AIDS: The Strecker Memorandum

no known virus is lethal to everybody.

they might make a virus that decimates the human population, but they would run a high risk of death themselves, unless they had a cure. Which would mean there would be a cure.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

sounds better but not with 70's biotech, maybe today with enough funding, time and secrecy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yep...if it was really that easy then it would have been done already by some cult with a deathwish. Why kill only yourself if you can kill the entire world

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

occam's razor

yeah, they tried to give me that crap in high school too, and i thought to myself "if the simplest form of a theory is always better, doesn't that contradict doing any research for supporting evidence?" occam's razor is a cop-out for people who, when it comes time to look for alternative theories, are either too stuck up and biased about their own ideas, or simply too lazy.

funny, i couldn't agree more on this issue.

 

bear in mind

i'm not supporting the idea that it's biowarfare, i'm just trying to give it a fair chance.

 

Re: occam's razor

i guess they didn't really teach you the real meaning of it then in high school. If there are two theories than the simplest one is probably true.

It doesn't mean that a simplified theory is more true than the same theory more complex.

now let us look at the facts:
Aids has been found in primates
Aids history has been well documented and everything seems to point towards natural causes.
Two websites claim conspiracy

i am going for theory number one.

what would you think is the primary evidence for the human origin of AIDS then?

 

The primary evidence for human origin of AIDS is the fact that it appeared over such a wide area of the world at the same time, and the doubling of cases figures (14 Months) they are always spouting would not account for the wide spread pervasiveness of the disease if it started with one accidental case.

 

AIDS Virus Traced to 1675
Newsday - July 11, 2000
Laurie Garrett, Staff Writer

Durban, South Africa-The AIDS virus most probably first jumped from chimpanzees to humans as early as 1675 and didn't establish itself as an epidemic strain in Africa until 1930, according to research presented yesterday at the 13th International AIDS Conference here.
The virus, HIV-1, is ancient, reported Dr. Anne-Mieke Vandamme of the Riga Institute in Leuven, Belgium. In collaboration with colleagues in France, Germany and Ireland, Vandamme devised a technique for tracing the family trees of viruses.
"The separation between SIVcpz [chimpanzee virus] and HIV was in 1675 to 1700," Vandamme told scientists. She said that theories on a more recent origin of HIV-1 epidemics in humans, "such as the one blaming vaccination with oral polio vaccine contaminated with SIV [chimp virus], seems very unlikely."
Vandamme's findings are important because they help explain not only how the world's worst recorded epidemic commenced, but also possibly where it is going and how fast. And in one respect they coincide with estimates reached independently at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. In 1930, both research teams have found, the first M-Class form of HIV emerged in Africa.
Scientists don't, of course, have blood samples dating to 1675. The oldest known HIV sample dates to only 1959. So to figure out HIV's history, scientists need to establish what they call the molecular clock of the virus, or the rate at which it changes. But that's tough for HIV, because different strains of the virus today are mutating and evolving at divergent rates.
As for why HIV smoldered in humans invisibly for 300 years, Vandamme said, "A true explosion requires a new mode of transmission or modern behavior," such as use of non-sterile needles, non-sterile blood products and widespread promiscuous sexual behavior.
------
-so yes the AIDS disease is ‘man made’ but not quite the stuff of conspiracies.
-------
An African HIV-1 Sequence from 1959 and Implications for the Origin of the Epidemic.
Nature (02/05/98) Vol. 391, No. 6667, P. 594
Zhu, Tuofu; Korber, Bette T.; Nahinias, Andre J.; et al.

Abstract: Dr. Tuofu Zhu of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in New York and colleagues report the amplification and characterization of viral sequences of an HIV-1-seropositive plasma sample taken from an adult Bantu male in 1959 living in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The researchers studied 1,213 plasma samples obtained from Africa between 1959 and 1982; the 1959 sample tested positive for HIV-1 through immunoassay, immunoflourescence, Western blotting, and radioimmunoprecipitation methods. The plasma sample is the oldest confirmed case of HIV-1; the case of a Manchester sailor who died of an AIDS-like illness in 1959 was reported to be the oldest, but it has not been confirmed. The sample taken from the Bantu man has a viral sequence that lies near the ancestral node of subtypes B and D in the major group, suggesting that these HIV-1 subtypes may stem from a single introduction into Africa soon before 1959. The team notes, however, that "given the large genetic differences between HIV-1 and HIV-2, the divergence of these viruses could not have occurred in the late 1940s; that branching point must have come considerably earlier." The findings highlight the need for continued surveillance, they assert, noting the diversification of HIV over the past 40 to 50 years.


