Thanks for the link, but the title is misleading after reading the story.
This was your assertion:
“But they’re not. It’s not much, but it’s enough to sustain the prevalence outside their cohort through heterosexal contact and intravenous drug abuse.”
The article (and many others) refutes that:
From the article:
“Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.”
From your link (Comment section):
“Sex: From 2003 through 2006, the estimated number of HIV/AIDS cases increased approximately 5% among males and decreased 6% among females (Table 1). In 2006, males accounted for 74% of all HIV/AIDS cases among adults and adolescents. In 2006, rates were 33.8 per 100,000 among males and 11.5 per 100,000 among females (Table 5b).
Transmission category: From 2003 through 2006, the estimated number of HIV/AIDS cases increased among men who have sex with men (MSM) and remained stable among adults and adolescents with HIV infection attributed to high-risk heterosexual contact (heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection) (Table 1). The estimated number of HIV/AIDS cases decreased among injection drug users (IDUs), MSM who were also IDUs, and among children. MSM (49%) and persons exposed through high-risk heterosexual contact (33%) accounted for 82% of all HIV/AIDS cases diagnosed in
Those numbers do not support “sustaining the prevalence” ofAIDS through heterosexual transmission.
They do support making public who has the disease so heterosexuals can avoid having sex with those individuals.