The Other Side of AIDS (2004) User Reviews

One-sided, totally skewed and manipulative documentary

[gonz30 · 4/10 · 14 November 2005]

Described as "controversial" by some, this film is actually a one-sided, totally skewed and manipulative documentary, which will mesmerize the uninformed or the fanatics of holistic medicine.

While I certainly agree that modern medicine has progressed miraculously these past 60 or so years, it is far from a perfect exact science, especially when it comes to something like AIDS. But medicine and the pharmaceutical industry has worked hard against AIDS in the past 21/22 years. And to propagate outright lies through film that HIV has nothing to do with AIDS is plainly irresponsible.

By highlighting a fabulously persuasive seemingly mainstream American heterosexual HIV positive mother, with a wonderful healthy family - including 2 children she breast fed, the film scores a coup, coming off convincingly as the bearer of "God's truth" to the "silent majority."

By adding in, gay (but mostly very straight acting)... socially acceptable" gay men, they address what they can't keep away from the "silent majority" - a lot of white males DO have the disease, and plainly introduce it to the "infected mainstream" population in the "civilized world".

To us who have survived this disease, the documentary says nothing new. It shows us the same old faces, many of whom became famous by writing books of the "How I F***** My Brains Out but I'm Still Here!" sort.

Incredibly, the film makes no mention of Southern Africa. It does feature an African victim, but not from one of the really devastated countries, which is where the bulk of AIDS victims are, and always have been. The movie lives in this time warp when the disease was a white middle/upper class disease, introduced by gays. How can Africa be ignored? It's the undisputed geographical origin of AIDS.

Also, the film makes great use of these "acceptable" gay men living with HIV/AIDS for 20 or 25 years now. Hello, what's NEW ABOUT THAT! Many survive without medication, ... as if this were ground breaking news. How ignorant do the film makers the public is?

If you live in a major metropolis, and have contact with the gay community, you'll see they are no rarity, though of course not the norm. But all the "victims" I know, with maybe 2 or 3 exceptions, who got through the initial epidemic of the 80s alive, are mostly still alive, and ALL share the HIV link.

Target viewers of this documentary probably know very little about gays, the disease, or Africa. Or else they'd stay away after reading the synopsis. Exceptions may be people like me, who only saw this since I had extra time at a Film Festival setting, a friend persuaded me, and I said why not? Why exclude something based upon my arrogance of knowing more than most others about HIV/AIDS.

The documentary is indeed the one-sided farce I expected. First, there's the "compassionate" (and very exceptional case) of people who think HIV does not cause AIDS. Hell, there's people breathing air in the same room as AIDS patients is deadly! The film includes a German-American scientist, shown as a "sad victim of his outspokenness" to cover this base. He "lost his career" for being too vocal.

Then, the film really focuses on those chose are VILLAINS. And yes, what a "good group" of villains are shown: doctors who affirm that HIV does cause AIDS or at least is a factor in AIDS. They're ALL unsavory, arrogant, snotty snobs - chosen obviously to be hateful, which they play convincingly - better than some actors. The only reason for their inclusion is obviously to SEAL the film's one-sided, UNPROVEN agenda to the "public" - many in international film festivals where American "scientific" documentaries impress the hell out of people. How misleading and manipulative!

Ij contrast with the "villains", the people chosen to advocate the film's point of view on screen are all so "acceptable" - no minorities, etc - it's not a true cross-section at all. Much less of the US West Coast! The mothers are all the very picture of "Suzie Sorority from the Silent Minority" with additional angelical Virgin Mary attributes. How can these decent innocent girls be lying? What crap.

I only rate this film a four for the remarkable achievement of its "release" as a serious "documentary" at film festivals world wide, and even getting away with some good reviews! But as much as I hate this word, it's heresy (the film's message). Yes, we all OBVIOUSLY have the right to our own opinion. But to disseminate lies and distorted facts like this? It should be outlawed.

If films like this are allowed, what's next? "Enslaving Negroes was not caused by greedy white people- they were brought to America after all", or "How Nazis helped us finally rid Europe of Jews"! This film fans the same type of false, racially based lying revisionism of recent history.

Fairly One Sided and Full of Misinformation

[scotty-37 · 3/10 · 16 June 2006]

The documentary would be more believable if it presented both sides evenly. It tries questioning the idea that HIV is the likeliest cause of AIDS. It shows evidence for its claims and ignores or reduces evidence to the contrary view which is, in fact, abundant and more well documented than the filmmakers pretend. This is far from a balanced or responsible view. I hope most people seeing this film know enough to understand where it manipulates and exaggerates the facts.