But it could have just been the aliens playing their little tricks again

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

William of Ockham... I'm starting to hate that monk.

Whatever that link may say, Ockham's Razor is not

It is "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". Why is this important to you, zechaeriah? Well, because there are two theories being put forward, yours and that of the monkey:
The monkey: HIV came about without human intervention.
You: HIV was created by mean scientists.

The reason why Ockham's razor is important in this case is because we already believe/know that nearly all OTHER viruses came about without human intervention, so we don't have to "invent" nature over again to explain where HIV came from, in spurious' story.

For your theory to be correct we need to have a group of killer virus-making scientists, the existence of which is not proven. This is "multiplying entities", that is, inventing new agents to explain a phenomenon that can already be explained by existing agents, like the process that created all the other viruses.

William of Ockham wasn't saying "the simplest explanation is the truest," he was saying "don't invent new fairy godmothers to explain every new phenomenon."

So, if you were going to counter this argument, you should produce such evidence:
- documented evidence that viruses can be tailor-made to produce the symptoms of HIV
- documented evidence that cures for lethal diseases have been secretly withheld (not openly withheld, as with the HIV drug lawsuits)
- documented evidence of a government's intent to attack the entire world in some way like this - that is, THE WORLD, not just the US - that either shows
1) their willingness to sacrifice their own citizens
2) some plan for avoiding that sacrifice, or
3) a sufficient lack of foresight concerning this or some similar plan that they seem to honestly fail to understand that their biological war-agent could come back on them and wipe out their own country

This would provide an underpinning of previous precedent that would render the monkey's Ockham's razor argument invalid (relatively speaking of course).

 

weebee: Europe was hit very hard centuries ago by syphilis, which is passed largely by sexual contact as well. It was enough of an issue that religious institutions felt it necessary to address the subject. Ol' Nietzsche the Ubermensch contracted syphilis after having sex only once (so I'm told).

Certainly, syphilis is a horrible disease - it eats holes in your brain and organs until you go insane/die of organ failure.

But, if HIV really existed in the human population for 300 years before it became critical, it's not because of a change in our sexual behaviour at least, since sexually transmitted diseases weren't really that much less prevalent 300 years ago.

 

first of all, i don't go by ockham's razor, i've already said this. the reason being i don't see what is wrong with looking at more than one possibility to explain something, no matter how complex, no matter how strange it may be, especially when the truth has yet to emerge. see, i actually have what is called an "open mind", meaning, i don't dismiss ideas entirely just because they don't follow certain guidelines. i am not a scientist nor am i any sort of authority on AIDS. i do know a bit about it as i worked for the AIDS Walk in San Fran and i've done a bit of research into the origins. but anyway, if we still don't know the truth of it, then what does it hurt to explore all the range of possibilities? so fuck this ockham shit cuz what you're really saying to me when you bring it up is "i am a narrow-minded fool".

let me remind folks, too, that i still have not said whether i believe AIDS is manmade or not. all i've said is:

* i don't understand why people shy away from the word "conspiracy" when a) conspiracies happen and b) it accurately describes certain scenarios.

* i don't see why it is so hard to believe that there are scientists out there who do work for various governments and corporations because they want the money or because there are guns pointed at them. this shit happens, that is reality (not ALWAYS the reality, but in many cases it is so). i have friends who have been pulled from MIT into working for various branches of the military and can't get out of it now because of the pressure put on them to complete their terms and projects even though they don't believe in them. they've told me how they were coaxed into doing them in the first place, it's an insane world out there guys. people are assholes, from grassroots to the highest in power, and they stop at nothing to get their way.

