The Jewish Press smear article (against Dr. William Pierce) by Ashley Newton, which appeared on "Front Lines" in the June 29, 2000 edition of TACOMA REPORTER, contains false statements about the AIDS infection rates that could be dangerous to any White woman who believes them.

The most brazen and threatening of Mr. Newton's lies appears in the paragraph that I quote hereafter:

"Hate and ignorance aside, for just a moment, the Center for Disease Control's 1999 statistics show that heterosexual African-American males in the United States are only twice as likely to be infected with the AIDS virus as are heterosexual White males, no surprise to people who understand the lack of education and resources in neighborhoods whose residents are primarily black."

Even if that statement were true (it is not), it would be ample reason for White women to avoid sex with Black men. It would not matter that the higher risk associated with Black heterosexual men were blamed on poverty or ignorance, since, if a woman gets AIDS and dies she is just as dead regardless of the reason her sex partner got infected himself.

However, Mr. Newton is lying. The actual statistic, the one he pretends to be quoting, can be found in an online CDC publication at

The document is the "HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report," volume 11 #2 for December 1999, and it was prepared by the Centers for Disease Control. On pages 18 and 19, in tables 9 and 10, you can find the numbers of AIDS cases and HIV infections relevant to a comparison of the relative risk incurred by a White woman having sex with a Black man versus having sex with a White man. Those statistics are:

Among White heterosexual men, 3854 new AIDS cases developed in the United States, during 1999.

Among Black heterosexual men, 9819 new AIDS cases developed in the United States, during 1999.

Among White heterosexual men, 1964 new HIV infections were reported in the 32 areas with confidential HIV infection reporting, during 1999.

Among Black heterosexual men, 4759 new HIV infections were reported in the 32 areas with confidential HIV infection reporting, during 1999.

Among White heterosexual men, there were 50,093 AIDS cases in the United States, during the epidemic period through December 1999.

Among Black heterosexual men, there were 109,849 AIDS cases in the United States, during the epidemic period through December 1999.

Among White heterosexual men, there were 11,529 HIV infections in the 32 areas with confidential HIV infection reporting, during the epidemic period through December 1999.

Among Black heterosexual men, there were 25,906 HIV infections in the 32 areas with confidential HIV infection reporting, during the epidemic period through December 1999.

The White to Black population ratio for the United States in December 1999 was 5.9. We'll assume that the "average" White to Black population ratio for the United States during the epidemic period through December 1999 was 6.4 (the ratio for April 1990).

Black-to-White per capita rate ratios, among heterosexual males, of:

AIDS cases, 1999 only: 5.9 (9819/3854) ~ = 15.0

AIDS cases, epidemic period though December 1999:
6.4 (109849/50093) ~ = 14.0

HIV infections, 1999 only: 5.9 (4759/1964) ~ = 14.3

HIV infections, epidemic period through December 1999:
6.4 (25906/11529) ~ = 14.4

It appears that the National Alliance's sticker is spot on about the relative risk to White women of contracting HIV from heterosexual Black men. It looks like Ashley Newton might have been lying about that risk when he wrote his article for the TACOMA REPORTER. In his article, Mr. Newton said that he had looked up the CDC data for 1999. Either he was lying about having examined that information, or he was lying about what he found when he examined it. I don't believe that Mr. Newton erroneously read the wrong line in the data table. Whether he actually located the CDC figures and deliberately falsified them, or whether he simply "winged it" without looking up the facts, is unknown to me. Maybe he was carrying somebody else's lie. But whether he invents his lies, or whether they are given to him to pass along, Ashley Newton has used the Jewish Press to tell a dangerous lie to White American women. He should be held responsible for any harm that his lie might do.

Why is the Jewish Press promoting false beliefs about AIDS and race? I think that it is because they want to encourage interracial sex, with the aim of destroying the White race. That's a large conclusion, but it is not based on the falsification of AIDS-related racial statistics alone; there are many more indicators, all pointing the same way. (The Jewish domination of the mass media is, itself, such an indication. Want another? The US Government has taken sides with illegal immigrants from Mexico against American cattle ranchers who have been conducting lawful citizens' arrests against illegally entrant trespassers on their land. The Jewish/Zionist US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, wants to send United Nations troops to the US Mexican Border to prevent the American ranchers from defending their property from the illegal Mexican immigrants. A local judge, Herb Senne, was quoted in the Houston Chronicle as saying, "Nobody likes to have their property stolen, but you just learn to adjust to it." The Jewish Media have induced a betrayal of White Americans by their own government in all branches at all levels. How obvious can it get?)