For instance is AIDS really is just a disease that is brought on by negative outlook, extreme partying, popper use and anti-HIV drugs? Doubtful. If this were true then why do many people who don't fit any of these criteria get sick or die of it? This is obviously an unfair characterization of AIDS victims.

It might be appropriate to question the drug side effects, effectiveness, drug marketing campaigns and other things related to HIV. Certainly some issues come up that deserve discussion, but this movie doesn't give a balanced discussion of them. It seems to say, "Since you can't prove everything to our satisfaction about HIV--it must be untrue." They ignore the fact of the preponderance of evidence, even if not everything is known. This is analogous to the people who deny global warming despite the larger mass of reliable evidence to show it IS happening.

If you see this documentary then do some research and do not believe everything it tells you without really investigating and understanding thoroughly.

The documentary fails to mention other factors that are well known in HIV research such as the fact that a very small number of people infected with HIV are protected from AIDS by mechanisms that are not fully understood. The 'immunity' research has shown that certain African prostitutes and gay men do not develop HIV despite being infected. But this percentage is very, very low. Having everyone believe that they will not become ill is very dangerous.

Be careful of this movie and do not view it uncritically and without doing your homework since it's a misleading piece. If you're uninformed and buy into its claims without questioning, it has the potential to do a lot of harm.

Interesting but utterly unconvincing

[Shmee6000 · 3/10 · 13 September 2012]

This is a very one-sided documentary propounding the view that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. The argument is presented chiefly through interviews, with those contributors who believe HIV is some kind of conspiracy far outnumbering those who take the conventional viewpoint. A key theme seems to be questioning what we are told and thinking for ourselves, but the overriding message I was left with is "think for yourself, as long as you agree with us".

I'm not sure if it's because we've learnt much more about HIV/AIDS since 2004, but it seems to me that a lot of the contributors to this documentary (many of whom are not medically qualified) simply don't understand what AIDS is or how it works. Having HIV does not necessarily make someone an expert on it. The very notion that HIV is harmless is undermined by the fact that the majority of HIV-positive interviewees who put forward this argument in the film have since died of AIDS.

It is fair enough to call for healthy scepticism, and by questioning received wisdom we can push our knowledge and ability to fight disease further. However, a complete denial of the overwhelming evidence that those infected with HIV tend to develop AIDS and die if left untreated, is quite frankly dangerous and will only impede the struggle to eradicate this terrible disease.

Of course, watch and decide for yourself, but personally I remain unconvinced by the muddled argument found here.

Pure, unadulterated crap! A pack of lies

[mgbruzon · 2/10 · 28 November 2005]

It was bound to happen. With the surge in the popularity of documentaries in recent years (roughly post- Michael Moore ), so-called serious documentaries dangerously dis-informing the public have begun to appear.

Of these, this is the first one I definitely identify as FALSE and DISHONEST, and that I feel so strongly about, that I would waste my time writing about it. Recently shown in Brazil and in Argentina (and clicking on "Release Dtaes" in other Third World and Disadvantaged Countries), SHOWCASING A FILM LIKE THIS IS ALL A LOCAL COMMUNITY NEEDS TO UNDO YEARS, IF NOT DECADES OF HARD WORK, AND MILLIONS OF DEATHS.

This "DOCUMENTARY" follows (without citing him) the South African Prime Minister's ignorant call to a crusade that "HIV does not cause AIDS." This was possibly Mbeki's most infamous "faux pas" until he recanted following Winnie's (and Nelson's) Mandela's that "poverty doesn't cause AIDS, HIV CAUSES AIDS.

Though the fact that HIV causes AIDS has not been totally confirmed following the complicated, if not inexact and faulty "explainable" logic exposed in this film, HIV is certainly a common factor in every AIDS case. The hard rhetorical questions posed by the film "experts"(you'll easily recognize them - CLEARLY presented as the normal, nice guys) cannot be ignored.

But if all medical theories are scrutinized to the extreme this film plunges into, to disqualify the importance of isolating HIV, then few if any "medical truths" are irrefutable. I mean, the "Adam and Eve" hypothesis of creation would be a very plausible scientific explanation for the creation of mankind to to these fanatics.

