS: Rage and Reality", Antonio, G: Anchor Books, Dallas, p.91

13: MMWR, October 7,1988, pp. 597-599

14: Washington Times, January 26,1994, p.A8. Article by Peter Finn.

15: op. cited ref No 11, JAMA: April 11,1986, pp. 1887-1891

16: a) "Inactivation of Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 At Short Term Intervals Using Undiluted
Bleach": Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, Raven Press: Paul
Shapshak, 6:218-219.
b) California State Department of Public Health publication, California HIV/AIDS Update, Vol 6, #3, Fall
issue, 1993; p.102.
c) Quoted in HIV-Watch, Vol II, No 1, P.O. Box 1835, Soquel, CA, 95073.

: a) "Inactivation of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 by Alcohols", Journal of Hospital Infection,

October 1994: 28 (2) pp. 137-148.
b) AIDS Weekly, November 21-28,1994, p. 9

18: The name of the disinfectant, the manufacturer, and their scientific studies will be made available on
request. Contact HIV-Watch, P.O. Box 1835, Soquel, CA, 95073.

19: HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report from the CDC, June 1994, pp. 8,10,22,23.

20: AIDS Alert, November 1994, p.154.

21: op. cited. Copies of Dr. Haseltine's speech to the French Academy of Sciences are available on request
from HIV-Watch, P.O. Box 1835, Soquel, CA, 95073.

22: AIDS Weekly, October 24,1994, p.8, quoting Dr. Kenneth Castro of the CDC in Atlanta, GA.

23: AIDS Weekly, October 19,1992, quoting Dr. Ban Missy of Vanderbilt University, abstract for the 32nd
Annual International Science Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and
Chemotherapy, 1992.

24: New York Times, October 21,1993, p. A10.

25: AIDS Weekly, November 14,1994, p. 25.

26: New York Times, June 14,1994, p. B5. Gina Kolata, M.D.
: "Ammunition Against Killer Disease", Washington Times, January 25,1995, p. A1.

28: MMWR: May 13,1994, Vol 3, #18, p. 325. "Decreased Susceptibility of Neisseria Gonorrhea to
Fluoroquinilones - Ohio and Hawaii, 1992-1994"

29: Wall Street Journal, September 14,1993, p.1. The story of another new cholera outbreak in India.

30: Time magazine, September 12,1994, pp. 62-69, "Revenge of The Killer Microbes."

31: "Hospitals Track Fatal Bacteria", AIDS Weekly, October 13,1994, p. 10.

32: AIDS Weekly, July 4,1994, p. 19.

33: HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, June 1994, op. cited, p. 20.

34: HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, June 1994, p.11.

35: "Human Immunodeficiency Virus Transmission in Household Settings - United States": MMWR: Vol
43, No.19, pp. 347-356.

36: "Apparent Transmission of Human T Lymphotrophic Virus Type III/Lymphadenopathy-Associated

Virus From a Child To a Mother During Home Care": MMWR 1986: 35: pp.
76-79.

37: "Russian Doctor's Reuse of Syringes Linked to HIV In 260 Children": AIDS Weekly: July 5,1993.
Reporting on a paper presented at the IX International AIDS Conference in
Berlin, Germany, June 6-11,1993.

38: New York Times, August 19,1994, p. A17.

39: "HIV Recovery From Saliva Before and After Dental Treatment": Barbara Moore Phd. et al., Journal of
the American Dental Association, Vol 124, October 1993, pp. 67-73.

40: Science, February 5,1988, Vol 239, p. 635, James Curran et al.

41: "Oral Bacteria Stimulation of Production of HIV": D Ajdukovic et al: III International AIDS
Conference, Washington, D.C. : 1987, M.P. 102. Also, op. cited AIDS: Rage and
Reality, p.82.

42: a) "Origin, Role and Infectivity of Salivary HIV", D.D. Pekovic et al, IV International Conference on
AIDS, Stockholm, 1988, Vol 2, No 1602.
b) Letter to the Editor published in The American Journal of Medicine: January 1987: Vol 82, p. 186,
entitled, "Detection of Human Immunosuppressive Virus In Salivary Lymphocytes
from Dental Patients", by Pekovic et al.
c) AIDS: Rage and Reality, p. 84.