Anyway, here are some more facts. Real facts, not like the misinformation that you'll get from Ashley Newton and the Jewish Press.

By the end of 1999, in the United States, there had been 290,537 AIDS cases among White men (with 12,855 cases developing that year) and 199,248 AIDS cases among Black men (with 14,946 cases developing that year). Those numbers include both homosexual and heterosexual men of each race. The Black to White per capita rate ratio for AIDS cases is 4.4 over the epidemic period through December 1999, and it is 6.9 for 1999 alone. Those ratios go way up when you filter out the queers and consider the normal men only, since among Whites (more so than among Blacks) AIDS is primarily a homosexual problem.

By the end of 1999, in the 32 areas with confidential HIV infection reporting, there had been 37,950 HIV infections among White men (with 5484 infections discovered that year) and 40,548 HIV infections among Black men (with 6746 infections discovered that year). Those numbers include both homosexual and heterosexual men of each race. The per capita rate ratio is 6.8 over the epidemic period through December 1999 and the per capita rate ratio for 1999 alone is 7.3. Those ratios go way up when you filter out the queers and consider the normal men only, since among Whites (more so than among Blacks) HIV infection is primarily a homosexual phenomenon.

Here are the tables themselves, copied from the document referenced above. Click on the ftp-link near the top of this page if you want to download the complete document.

Blacks have much higher rates for nearly all sexually transmitted diseases, not just AIDS alone. In 1997, Blacks accounted for 77% of total reported cases of gonorrhea; the Black to White per capita rate ratio was 31.1 for gonorrhea infections. During the same year, Blacks accounted for 82% of all reported cases of syphilis; the Black to White per capita rate ratio was 44.0 for syphilis infections. (For both gonorrhea and syphilis, the infection rate among mestizo Hispanics was about three times the rate for Whites, in 1997.) Source: Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance 1997; prepared by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of STD Prevention; published September 1998.

By the way, another CDC publication, titled "A Glance at the HIV Epidemic" says the following:

Black women represent an estimated 64% of new HIV infections among women each year. Hispanic and white women each represent 18% of annual infections among women. Heterosexual sex is the leading risk factor for HIV infection among women, accounting for 75% of new infections. Injection drug use accounts for the remaining 25% of new infections among women.

Hardly any of those Black women were infected by White men. Almost all of them were infected by heterosexual BLACK men. The Black to White per capita rate ratio for HIV infections among women should reflect, at least roughly, the Black to White per capita rate ratio for HIV infections among men. That ratio is 5.9 (64/18) ~ = 21. Drug abuse by Black women raises the Black to White per capita rate ratio of women slightly above that of men.

So, who's ignorant? It sure isn't the racists. Dr. Pierce was telling the truth. His information, as presented through the National Alliance sticker, is correct. The liberals, once again, are wrong. The liberals were wrong about Blacks and violent crime; they are wrong about Blacks and HIV infections, too. And, most probably, the liberals haven't made an "honest" mistake this time. They are probably lying. White women who value their health will prefer to believe that racist Dr. Pierce instead of those malicious, scheming liberals who are trying to persuade them to have sex with Blacks. The result of such foolish decisions, namely many White women getting AIDS and dying young, doesn't seem to matter to the liberals, or, of course, to the Jewish media bosses.