* AIDS being created by man is a theory i've come across, this Strecker guy did a convincing job with his presentation and i've yet to see convincing arguments against his theories. but that doesn't mean i am siding with him, i just think he was on to something and people like Dr. Horowitz are keeping the info Strecker brought to the table alive before disinformation campaigns bury it. but i don't close off to all the other info out there.

so please do not take a side for me, that's just not fair. i can speak for myself, thank you.


now.. this Dr. Anne-Mieke Vandamme of the Riga Institute in Leuven, Belgium proposes HIV to be "ancient" and having jumped to man from chimps in 1675, yet the article doesn't go into depth about WHY she thinks these things-- WHERE IS HER EVIDENCE?? it says she's basing it on the "molecular clock of viruses" which is a THEORY, and even states that "scientists don't, of course have blood samples dating back to 1675" and then that it's tough to find the rate of change since there are new strains being discovered constantly. so...?? why is her research & theory any better than strecker's?

and i agree with BigBlueHead that promiscuous sexual behavior is not the cause of the outbreak. people are always, have always, and will always be humpin. in fact, Jim345 has brought up a good point that nobody is talking about.. i DID read that HIV started in more than one major city at the same time. any evidence of this from Jum345 or anyone else would be much appreciated cuz i'm having trouble finding it online now.

and weebee: "The team notes, however, that "given the large genetic differences between HIV-1 and HIV-2, the divergence of these viruses could not have occurred in the late 1940s; that branching point must have come considerably earlier." The findings highlight the need for continued surveillance, they assert, noting the diversification of HIV over the past 40 to 50 years."

yes, but why does this exclude humans from using or being the catalyst in the hybridization of ths virus? maybe part of the reason there are so many different strains of the virus is that man is involved?



here are some interesting links:
http://www.originofaids.com/
http://veederandld.20m.com/greports/42001b.html
http://www.rense.com/general45/cant.htm

 

1) This thread proposes that the HIV virus is man made. The first HIV sample is from 1957.
2) Riga Institute and Los Alamos National Laboratory both independently found that in 1930 the first M-Class form of HIV emerged in Africa.

So we’re looking for a mad scientist in Africa around the 1920’s.

The article lists three changes in behaviour; use of non-sterile needles, non-sterile blood products and widespread promiscuous sexual behaviour. As noted promiscuous sexual behaviour has not changed much (in the west) in the last 300 years, anyone want to comment on African sexuality, or are we just going to assume?

Non-sterilisation of needles were routinely used in vaccination campaigns by the French in central Africa; in 1916 one clinic in central Africa the used six needles to immunize more than 89,000 people against sleeping sickness in 1916. 1921-1934 the Congo-Ocean railway was built in the French Congo where more than 20,000 workers are thought to have died during the railway's construction, most from malnutrition. It ran through inhabited rain forest near the west equatorial coast--prime habitat for Pan troglodytes troglodytes (the Group M of the strain HIV-1 bares the closest genetic resemblance to a virus found naturally in the chimp subspecies Pan troglodytes troglodytes.)

The Congo-Ocean's eastern terminus in Brazzaville sits just across the river Congo from the city of Kinshasa, where the 1959 HIV-positive plasma sample was taken.

HIV-2 on the other hand is related to sooty mangabeys, a different sub species of chimp.
If humans were the carries (made by a mad scientist…) and developed HIV-1 and HIV-2 these would have then separately had to infect two different subspecies of chimp…It would be easier on my brain to assume that the mad scientist took these viruses from the chimps and infected humans, much like the French vaccination programs. . .

There are a lot of questions still unanswered by the ‘vaccination projects’ but they don’t seem so insurmountable that we need to invent a ‘mad scientist’.

I can’t open Strecker’s page. Could you post a written article which is peer reviewed?
thanks. In return I'll hunt out some of Dr. Anne-Mieke Vandamme articals.

 

that is a blanket statement. it is more accurate to say that the Strecker Memorandum proposes that HIV has been man-made and released on the population as biological warfare. no one here has said HIV is man-made, much less the WHOLE THREAD.

this is the problem with you so-called scientists around here. you want facts and specificity yet when it's your turn you jumble it all together and mess the whole thing up!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

here are some files to help with studying Strecker & AIDS:
http://www.textfiles.com/bbs/KEELYNET/BIOLOGY/ (there's a few interesting reads here-- they're ascii text files, so just right-click and save as a text)
http://www.thule.org/strecker.html
http://www.umoja-research.com/strecker_memorandum.htm
http://www.umoja-research.com/bio-attack_doc.htm (much of strecker's evidence is noted here)

as far as a transcript of the strecker memorandum, i'm having trouble finding one as well. i am, however, working on making the video in other formats. it is available in real media format at www.thule.org/strecker.html

 

>this is the problem with you so-called scientists around here. you want facts and specificity yet when it's your turn you jumble it all together and mess the whole thing up!>

This thread starts with the statment 'AIDS is biowarfare'; I’m taking it that only humans engage in bio warfare, hence the implication that this thread proposes that AIDS and HIV is man made, unless you don’t link HIV with AIDS which would lead to a different discussion –I agree. I wasn’t saying that You propose, but that the tread is proposing an argument for discussion.

