Is AIDS a 100% black disease?

The simple observation that Washington, DC, the health care capitol of the world, the national center for health care professionals and health statistics, the city which spends more money per capita for health care than most blacks of the world EARN, the one with more politicians and lobbyists per square inch than any other land, is also the AIDS capitol, should make us question some basic political "facts".  From this we might postulate the following theorems:

We can test these theorems by cross-checking data from the 1996 US Statistical Abstract for other states, like ND, SD, Montana, and Wyoming, etc., whose "AIDS" column is marked "N.A.", which can mean either "not applicable" or "not available".  Of course AIDS is applicable to these and other states, so then why would such data not be "available"?

The reality is that these states had NO AIDS cases, not that the data was not "applicable" or "available".  In a state with as small a population as North Dakota, just ONE Aids case would give that state an AIDS rate of .17 per 100,000 population, an easy figure to understand and report.

By the time The 2006 US Statistical Abstract was published, this category had been changed from "N/A", to "S", which now means "Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision", and  the number of states in this category increased from only four, to 10, adding Alaska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Utah, and Vermont.  Since 8 other states [Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, West Virginia, and Wisconsin], whose AIDS death rates were high enough to be listed, had rates lower than 2.0, it's a good bet that "S" actually means "No AIDS cases".  In addition, even though these are mostly White states, there are enough or more than enough other races [specifically blacks and Hispanics] to account for most if not all AIDS deaths in those states.

The number of Asians and Whites in DC is too small for them to be a significant part of the AIDS epidemic in Washington, which leaves the 82% who were black and the 10% who were Hispanic as the major contributors, providing a quick and easy way to estimate their AIDS death rates:

DC 101.2 x 585 = 592 AIDS deaths per year

x / 480,000 = 126 per 100k, x = 605 AIDS deaths per year in DC

Blacks = 384k

Hispanics = 35k

X = AIDS rate Hispanics

2X = AIDS rate of blacks

0.35X + (3.84 x 2X) = 592

8.03X = 592

X = 74

2X = 148

600,000 x 82% = 492,000 blacks

600,000 x 10% = 60,000 Hispanics, x 60 per 100k = 36 AIDS deaths per year for Hispanics

(605 - 36) / 492,000 = 115.7 AIDS deaths per year for blacks

6,000 blacks in North Dakota x 115.7 AIDS deaths per 100k = 7 AIDS deaths

Is it possible that blacks in North Dakota have not yet gotten AIDS because they've not been in sexual contact with AIDS-carrying blacks of the major cities?  Or is their sexual behavior influenced by the large percentage of Whites around them, reducing extra-marital sex as well as AIDS?  Or is it possible that there's another factor at work here, in addition to this clear and obvious link between blacks and AIDS?  Or were there actually 7 AIDS deaths amongst blacks in North Dakota which weren't reported to health officials, or which weren't known to be AIDS?

An AIDS rate of 25.5 in 1993 in Florida with a population of 13.5 million is 3,443 AIDS deaths per year, yet if the 1.9 million blacks there died at the rate of 126, there would have been 2,394 AIDS deaths, plus another 1,020 out of the 1.7 million Hispanics with an AIDS rate of 60, for a total of 3,414 AIDS deaths.  Since this is within 1% of the actual rate, our estimate for DC is plausible.

In Colorado, with an AIDS rate of 10.8 and a population of 3.5 million, there were 378 AIDS deaths that year.  With 147k blacks at 126, 19 of these deaths would have been blacks, and with 680k Hispanics at 60, another 368 AIDS deaths ought to have Hispanics if our theorem is correct, for a total of 387 predicted AIDS deaths, 2% higher than actual AIDS deaths.  Our theorem is tracking nicely.

STATES WITH AIDS DEATH RATES HIGHER THAN PREDICTED

Just like Washington, New York always sticks out like a sore thumb on statistics like this, spending almost as much for education while still producing some of the lowest scoring students in the WORLD, not just the nation.  So just as expected New York also spends gobs of money for health care and ends up with an AIDS death rate of 37.4, FAR larger than would be predicted by their known and reported percentage of blacks and Hispanics.   At an AIDS death rate of 126 per 100k blacks, there should have been only 3,906 AIDS deaths out 3.1 million blacks in New York, a state wide rate of only 21.6.  The 1.8 million Hispanics at a rate of 60 would have had 1,080 AIDS deaths which increases this statewide rate to 27.5, so the actual AIDS death rate in New York is 36% higher than predicted, seriously challenging our theorem.

