If one knows one has a deadly communicable disease and is willfully negligent knowing that your actions are likely to cause particular harm then it would be assault.

Rarely people with HIV have _chosen_ to spread it through intercourse, if someone purposefully chose to give you HIV would you say you had fully consented to that sexual act, given you were entirely ignorant to their infection and their choice?

How would you protect people from active malicious infection? Or, have you done reason that we shouldn't consider these things to be assault?

Is there any evidence at all to suggest that is the case?

Of course not, it's a ridiculous allegation with no basis in fact.

A baseless allegation that would have rightly been completely ignored by police if it wasn't Assange.

FWIW I made it quite clear I was addressing the general principle of how sexual intercourse might be rape even if consent was seemingly given (that 'consent' being ignorant of the facts, and ignorant of the law). And also addressed the question of why a country might seek prosecution even when a person didn't feel they were raped.

I assume from what you're saying that Assange did not have (or have reason to believe he had) HIV at the time of the alleged rape? Which would of course rule out this love of reasoning in this case, but would not make my response to the OC incorrect.