From the links I find the argument consists of the following

1) That HIV can pass through condoms ‘’holes’;
While holes large enough for HIV to pass through have been found in natural membrane condoms, latex condoms do not allow the HIV to pass through the condom unless the condom has been damaged or torn. http://www.safersex.org/condoms/work/ss6.4.html

2) Where has it been for the last 5000 years. AIDS as a Weapon of War by Dr. William Campbell Douglas, M.D.

In chimps.

3) The soviets accused the US of master mining the AIDS/HIV virus.

They also accused them of not landing on the moon…

So at the end of the article it comes to;

4) 1. The green velvet monkey of Africa doesn't get human AIDS. You
can't reproduce the disease in monkeys even by injecting AIDS virus directly into them.
2. After injecting the virus into monkeys, you can't transmit it to other monkeys, much less to humans.
3. Genetically, AIDS (HIV-1) is not even close to the monkey form of immunodeficiency virus.Ed. Note: For references on the three items above, see: Seale, Dr. John J.,Royal Society of Medicine, Sept. 1987, Seale, Dr. John J.,The Origin of AIDS -- International Conference on AIDS, Cairo, March 1988.]

4. AIDS started not in the villages but in the cities of Africa, where there are no wild monkeys.

5. The doubling time of AIDS infection being about 12 months, one monkey biting one native and then spreading the disease would have taken 20 years to reach a million cases. Seventy-five million Africans became infected practically simultaneously. At the same time, the disease became rampant in the U.S., Haiti and Brazil.
If the first case was in 1965 and the frist US cases were in the 1980’s…Interestingly Africa did not show infection until the upper classes became infected.

so in answer.....

‘Then came the conspiracy theorists. One of the first was British doctor John Seale, who published an article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine in 1985 that claimed the US Army had concocted HIV out of genetic material from viruses causing bovine leukemia, visna in sheep, lentiviruses from horses and goats, and human T-cell leukemia/lymphocyte virus. The recipe, Seale said, had been cooked up at Fort Detrick, Maryland, in 1977. Lying behind Seale's thesis were two articles that had appeared the same year in Literaturnaya Gazeta, the journal of the Soviet Writer's Union, and told much the same story. According to Professor S. Drozdov of the Research Institute of Poliomyelitis and Encephalitis in Moscow, the CIA had let the virus loose by testing it on federal prisoners in the USA and in the field in Africa.

None of these claims bore much relation to scientific or to historical facts. The earliest identified AIDS cases date back to 1959, when the concept of genetic coding was unknown. Reverse transcriptase was discovered in 1970, and retroviruses were discovered in people in 1978. But it was not until 1983 that the technique of polymerase chain reaction, which revolutionized research into and manipulation of DNA, was invented. Essentially the cloning technology that the 'invention' of HIV requires did not exist in 1977. In 1986, the Soviets admitted they had their own cases of AIDS, and after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 the Soviet Academy of Sciences apologized for disseminating the notion that AIDS was an American invention, an idea that, it
admitted, had been inspired by the KGB. The US State Department had already concluded as much, and believed the accusations were designed to discredit the USA in developing countries.’ http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1999/jun/m23-016.shtml

Apart from the Dr Searle reference, which seems based on telling a good story without much scientific basis, I can’t find a reference to research. Did he ever prove that in the technology from 1980’s could use the ‘genetic material from viruses causing bovine leukemia, visna in sheep, lentiviruses from horses and goats, and human T-cell leukemia/lymphocyte virus’ to put together to form HIV-1? And then use the resulting viruse to infect human tissue? And how did he explain HIV-2?

I do sympathise the feeling in the 1980’s there was much alarm about where the mystery disease was from. The US and the Soviets were doing much which was hidden, but much like Iraq, most of it was on paper. The Strecker Memorandum needs to prove that the required technology was in existence, and that the research groups existed, and preferable eye witness testimony. The main reason I’m distasteful toward the Strecker Memorandrum is that I don’t see the need for it to explain the rise of HIV and AIDS, and the burden of proof is thus on those opposing the majority view of HIV and AIDS as a non-man made viruses.

