Absurd Conclusion based on Padian Study.

The Perth Group misunderstands the Padian Study and attempts to contort it's conclusions to support it's own Oxidative Stress Hypothesis (OSH):

Unquestionably, to date, the best designed and executed study in heterosexuals was conducted by Nancy Padian and her associates...The results from their long prospective study of couples, of whom only one partner of either sex was antibody positive, were published in 1997 in a paper entitled Heterosexual Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in Northern California,. Results from a Ten Year Study.

"Prospective results.

We followed 175 HIV-discordant couples over time, for a total of approximately 282 couple-years of follow-up...At last follow-up, couples were much more likely to be abstinent or to use condoms consistently, and were much less likely to practice anal intercourse

Thus, a positive antibody test and AIDS, like pregnancy, can be sexually acquired but not sexually transmitted. The difference is, that while pregnancy can be acquired by a single sexual intercourse, for AIDS to appear a very high frequency of receptive intercourse over a long period is absolutely necessary. AIDS is more like cervical cancer. The effect is not the result of the act itself, but its high frequency. But, as with pregnancy and cervical cancer, other factors may mitigate against the development of AIDS.[citation]

The Perth group wants to use the Padian study to confirm their hypothesis that "positive antibody test and AIDS" (they blur the two) is "sexually acquired but not sexually transmitted." However, the participants in the study were:

A total of 82 infected women and their male partners and 360 infected men and their female partners were enrolled...

360 men and their female partners were enrolled. How did these men get their "positive" test results? In their argument for OSH, the Perth Group wants to show that anal sex is a major cause of "positive antibody test and AIDS," but that would mean that these 360 men were previously "bathhouse bottoms" and then ended up in monogamous, straight relationships in time for this study.

The majority of the "infected" partners in this study were NOT sperm receivers. ln fact it is very much the other way around. The "infected" partners were giving sperm to their "uninfected" partners over the course of the study, and yet most of the partners never became "infected" despite being receivers of supposedly "infected" or "oxidizing" sperm.