Hi CDC, Your page at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/faqs.htm does not cover an important and controversial subject, which I believe it should cover. Your own statistics indicate that the race of one's sexual partner (especially Black or Negro) is a significant risk factor in the transmission of HIV. I have been following your HIV/AIDS Surveillance Reports for several years, and there is a consistently higher risk (a factor of about 14) that a heterosexual Black male will have HIV than is the case for a heterosexual White male. A public service agency should report that fact.  There is no need to overly politicize it, of course, but it is irresponsible and dangerous to the public health not to report it.  Although the statistical evidence is in your Reports, few people will do the work necessary to understand the extent to which their risk increases when they choose a Black sexual partner.  Please amend your FAQ page accordingly, and in your other publications you should indicate the racial risk factors for sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, explicitly and as prominently as other risk factors are indicated. Jerry Abbott Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com.

Jerry Abbott

Glenn,

Thanks for writing. Dr. Pierce read your letter and asked me to reply. We used the data for the previous year, which you can find online at

ftp://ftp.cdcnpin.org/Surveillance/SurvRep/1999/hasr1102.pdf

The document that you obtained is also online, at

ftp://ftp.cdcnpin.org/Surveillance/SurvRep/2000/hasr1201.pdf

The information that you are after is in Table 10 on page 17 of the HIV-AIDS Surveillance Report through June 2000. I will go through the calculation for you.

The statistic we are seeking is the per capita ratio, Black to White, of HIV infection rates among heterosexual men. This statistic will correspond to the increased likelihood of a woman being infected by a Black male sex partner, compared with that of her being infected by a White male sex partner, on the average.

From Table 10, then, we find that from July 1999 to June 2000, there were among non-Hispanic Whites 5540 new HIV infections reported in the 34 areas with confidential HIV infection reporting. During that same period, there were 6731 new HIV infections reported (in the same areas) among Blacks.

Of these recently infected White men, 360 were queers who abuse drugs and 3220 were queers who do not abuse drugs. That's a total of 3580 queers among the 5540 recently infected White men, leaving 1960 as the number of newly infected White heterosexual (i.e. "normal") men.

Of the recently infected Black men, 216 were queers who abuse drugs and 1819 were queers who do not abuse drugs. That's a total of 2035 queers among the 6731 new HIV infections, leaving 4696 as the number of newly infected Black heterosexual men.

In January 2000, the midpoint of this period, the White-to-Black population ratio in the United States was 5.90. To a woman drawing sexual partners at random from the group of heterosexual men, her risk ratio is 14.1 = (5.9)(4696/1960) times higher if she chooses a Black than if she chooses a White.

We arrived at a similar result when we calculated the relative risk using the data for 1999.

Now, let's use the cumulative total HIV infectees, rather than only the recent infections. During the AIDS epidemic period through June 2000, there were (reported in the 34 areas with confidential HIV infection reporting) 40012 infections among White men and 42630 infections among Black men.

Of the 40012 infected White men, 3207 were queers who abused drugs and 24702 were queers who do not abuse drugs, which leaves 12103 infections among sexually normal White men.

Of the 42630 infected Black men, 2054 were queers who abused drugs and 13305 were queers who do not abuse drugs, which leaves 27271 infections among sexually normal Black men.

I'm going to use 6.4 as the US average ratio of Whites to Blacks during the epidemic period. To a woman drawing sexual partners at random from the group of heterosexual men, her risk ratio is 14.4 = (6.4)(27271/12103) times higher if she chooses a Black than if she chooses a White.

Again, we got a similar result when we did this calculation with the data for 1999.

Another CDC publication, titled "A Glance at the HIV Epidemic" says the following: "Black women represent an estimated 64% of new HIV infections among women each year. Hispanic and white women each represent 18% of annual infections among women. Heterosexual sex is the leading risk factor for HIV infection among women, accounting for 75% of new infections. Injection drug use accounts for the remaining 25% of new infections among women."

Higher per capita rates of infection prevail among Blacks than among Whites for ALL sexually-transmitted diseases, not merely for AIDS alone. The rate ratio (Black to White) for gonorrhea is about 31. The same for syphilis is about 44. Source: "Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance 1997," prepared by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, published in September 1998.

Jerry Abbott

Note, added 27 November 2001.

More recent HIV/AIDS Surveillance data can be found at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1202.htm where the Centers for Disease Control has published their document entitled U.S. HIV and AIDS cases reported through December 2000, Year-End edition, Vol. 12, No. 2. The most pertinent data are in Table 9 and in Table 10.