Now on an interesting side point. There are some who would say that the Nazi testing never happened http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040127/323/ekfto.html has a good article on just how hard it is to prove that such actions took place.

 

alright, i apologize for my outburst. tho it should be obvious by reading people's responses why i react this way..

but while you raise interesting points, i don't see why we should stop looking at all the possibilities while there is still not enough evidence of where the disease came from. i mean, the fact that there are so many ideas of it's initial source shows just how much of a mystery it still is. you brought up this Dr. Anne-Mieke Vandamme of the Riga Institute in Leuven, Belgium and i refuted; she used a theory to describe the origins just like strecker and so many others did. nobody really has a clue, do they?

indeed, this thread is about more than just whether HIV is man-made or not-- it's about biowarfare. so i guess, since we have the type of govt that would lead us into war over lies and kill thousands of people as a result, why wouldn't they either invent or use a virus that already naturally occured as biowarfare? it may not have been the U.S. gov't. it could have been the supposed shadow gov't, or the KGB, or any other shady gov't agency from the world powers. i wonder if people started their search for origins with that in mind if they would come up with some interesting stuff. but i think most people doing the research are looking for a natural occurance instead, causing a differing bias in their thinking and thus possibly missing some key evidence. OR, that evidence may not exist anymore because whoever created it could have done a good job burying the story. it's been done before, why not in this scenario?

an interesting article: http://www.boydgraves.com/press/080502.html
and from the same man (boyd graves) http://www.boydgraves.com/flowchart/
what he calles the SMOKING GUN of AIDS-- of course to download it you gotta give him money, and i stop believing anyone's testimony as soon as they want money from me... BUT.. it does raise a scary thought..

WHY DOES THE U.S. GOV'T HAVE A SECRET 'US SPECIAL VIRUS PROGRAM' ??

also, if this Gallo guy (http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/vcgallo.htm) not only holds a patent for the virus (http://www.rense.com/general13/inve.htm), but is the guy who supposedly discovered it in the first place... maybe we should be looking more into him, like who he works for, their track record, how much money he makes, what other projects he's done, that kind of stuff, and get an idea as to what kind of person he is. maybe he created it! who knows..

btw, earlier you referred to the conspiracy theory as "a mean scientist" creating hiv in a lab, now you post an article about jewish prisoners in Nazi germany being tested on (which enough testimony has been given to prove it happened, IMO). so you gotta admit, there are mean enough scientists out there, are there not?

 

I had to laugh. In world politics someone else has posed the article AIDS Virus Traced to 1675.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Picking up your following points;
1) the scientific community can’t prove where the HIV viruses came from.
Your quite right, The event has happened and the causes can’t be proven in hindsight, the scientist can only prove that the possible causes existed.

2) We don’t seem to be disagreeing about the 1959 sample containing HIV. However I don’t see that the technology was available at that time to make ‘man-made’ viruses. The earliest mention I know of ‘Using smallpox as a weapon was not unprecedented for the British military; Native Americans were the targets of attack earlier in the century. One infamous and well-documented case occurred in 1763 at Fort Pitt on the Pennsylvania frontier. British Gen. Jeffery Amherst ordered that blankets and handkerchiefs be taken from smallpox patients in the fort's infirmary and given to Delaware Indians at a peace-making parley.’ Untill around the mid 1960's it was natrually occuring viruses.

3) one of the web pages says ‘The scientific evidence is complete and compelling, the AIDS Virus is a designer bi-product of the U.S. Special Virus program. The Special Virus program was a federal virus development program that persisted in the United States from 1962 until 1978. The U.S. Special Virus was then added as 'compliment' to vaccine inoculations in Africa and Manhattan.’
HIV can’t be a bi-product of a program which only started in 1962.

>btw, earlier you referred to the conspiracy theory as "a mean scientist" creating hiv in a lab, now you post an article about jewish prisoners in Nazi germany being tested on (which enough testimony has been given to prove it happened, IMO). so you gotta admit, there are mean enough scientists out there, are there not?>

I meant to refer to ‘mad scientist’ Yes most people will accept that medical testing happened in Nazi Germany. What interests me is that what counts as evidence is highly subjective. The article is pushing the victims testimony to refute NeoNazis now, as if that is really going to change the mind of a brain washed person.

