'expectedly'

What researchers?
Where?
When?
What HIV demographics are they looking at?

Leoj... 99% of unsubstantiated statistics are made up. 98% of people know that.

As to why certain gay men of ethnicity infected at a greater rate than those of certain Caucasian demographics? A lot of sexual health researchers argue that its because of how homosexuality is looked upon in those communities. In fact a lot of sexual health researchers believe that just that accounts for a large portion of why gay and bisexual men suffer sexually transmitted diseases at a higher rate.

Meaning you're one of the answers to your own question. You and people like you look down on gay men for being gay, meaning they are more conflicted about being so and engaging in sex which means they are less likely to be open about it and more likely in engage in risky sexual acts.

Also I notice you no way address how that risk of infection regarding certain sexual acts plays any role in infection. As in the Kirby study only 31% of men in that study stated that they always used a condom with casual sexual partners. 88% of those men were straight and reported never having engaged in a sexual act with another man. Just 23% of woman stated that they always used condoms with casual partners.

31% and 23% of straight men and women.

Zeil, "What researchers?"

You are kidding, it is one of the most researched subjects. But you plead ignorance. Start here,

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/racialethnic/africanamericans/index.html

Yes what researchers?

But what about white heterosexual men? Their incidence of HIV/AIDS comes from women they trust, women who have in turn trusted men some of whom at least have not declared previous or active sex with men, ie they are undeclared MSM.
Heterosexual women are being encouraged, duped and coerced into anal sex that is NOT invited and welcomed by women anyhow and goes against their bodily instincts. As the recipient of anal sex they stand the most likely to become infected.

What creditable researchers and research has ever concluded conclusively that all straight men and woman were directly or indirectly infected by the risky or duplicitous actions of a gay or bisexual man?
I want to see it. But you can’t because it doesn’t exist and here’s why. It’s not true. Like I said 99%.
Heterosexual women are being encouraged, duped and coerced into anal sex that is NOT invited and welcomed by women anyhow and goes against their bodily instincts.
And I love that. Rob women of their given rights to freedom, agency, responsibility and identity while you do gay men. It’s nice and even handed I suppose. Reduce the female population down to vessels for male desire whilst you’re reducing Gay and Bisexual men down to unnatural lower forms of life. Also congrats on robbing straight men of their right to sexual responsibility there as well.
If a straight woman is HIV positive she was tricked into anal sex by a bisexual man and if a straight man is HIV positive he trusted the wrong duped woman. But gay men are always responsible for how they conduct themselves sexually? Always?
Also I got something shocking to tell you buddy. I know plenty of gay women whom enjoy anal sex and they aren’t coerced into it by anyone, man, woman or otherwise. They enjoy it and if you don’t then you can not do it, that’s your choice but again if we’re going to use sexuality and risk of sexually transmitted diseases as a compass for moral superiority Lesbians still win.

I came across the following article that may be of
interest:

http://theconversation.com/five-reasons-why-hiv-infections-in-australia-arent-falling-47416

zeil, "I know plenty of gay women whom enjoy anal sex ..but again if we’re going to use sexuality and risk of sexually transmitted diseases as a compass for moral superiority Lesbians still win"

WSW who display their rear and anus to be mounted mare fashion by another sporting an over-large fake penis? Hard to imagine as likely, but maybe that is the gay activist circle you move in.

The rest of your post was incoherent and muddying the waters.

From Foxy's link,

"According to the latest annual surveillance report, HIV, hepatitis and sexually transmitted infections in Australia, 1,081 new cases of HIV infection were recorded in 2014, compared to 1,028 in 2013 and 1,064 in 2012.

Sexual contact between men remains the main route of HIV transmission, accounting for 70% of cases in 2014. Heterosexual sex was responsible for 19% of cases, while around 8% of cases were attributed to injecting drug use.

Although Australia has made some gains – more HIV-positive gay men are receiving treatment than ten years ago and the number disclosing their infectious status to partners has risen – for a number of reasons we’re not seeing a major decline in infections."

It is disappointing though that the simplicity of three categories: MSM, WSW, and heterosexual aren't used to simplify the collation and examination of data. It is as though some might prefer to add needless complexity. Political correctness interfering in research?

Apparently, callous selfishness and stupidity of MSM is often why the message wasn't getting through on HIV and anal sex.

How then might heterosexual women protect themselves and limit the bridging of HIV/AIDS to heterosexual couples and families?

A formal requirement for the man to declare any MSM history to the woman prior to sex would be of huge assistance in that regard. She would at last have some chance of informed consent and the threat of a legal remedy for deceit.

How anyone can put a MSM's 'sensitivity' before a woman's need to know for her informed consent to protect her body and possible children, is beyond reasonable imagining.