As we saw in two previous editions of this same CDC report, the Black-to-White per capita rate ratio for both AIDS cases and HIV infections is about 14 or 15. The ratio remains about 14 or 15 whether you consider only the information for the period covered by the particular edition of the HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report or included the cumulative totals of HIV infections or AIDS cases since the beginning of the epidemic period.

That still has not changed. I will go through the numbers briefly, and you can check the CDC information by clicking on the above links.

From Table 10, then, we find that during 2000, there were among non-Hispanic Whites 5742 new HIV infections reported in the 36 areas with confidential HIV infection reporting. During that same period, there were 6528 new HIV infections reported (in the same areas) among Blacks.

Of these recently infected White men, 355 were queers who abuse drugs and 3458 were queers who do not abuse drugs. That's a total of 3813 queers among the 5742 recently infected White men, leaving 1929 as the number of newly infected White heterosexual (i.e. "normal") men.

Of the recently infected Black men, 211 were queers who abuse drugs and 1814 were queers who do not abuse drugs. That's a total of 2025 queers among the 6528 new HIV infections, leaving 4503 as the number of newly infected Black heterosexual men.

I'll use 5.9 as the White-to-Black ratio for residents of the United States. A woman drawing sexual partners at random from the group of heteorsexual men would have a risk (5.9)(4503/1929) ~ = 13.8 times higher if she chooses a Black man as her partner, as compared with her risk if she chooses a White man.

Using the cumulative total HIV infectees, rather than only the recent infections, we can arrive at a similar conclusion. During the AIDS epidemic period through December 2000, there were (reported in the 36 areas with confidential HIV infection reporting) 42115 infections among White men and 44770 infections among Black men.

Of the 42115 infected White men, 3363 were queers who abused drugs and 26135 were queers who do not abuse drugs, which leaves 12617 infections among sexually normal White men.

Of the 44770 infected Black men, 2151 were queers who abused drugs and 14023 were queers who do not abuse drugs, which leaves 28596 infections among sexually normal Black men.

I'm going to use 6.4 as the US average ratio of Whites to Blacks during the epidemic period. To a woman drawing sexual partners at random from the group of heterosexual men, her risk ratio is (6.4)(28596/12617) ~ = 14.5 times higher if she chooses a Black than if she chooses a White.

Of curious note is the spin that the CDC (and by extension the federal government) is trying to put on the fact that heterosexual Blacks carry the virus and the disease so much more commonly than heterosexual Whites do. This spin can be seen on the CDC website at

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/afam.htm

The tone of that page drips in sympathy. "African-Americans" (i.e., Blacks) have been "devastated" by the disease. The CDC writes as though there weren't anything about Black behavior that would make them especially susceptible to getting infected. You get the idea that AIDS is just something that very inexplicably "happens" to them, that if the wind had been blowing in another direction it could have been some other race that suffered from the disease in such a disproportionate way.

Notice that the CDC does not report the Black-to-White per capita HIV infection rate ratio of heterosexual men separately. This is what I've been doing on this page, using the CDC's own data, and I've been doing it because it is a statistic most relevant to a sexually normal White woman who wants to be sexually active, but as safe from AIDS as possible. (Racial loyalty should keep White women to the men of their own race, but, if not, the facts about sexually transmitted diseases will have to do, I suppose.) The CDC obviously knows that the information on the "infamous" National Alliance sticker is correct, but the government does not want to confirm what Dr. Pierce was the first to say. So the closest it comes to doing that is reporting that "the 1999 rate of reported AIDS cases among African Americans was...8 times greater than the rate for whites."

Notice, also, that the data in the graph on that CDC page are not adjusted for the relative sizes of the racial populations in the United States. It's an old liberal trick to conflate the significance of per capita rates with that of total numbers, and this could be one instance of the government pulling it on us.

But regardless of the unwarranted spin, some valuable information is presented. Among other things, almost two-thirds (63%) of all women with AIDS are Black women, and despite the fact that Blacks were only 1/6th of the US population, nearly half of all AIDS cases in 1999 were Blacks. Roughly speaking, Blacks are as over-proportionately represented among AIDS cases as they are among murderers.