However the argument that AIDS is a man made disease rests, for me, on the availability of technology. I see the possibility that they could have done it in the middle of the 1960’s but not the early 1950’s.
The data also needs to be official, and not just CIA wishful thinking. (I can’t find where the flow chart data is taken from.)

Gallo is very interesting, and would be a fascinating project. ‘Prior to the AIDS epidemic, Gallo was the first to identify a human retrovirus and the only known human leukemia virus - HTLV - one of few known viruses shown to cause a human cancer. In 1976, he and his colleagues discovered Interleukin-2, which is a growth regulating substance now used as therapy in some cancers and sometimes AIDS. And in 1986, he and his group discovered the first new human herpes virus in more than 25 years (HHV-6), which was later shown to cause an infantile disease known as Roseola and currently is hypothesized as a strong suspect in the origin of multiple sclerosis.’ As far as I can gather from the articles the main issue with Gallo is that he published papers on retrovirus prior to discovering HIV.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

By the way. The idea that HIV comes from Visna might be clarified by this;

Retroviruses have three subfamilies: Oncoviruses, Lentiviruses, and Spumaviruses. HTLV is a oncovirus, while the remainder are lentiviruses. The analysis of genetic sequences gives strong evidence for the evolution of lentiviruses. They apparently branched into the primate lentiviruses (HIV-1, HIV-2, and SIV), and the nonprimate lentiviruses (visna, BLV, EIAV, FIV, CAEV, etc.) Thus, HIV and visna have many similarities since they are both lentiviruses, but HIV and SIV are much more similar.

 

HIV was probably initially spread via I.V. drug use and sex. At the same time that HIV was just starting to enter into our news reports as Gay Related Immuno-Deficiency (G.R.I.D.), new hepatitis-B/C infections were peaking. Heroin was "hip" in the 1970s.

Today, new infections in women and men are equal. I'd like to know why it took 25 years for the infection rates in poor, minority women to equal the infection rates in all men (gay, bi, straight, and all races combined). There was no shortage of sexually transmitted diseases among heterosexuals back in the late 1970s.

In 1981 or 1982 Discover magazine ran a long article on G.R.I.D. that claimed that anal sex was far more risky for transmitting viruses than vaginal sex. Assuming that that is true, what accounts for the fact that today an equal number of women are becoming infected with HIV?

 

Easy there are far more heterosexuals then homosexuals, once you got the virus spreading through a much larger population that is less aware or afraid of it ("it only happens to fags") then they catch up fast. Also heterosexuals have anal sex to.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Today, new infections in women and men are equal. I'd like to know why it took 25 years for the infection rates in poor, minority women to equal the infection rates in all men (gay, bi, straight, and all races combined).

In which countries?

For 2003
• Approximately 40,000 new HIV infections occur each year in the United States, about 70 percent among men and 30 percent among women. Of these newly infected people, half are younger than 25 years of age.(3,4)
• Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. Of newly infected men, approximately 50 percent are black, 30 percent are white, 20 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(4)
• Of new infections among women in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 75 percent of women were infected through heterosexual sex and 25 percent through injection drug use. Of newly infected women, approximately 64 percent are black, 18 percent are white, 18 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(4) http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/aidsstat.htm

New infections; global 2000; children 2% women 41% men 47%
http://www.unaids.org/EN/other/functionalities/Search.asp

In sub-Saharan Africa, HIV-infected women outnumber infected men by a ratio of more than 6-to-5. http://edition.cnn.com/HEALTH/AIDS/9911/23/aids.world/

So I guess your talking about Africa where the transition is generally heterosexual intercourse; A study in four African cities (Cotonou, Kisumu, Ndola and Yaoundé) revealed that the most common behavioural and biological factors in those cities with the highest HIV prevalence were: young age at women’s first sexual intercourse; young age at first marriage; age difference between spouses; the presence of HSV-2 infection and trichomoniasis (a sexually transmitted infection); and lack of male circumcision. http://www.unfpa.org/africa/hivaids.htm

http://www.aidsreviews.com:8000/2001/rev02/Epidemiology.pdf looks good if you want to look into the differences between HIV1 and HIV 2 (different transition rates from mother to child ect).