If the "experts" are easily recognizable in this film, so are the BAD GUYS - the HIV theory supporters. Few of these bad guys, if any, say that it is PROVED that HIV causes AIDS (but rather that they are related), but these "BAD GUYS" are imminently more qualified to speak than the "good guys" (common people who could not have been made to look more "natural" or like the "next door neighbor."

But this film, in its sick crusade, clearly and manipulatable show these unaccredited "normal" people we can all identify with as "wise experts" The real experts are shown as villains, in such caricatures and cheesy editing, that a smart person doesn't know whether to laugh at these sophomoric efforts, or cry for the masses the film makers may manipulate.

How can these "bad guys" (as accredited as they are) be blown away by the "good guys"? EASY. The wonders of the documentary. You show only the perspective you want, you create the good and the bad guys, using the most basic human psychology. And then, you go around the world with your production. The more uninformed and dis-informed the area, the BETTER for the film makers. Just "razzle dazzle them" with the pack of lies you've fabricated in your documentary.

Boy, am I sorry I saw it. And may it NOT be the start of truly cruel and irresponsible disinformation campaigns that this new documentary "craze" can definitely spawn.

This is a film with NO sense of responsibility. I can only compare it to the continued marketing of cigarettes (not allowed to advertise in its own countries) flooding the world's poorest countries, and targeting its most disadvantaged people, with the glamorous (and DEAD) "Marboro" man. The film's message is a disgrace, a disservice to humanity, and an insult to all those who have died from, or have done something to combat AIDS.

SHAME ON YOU, film makers, wanting to "make a name" at any price! And I mean others' peoples' lives. And strong "boos" to international film festivals for not screening the film before allowing these lies to be shown as "American scientific fact" to its communities.

Garbage and dangerous

[ettrick · 1/10 · 16 December 2006]

I am against censorship but this documentary is based on almost totally on pseudoscience and will lead to a complete misunderstanding of the HIV viruses and their relationship to what is called Aids. To deny the existence of the true cause of Aids is supporting what President Mbeki of RSA was saying five years ago and his comments could be partially related to causing the deaths of literally millions of Africans. I am not against debate against scientific research but this documentary is so biased against HIV being the cause of Aids that it is downright dangerous. True that some, and only some, of the participants and interviewees have some credentials but many are unqualified to comment on what is one of the major killer diseases on this planet. By all means debate the facts but on both sides of the coin.

Complete garbage that addle brained people drool over like swine

[VAndolini · 2/10 · 25 September 2018]

This film is not only insulting, unintelligent, poorly researched and ultimately dangerous, but it is a tragic comedy where a handful of crackpots are convinced Hiv does not cause AIDS. Sure guys, and, by the way, i have a freaking bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. Appropriate only for thise who were repeatedly kicked in the head by a horse throughput their childhood. Utter garbage.

Excellent documentary

[awildcat29 · 10/10 · 18 November 2006]

This documentary asks all of the important questions that up until recently have been highly censored. Questioning is healthy and restricting the right to ask questions is anti-scientific. I appreciate any work of art that reaffirms that truth. After all, giving up our right to question the actions and motivations of our ever-expanding bureaucracies is a step backward and certainly not indicative of a true democracy.

Overall, this documentary is fair and does not manipulate any of the participant's contributions, regardless of which side of the debate from which those contributions are proffered, so in that respect it is certainly not one-sided, or otherwise unfair, as some of the other commentators have charged. There are plenty of resources out there that fully flesh-out the mainstream position regarding HIV, so expecting a re-hashing of that position from a documentary wishing to question that hypothesis is itself an unfair sentiment, and one that can only serve to support continued censorship about this topic.

Overall, this documentary is well-made and watching it is not a crime (at least not yet). If you are intelligent and like to research a topic before taking a position, then you will probably find much of value in this documentary. Furthermore, the claims made by the dissident contributors are supported by an uncensored evaluation of the collected epidemiological facts and that is easily verified by anyone who cares enough to explore the issue further. Whether you believe HIV=AIDS or not, the current HIV consensus has become a quasi religion, a belief system. All belief systems should be independently evaluated using scientific means, and that is really all that this documentary is encouraging its audience to do--to independently evaluate the evidence, without succumbing to the prejudices that are incessantly spewed by the very vocal AIDS majority.

thoughtful documentary that challenges establishment medicine

[jshlackman · 7/10 · 16 April 2006]