New Jersey with 28 AIDS deaths per 100k population and a population of 7.8 million had 2,184 AIDS deaths annually that year.  With 1.1 million blacks whose average AIDS death rate is 126, 1,386 of thse deaths should be blacks, plus 807k Hispanics with an AIDS death rate of 60 or 48 more AIDS deaths, for a total of 1,434 predicted AIDS deaths.  So actual AIDS deaths in New Jersey are 58% higher than predicted, an even more serious challenge to our theorem.

Massashusetts: 12.9, pop of 6 million, 774 AIDS deaths, 347k blacks at 126 is 437 deaths, 314k Hispanics at 60 is 19, for a total of 456 predicted AIDS deaths.  Actual AIDS deaths In Massachuestts were 70% higher than predicted, raising serious questions about our theorem.

Minnesota: 4.5, pop of 4.5 million, 203 AIDS deaths, 100k blacks at 126 is 126 AIDS deaths, plus 62k Hispanics a 60 = 37, for a total of 163 predicted AIDS deaths, so actual deaths were 25% higher than predicted.

What other racial group might be more likely to get AIDS than Whites, as well as be present in significant enough numbers in Massachussetts, New York and New Jersey, to increase their AIDS rate by that much?

It's well documented by jews themselves that jews have 112 hereditary diseases which no other race has, while blacks have only two, and Whites have none.  Could our theorem that blacks are the AIDS carriers be wrong, and might it actually be jews instead?   Could the percentage of jews in Washington, DC, be so high that it's THEY who are the original AIDS carriers who gave AIDS to blacks there?  If jews have 56 TIMES as many hereditary diseases as blacks, then should not this make us suspicious of the role played by jews who demanded in 1957 that jews not be separated as a separate race and thus may be conncealing their own rate of extinction?

An AIDS rate of 20.2 in 1993 in California with a population of 30.9 million is 6,242 AIDS deaths per year, yet if the 2.4 million blacks died at a rate of 126, there would have been 3,024 AIDS deaths, plus 7.8 million Hispanics at 60 is another 4,680, for a total of 7,704 AIDS deaths, 23% higher than actual.  Is it possible that the actual AIDS death rate of Hispanics, many of whom just immigrated [or broke in illegally] from Mexico, is [(6,242 - 3,893) / 7.8 million] = 30 per 100k, half that of Hispanics in DC and Florida?  When broken down by White Hispanic vs. non-White Hispanic, does California confirm our theorem?

24,924,000 Whites

17,112,000 non-Hispanic Whites

7,812,000 Hispanic Whites

8,353,000 Hispanics

[(6,242 - 3,893) / X ] =60, X = 39.2 [x 100,000] = 3,920,000 who get AIDS

4,430,000 Hispanics who don't get AIDS

The answer is NO!  A different AIDS  rate for Hispanic Whites doesn't provide the answer.

STATES WITH PREDICTED AIDS DEATH RATES HIGHER THAN ACTUAL

In 1993, Iowa, with an AIDS death rate of 2.6 and a population of 2.8 million had 73 AIDS deaths.  If the 52k blacks there died at the same rate as blacks in Florida and DC, there were 66 deaths of blacks, and for the 37k Hispanics at 60 is another 22, for a total of 88, 20% higher than actual.

The AIDS rate in Iowa decreased to 1.0 by 2004 and the population increased to 3 million for a total 30 AIDS deaths per year.  If the 68,000 blacks there died at a rate of 42, one third of the high of 126 that they did in DC, there would have been 22 AIDS deaths per year, plus 104k Hispanics at a rate of 20, or 21 deaths, for a total of 43, 43% higher than actual.

An AIDS rate of 14.2 in 1993 in Texas with a population of 17.7 million is 2,513 AIDS deaths, yet if the 2.1 million blacks there died at the rate of 126, there would have been 2,646 dead blacks, plus 4.6 million Hispanics at 60 is another 2,760 deaths, for a total of 5,406.  The predicted rate is 2.2 times higher than the actual rate.  No jews?

Louisiana, 14.7, pop of 4.3 million, is 632 AIDS deaths, 1.34 million blacks at 126 is 1,688 AIDS deaths, 84k Hispanics at 60 is 50 AIDS deaths, for a total of 1,738, almost three times as many predicted as actual deaths.

