How this works is as follows: As example in Africa 90% of people would never think of having sex with an unhealed venereal lesion. In a given population none of these 90% are ever HIV infected through sexual intercourse - free of condom use. Of the other 10% of heterosexuals who have intercourse with an unhealed infected venereal lesion their rate of HIV is 10,000% (ten thousand percent) higher than the 90% who do not have intercourse with an unhealed venereal lesion. This is because HIV is a very weak virus and can only invade the body in heterosexual intercourse through an unhealed infected venereal lesion. Thus you have two mathmatical extremes which are 0% in the 90% of an african population that never have heterosexual intercourse with an unhealed venereal lesion and a 10,000% higher rate than the 90% with those 10% that have heterosexual intercourse with an infected unhealed venereal lesion. An average figure means absolutely nothing here. When you average the two groups into being one group you get that with a venereal lesion present the chance of becoming HIV infected is 1,000% higher. But 1,000% higher is not an astronomical figure. You can still say to the public "if you have a venereal lesion and have sex the chance of becoming HIV infected is higher". This is how they do their dirty work. The average figure they use is meaningless. It comes from nowheres and it leads to nowheres. It is nothing. It is diabolical trickery. To make money above the table and under the table, and political to save money in the short term paying no attention the astronomical costs in the long term.                                                 To homosexuals none of this applies as the homosexual healthy anal route has no natural defense to HIV whereas the healthy vaginal route has near perfect defense to HIV. Homosexuals have the same rate of HIV as drug addicts who use dirty needles.                                Condoms help questionable heterosexuals. Maybe they will get the person to marriage age, and maybe they will not. There is much near unconcious touch in erotic heterosexual intercourse where HIV infected fluid is touched and a partner smotes himself or herself with HIV. It is a big problem for heterosexuals in condom use. Breakage is also a problem but not a big problem.                                                It is the marginal 1 or 2% of homosexual votes that politicians want for as long as they can deceive their constituants. It is appaling that homosexuals do not ask for mercy. The heterosexual vaginal route is perfectly defended by God and evolution from HIV invasion in the absence of an unhealed venereal disease sore or tissue debility. Washington knew this 1985 and President Regan was enthusiastic. But come George Bush Sr, WIlliam Jefferson Clinton and Geoge Bush Jr all making deals with the homosexual groups to stiff arm down the West Africa Studies 1981 through 1984 - which gave us the truth that preventing HIV in heterosexuals was simply a matter of providing rapid and effective medical treatment for healing common venereal diseases - the presidents deceivingly substituting condoms as effective replacement for medical treatment of venereal diseases in preventing HIV invasion. To cover for homosexuals that the anal route is not defended by God from HIV. God never thought it would see any HIV there. It is amazing to me that homosexuals should think they should ask for anything but mercy. Condoms are for birth control. In erotic heterosexual intercourse there is much touch near unconcious and the partners in the end touching HIV infected body fluids smote themselves. Condoms are truely an inferior option not to upset the homosexual that his route has no defense agains the HIV virus because God never gave it one. How can the homosexual do anything but ask for mercy?                                                                  As Adolph Hitler said of the Jews "if we did not have them we would have had to create them" the same similarity with HIV. We did not really have HIV at the beginning. We had such a slight amount it was not a problem. But we did what Hitler would have done with the Jews if he did not have them. We created HIV for our ends. Not the writer. He pointed out from the beginning what was happening. But many others.