43: "Horizontal Transmission of HIV Infection Between Two Siblings": The Lancet: September 20,1986, p.
694.

44: "Horizontal Transmission by Oral Sex", W. Rozenbaum et al: The Lancet: June 18,1988, p. 1395.

45: "Passionate Kissing and Microlesions of the Oral Mucosa: Possible Role in AIDS Transmission",
Marcello Piazza, M.D. et al: Journal of the American Medical Association: Vol
261, No 2, January 13,1989, pp. 244-245; Letter to the Editor.
46: "Transmission of HIV Infection From a Woman to a Man by Oral Sex": New England Journal of
Medicine : Peter Spitzer, M.D. et al, 1989. Vol 320, No 4, p. 251.

47: The Washington Post, November 26,1994, p. A16. Also quoted in the CDC AIDS Daily Summary,
December 1,1994.

48: "Are There New Ways the AIDS Virus May be Transmitted?" Available from John Ankerberg
Ministry. TEL: (615) 892-7722.

49: "Update: Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infections in Health Care Workers Exposed to Blood of
Infected Patients": MMWR: May 22,1987, Vol 36, No 19, pp. 285-286.

50: a) "Langherhans Cells as Primary Cells for HIV Infection", L.R. Braathen,: The Lancet: November
7,1987, p. 1094.
50: b) "Clue to Heterosexual AIDS Announced by Scientist" Desert Sun newspaper, June 18,1991;
Presentation by Professor William Haseltine.
c) "Mucosal Transmission of AIDS", Nature magazine, Vol 353, October 24,1991, describing Langerhans
cells as "the most readily infectable cells."
d) The Lancet, July 18,1987, letter by L.A. Kay, p. 166.

51: a) The Lancet, May 5,1990, 335, p. 1105

b) Santa Cruz Sentinel, article by Karen Miller of the Cox News Service, November 5,1992, p. B7.

52: "HIV Infection Following Motor Vehicle Trauma in Central Africa": JAMA: June 9,1989, Vol 261, No
22, p. 3282.

53: "Nurse Fights for Life and Job", by Beverly Ford: Boston Herald, Monday, August 19,1991, p.5.

54: The Associated Press, April 17,1993. Quoted from the same date in the Santa Cruz Sentinel, p. B1.

55: "Surgeon General's Report to the American Public on HIV Infection and AIDS" 1993: p.8. This report
is available free of charge from the CDC on request. Call (800) 458-5231.

56: "Global Program on AIDS: Consensus Statement From Consultation on AIDS in Sports", Geneva,
January 16,1989. WHO/GPA/89.2

57: "Researchers Blame Magic's Retirement on Fear, Ignorance": Associated Press story: Lee Siegel,
November 3,1992. Quoted in The Santa Cruz Sentinel, p.1.

58: "Do Alternate Modes for Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Exist?" Alan Lifson,
M.D.,Phd: JAMA: March 4,1988, Vol 259, No 9, pp. 1353-1356.

59: HIV-Watch has reprinted the government document, "Do Insects Transmit AIDS?" It is available from
HIV-Watch, P.O. Box 1835, Soquel, CA, 95073

60: a) San Francisco Chronicle: September 7,1987, p.2. b) "AIDS:The Unnecessary Epidemic" : Covenant
House: op. cited, p. 214.

61: a) Wall Street Journal, October 9, 1987, p. 5 b) "AIDS:The Unnecessary Epidemic: op. cited, p 235

62: "AIDS:The Unnecessary Epidemic", op. cited, p. 339

63: Personal communication with Dr. Lorraine Day.

64: "Update: Barrier Protection Against HIV and Other Sexually Transmitted Diseases": MMWR: August
6,1993, Vol 442, No 30, pp. 589-591.
65: "Effectiveness of Latex Condoms as a Barrier to Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Sized Particles
Under Conditions of Simulated Use", Ronald F. Carey, Phd. et al: Sexually
Transmitted Disease: 1992: 19: pp. 230- 234.

