Interpreting AIDS/HIV statistics
In the course of discussion someone told me that my assertions were simply wrong.

Yah, I always am, just as a matter of policy. I find that it saves a lot of time just to start out simply wrong, instead of fumbling around with complicated complex wrongs.

As far as sparring with the numbers, I suppose you serve your own interests there. The numbers I see tell a different tale.

I was looking at Avert.org, and found data and reporting that seems to support the same kind of inconsistency I see in your views.

With regard to AIDS/HIV epidemiology -- statistics indicate that it is manifestly a disease that far disproportionaly affects blacks and homosexuals. Without those particular groups to communicate HIV, the "epidemic" does not exist. This is what the numbers show.

The numbers from Africa are staggering. 7% of the total population is infected. Two-thirds of worldwide AIDS/HIV incidence is in Africa. Some individual African countries approach 40%. Truly, this is not an epidemic, it is a decimating plague. (BTW, this also tends to skew the "worldwide" figures.) AIDS/HIV incidence in North America is reportedly 0.6%.

I found it ironic to read in the Avert reports the concern that in the US, blacks account for so much of the current incidence (12% of population, 49% of cases), but nothing to note a similar disparity for homosexuals. Rather, there was sort of a congratulatory note because a third of the currently infected are reportedly heterosexual -- a sort of inference that homosexuals don't have any more to worry about. Perhaps this is what you were trying to explain as well. But by my ballpark guestimation,the current numbers indicate that homosexuals run five to ten times higher infection risk in proportion to the rest of the population.

To me, that sounds like a disease that definitely prefers homosexual victims.

I'm not passing moral judgements about AID/HIV. But if it matters, we should at least charcterize the problem accurately.