Missouri, 8.1, pop of 5.2 million , 421 AIDS deaths, 565k blacks at 126 is 71 deaths, 66k Hispanics at 60 is 40 AIDS deaths,for a total of 111, almost four times as many predicted as actual deaths.

Is it the presence of Hispanics and not blacks in states like Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado which caused them to have an AIDS death rate an order of magnitude higher than states with no or few blacks and Hispanics like ND, SD, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Iowa, Nebraska:

Arizona, 10.5, pop of  3.8 million, 399 AIDS deaths, 125k blacks at 126 is 16 deaths, 751k Hispanics at 60 is 451 AIDS deaths, for a total of 467 AIDS deaths, or 17% higher than actual AIDS deaths.  Is it posssible that the AIDS death rate for Hispanics in Arizona is [(399 - 16) / 751k] = 51 per 100k, about 15% lower than estimated for Hispanics in DC?

New Mexico, 7.2, pop of 1.6 million, 115 AIDS deaths, 36k  blacks at 126 is 45 deaths, 614k Hispanics at 60 is 368, for a total of 413, or 3.6 TIMES higher than actual deaths.  Is it possible that [(115 - 45) / 614k] = 11.4 per 100k, about a sixth of that for Hispanics in DC?

Nevada, 11.7, pop of 1.3 million ,152 AIDS deaths, 92k blacks at 126 is 116 deaths, 149k Hispanics at 60 is 89 deaths, or 205 AIDS deaths, so predicted deaths were 35% higher than actual deaths.

Georgia, 18.1, pop of 6.8 million, 1,231 AIDS deaths, 1.9 million blacks at 126 is 2,394 deaths, 124k Hispanics at 60 is 7 deaths ,for a total of 2,401 deaths, 95% higher than actual deaths.  If 100% of the AIDS deaths in Ga. were blacks, then they had an AIDS death rate of only 65, about half the TOTAL rate of DC.

Nebraska 2.7, pop of 1.6 million, 43 AIDS deaths, 60 k blacks at 126 is 76 AIDS deaths, plus 42k Hispanics at 60 is 25.2, for a total of 101 pedicted deaths, 2.3 x higher than actual.

THE ANSWER IS NO. 

The high AIDS rate in those states cannot be explained by blacks and Hispanics, because even the most pessimistic estimate for their rate of AIDS deaths cannot be explained just by those populations alone.

Which leaves us with only one possibility--JEWS!

Even if we estimate that the AIDS rate for Hispanics is zero, states like Mississippi, Lousiana, Georgia, and Arkansas STILL have AIDS rates much lower than predicted, suggesting that the presence of Hispanics doesn't influence the AIDS rate.  But states like Massachussets, New Jersey, New York, Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada have AIDS rates much HIGHER than predicted.  And what do they have in common?  jews.

The simple fact that the AIDS rate of 37.2 in New York with relatively few blacks and Hispanics is three times higher than states like South Carolina (at 12.7) with FAR more blacks, and four times higher than states like New Mexico (at 7.2) where more than a third of the population are Hispancs, seriously challenges if not negates our theorem.  Why do states like California, New York, New Jersey, and Florida have sky high rates (up to TEN TIMES HIGHER), than states like Idaho, Utah, Alaska, and New Hampshire?  JEWS.

While there may be some correlation between the sex behavior of blacks and Whites which might cause blacks to get AIDS more often, this alone comes nowhere close to explaining the ten to forty fold difference in AIDS deaths from state to state.  In most sexual activities, blacks are only 25-50% more likely than Whites to engage in risky sexual behavior, including homosexuality.  The suggestion that blacks get AIDS more often because they use more of the illegal drugs which have been attributed to the AIDS pandemic than Whites is disputed by the fact that per capita, Whites use more of these drugs than blacks.  Even so, such a minor difference if it did exist would hardly explain a forty fold variation in AIDS rates from state to state, or country to country [read: Germany].

Since jews demanded, and got, Congress to quit categorizing jews as a different race, ethnic group, tribe, and  religion, there's no official statistic for the percent of jews in these states.  But the very low test scores in all standardized tests for these states enable us to calculate the percentage of jews VERY accurately--much more accurately than jews themselves can calculate them.   Voila, once these percentages are plugged in for each state, we discover the following:

November 11, 2002