66: "A Meta-Analysis of Condom Effectiveness in Reducing Sexually Transmitted HIV.", Susan C. Weller
Phd.: Social Science Medicine: Vol 36, No 12, 1993, pp. 1635-1644.

67: "Family Planning, Sexually Transmitted Diseases and Contraceptive Choice: Literature Update - Part
I", Willard Cates, Jr. et al: Family Planning Perspectives: Vol 24, No 2,
March/April 1992.

68: "Man to Woman Sexual Transmission of HIV: Longitudinal Study of 343 Steady Partners of HIV-
Infected Men", Dr. Alberto Saracco et al: Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndromes: 6: Raven Press, 1993, pp. 497-502.

69: a) "Caught!", Michael Ebert, Glen Stanton: Citizen Magazine: Vol 8, No 4, April 1994.

69: b) Radio interview Mr. John Harris (an associate of Josh McDowell and his ministry). Harris describes
his personal conversation with Dr. de Vincenzi. Available from Radio Liberty,
P.O. Box 1835, Soquel, CA 95073.

70: "A Longitudinal Study of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Transmission by Heterosexual Partners",
Isabelle de Vincenzi M.D. et al: New England Journal of Medicine: Vol 331, No
6, August 11,1994, pp. 341-346. The editorial comment will be found on pp. 391-392.

71 : "HIV Infection in Homosexual and Bisexual Men 18-29 Years of Age": The San Francisco Young
Men's Health Study: D.H. Osmond et al: American Journal of Public Health:
December 1994: 84 (12) pp. 1993-1937.

72 : "As Adolescent Males Age, Risky Behavior Rises, But Condom Use Decreases." : Family Planning
Perspectives: January/February 1994, pp. 45-46.

73 : "Research Reveals Condom Conundrum": The Journal of NIH Research: Vol 5, January 1993, pp. 32-
33.

74 : "Report Finds 1 in 5 Infected by Virus Spread Sexually", Barringer: New York Times: April 1,1993, p.
A1.

75: "Genital Human Papilloma Virus Infection in Female University Students as Determined by PCR-
Based Method": Bauer et al: Journal of The American Medical Association: Vol
265, No 4, January 23,1991.

76: "Report Finds 1 in 5 Infected", op. cited, Barringer, New York Times, April 1,1992, p. A1.

77: a) "Effect of Acute Pelvic Inflammatory Disease on Fertility", L. Westrom: American Journal of
Obstetrics and Gynecology: 1975, Vol 121, pp.707-713.
b) MMWR: Vol 41, No 32, August 14,1992, p. 591.

78: "Report Finds 1 in 5 Infected".. op. cited, New York Times.

79: "Limiting Sex Partners Ineffective Against Chlamydia": Associated Press: Santa Cruz Sentinel: October
5,1992, p. A6.

80: "Sexual Behavior of Women With Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) of the Uterine Cervix", K.
Syrajanen: British Journal of Venereal Disease, 1984, Vol 60, p. 243.
81: "Contraceptive Failure in the United States: Revised Estimates from the 1982 National Survey of
Family Growth", Elsie F. Jones et al.: Family Planning Perspectives: Vol 21, No 3,
May/June 1989, p. 103.

82: "Contraceptive Failure Rate in the United States: Estimated from the 1982 National Survey of Family
Growth", Mark D. Hayward et al,: Family Planning Perspectives: Vol 18, No
5, September/October 1986, p. 204.

83: "Efficacy of Nonoxynol-9 Contraceptive Sponge Use in Preventing Heterosexual Acquisition of HIV in
Nairobi Prostitutes", Joan Kreiss M.D. et al: JAMA: July 22/29. Vol 268,
No 4, p. 477.

84: Surgeon General Novello's "Surgeon General's Report To The American Public on HIV Infection and
AIDS." p. 15.

85: MMWR: February 3,1995, Vol 44, No 4, p. 64-66 - gives the figure for AIDS cases as of December
1994 as 441,528.