This is a documentary that highlights the views and lives of what have become known as AIDS dissidents - those who have come to conclusions about HIV and AIDS which differ with those presented by government, mainstream medicine, and mainstream media. This documentary is not a science lesson, though there is some medical science in it - it attempts to look at the people involved and the politics of challenging dogma. It is easy for those offended by the theories proposed in this documentary to claim the film is one-sided - but in reality this film is merely sympathetic to the non-orthodox view and doesn't attempt to silence or hide the opposing viewpoint (which it couldn't anyway since the other view is the one that has been pounded into the public mind). Meanwhile, the establishment institutions do censor evidence and opinions which challenge their beliefs and practices. There are serious flaws in the HIV=AIDS theory and lots of evidence to show that a more holistic approach to AIDS care is desirable - one which uses pharmaceutical anti-viral drugs only as a last resort and healthy lifestyle and lack of fear as the first response to alleged HIV positive status. To prove that HIV causes AIDS medical scientists would need to show that a certain causal sequence occurs - namely that a person with a healthy immune system is exposed to HIV, the HIV is shown to be actively infecting immune system cells, and that the infection of those cells is causing an impairment in the functioning of the immune system. Instead, medical personnel have been programmed to screen people for HIV "positive" status and begin giving them toxic medicines whether or not there's evidence that HIV is actually present, actively infecting cells, and AIDS defining illness is present. Thus, the breakdown of immune function can be justifiably attributed to iatrogenic causes along with psychological and lifestyle factors. On a larger scale, the whole idea of microbial causality of illness is inadequate; the idea that the biological terrain and status of underlying subtle energy patterns is critical to whether or not one develops an illness is well substantiated. I would have liked to see the film go into more exploration of these issues in models of health and health care but I recognize that the film had a certain scope to focus on and I think it did a solid job in what it does present.

the other comment is not true this movie does not draw a conclusion but makes us ask questions

[kkarma2 · 10/10 · 14 May 2006]

After seeing this documentary i did my own research and found that there everything in the movie is true. What i mean is all the facts. Till today only the antibody counts is what makes you HIV positive. I had argument and people are just under the illusions that the ELISA test is an antibody count but the western blot test detect the actual virus. THIS IS FALSE. Not test till today has detected the actual virus. DO not listen to what this documentary says but just as a lab technician or search the net for how the ELISA and western blot tests work. Now why i looked at this documentary with an open mind was because i already have knowledge about Siddha system of medicine that have identified the aids thousand of years back it is known as Vettai Noi". AIDS syndrome was already known to the Siddha system of medicine.( FYI i have seen cancer patients who were given 1-3 months to live my doctors being cured by Siddha system of medicine. I still meet two people regularly- a 25 year old man and a 12 year old girl. The Siddha system of medicine put them out of their misery in under a month and the treatment continued for three months. They hale and hearty. The doctors don't know what to say. You know what one of the doctors are saying--"it is the grace of god" aha still he wont admit that Siddha system of medicine cured the guy) The symptoms are the same and the revelations in the movie helps you see that this is the truth. There are actual people who are HIV+ and are not on medication. (http://www.aidsfreetn.com/tnsacs/siddhapage.html) Check this link. ANd then watch the video it will help you believe that there is another side. It is hard for you to believe. It was hard for my friend in fact this movie affected him very much. He is living in fear because he trusted modern research and never expected this. He conducted a much deeper research than me and has actually spoken to many lab technicians and aids researchers in India and even "siddars" He called me recently and is totally psyched. He on the verge of madness as he cannot handle the truth. He just keeps asking me--- "why are these companies or whoever doing this to the entire human race. Aren't they human beings" He has gone to a village and his recollecting himself. I am still waiting for the details of his research. You have to just get the points what you find hard to believe just do a research on the net from non-related sources. Do go to a similar site but just go to a site where they just have information on the testing methods. Then you will see the truth.

An excellent film that counteracts the only side of the issue that people have been allowed to hear

[mykoolaidtastesfunny · 10/10 · 14 April 2008]

It is not true that the documentary is biased or one-sided. There are people representing the orthodox side of the argument, high ranking members that include the director of Aidstruth, Mark Wainberg.

Considering the monopoly that the proponents of the hiv=aids=death theory have had on the global media for the past 25 years they makers of this film were very generous in the time allotted to the orthodox side. It's not the fault of the filmmaker that the orthodox side spent their time calling names and dodging questions instead of presenting any evidence.

I've checked out the claims made and they all check out as far as I can tell. The disclaimers have not been misrepresented and the side effects of the drugs are as stated. The people involved in questioning are of the highest caliber as well including Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize winning inventor of the PCR, the basis of the hiv viral load test, David Rasnick, protease inhibitor developer and Rodney Richards who developed some of the first hiv tests.

Great film! Must see!! p.s. Some will claim that Maggiore's daughter died of aids related pneumonia. All the evidence points to a severe allergic reaction to amoxicillan taken for an ear infection. Google "What Happened to Eliza Jane" for the toxicologist's report.

A lightweight documentary that exposes a big lie: AIDS is caused by HIV

[tachy69 · 10/10 · 21 May 2009]

For those who say it is one-side only, let me remind you the scene where Dr. Mark Wainberg director of McGill university AIDS Center tries to defend the HIV hypothesis...

"...someone who would perpetrate the notion that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, is perhaps motivated by sentiments of pure evil..."

(Lots of Laugh) the guy at the end walks out the interview without giving any valid argument in favor of HIV hypothesis and using terms like "evil" which is a religious word!!. This just shows you how they "satanize" any critical thinking.

The documentary seems to be one-sided because of the lack of valid arguments, studies or even common sense by the defenders of the idea that HIV causes AIDS.

The disbalance could be way bigger since this documentary is made in a way that people with low or none knowledge about the subject can have a clear vision on what is really going on.

For a more technical information and more background about this you can make a quick search on internet... there is more documentaries with more technical explanations and solid background that supports this movie.

THIS IS AN EXCELLENT DOCUMENTARY!!

IT QUESTIONS AUTHORITY AND ESTABLISHMENT AND UNCOVERS THE AGENDA BEHIND PUBLIC HEALTH AND MIND CONTROL TECHNICS USED BY THE ELITE

Very important documentary against "established facts"

[Theodor16 · 10/10 · 20 December 2009]

Not my first video on the "HIV causes AIDS" propaganda, but certainly one of the better ones. Among personal testimonies you get some scientific data that, of course, should be enhanced by further reading (mind you, not mainstream articles/books) or further documentaries (see below).

You shouldn't be too surprised to find devastating comments on this documentary - what we deal here with is the invention of a multi-billion-dollar sinkhole, government-/UN-/WHO-funded, where a lot of conventional diseases can be re-labelled as AIDS, and hurrah! be treated with horribly expensive drugs that kill off people. In such a business, there's no place for the truth - that is in the firm hand of the ruling establishment (i.e. pharmaceutical companies and their prostitutes in health department positions), so you won't find one syllable of doubt on the "HIV causes AIDS" fairytale in the Wikipedia or common TV programs.

Let's come to further readings/documentaries:

* www.theperthgroup.com - definitely a cornucopia of information, also for insiders and scientists.

* www.virusmyth.com - a wide-spread info page, worth more than one or two visits.

* "Deconstructing The Myth Of AIDS" (by Gary Null) - simply the best documentary about HIV/AIDS, available as Google Video: video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3983706668483511310#

* "AIDS - die großen Zweifel" (by ARTE, in German, from March 1996), available as Google Video: video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-1939176342201582669#

Great movie about an important topic.

[onecleverkid · 10/10 · 4 December 2008]

This movie is life changing. It has sparked hope for so many people who stumbled upon it in a sea of false information about HIV/AIDS. Listen to what all these high level scientists, with a different point of view, have to say and judge for yourself. I find that this movie is packed with so much information that I have to watch it with the remote in my hand so I can pause it and go look up related information on the person in the interview or a concept they are mentioning. The fact that such a well-made, thoughtful and award-winning documentary can't find a life in the mainstream channels makes me question what kind of false info IS ALLOWED in the mainstream. Question everything you hear about HIV. It's your choice.

The filmmaker in this case went straight to the source, interviewing people who's contributions helped create the HIV/AIDS paradigm: these people helped invent protease inhibitors, the HIV test and the DNA amplification method used in viral load tests. When THESE people start to question the role of HIV in AIDS then I think we all should sit up and listen to what they have to say.

Knowing The Truth Is Essential.

[videoclip · 10/10 · 2 November 2007]

We know that the film THE OTHER SIDE OF AIDS is simply EXCELLENT, because HELPS YOU to THINK BY YOURSELF, apart from the ESTABLISHED IDEAS. Please note that most of the AIDS information we receive is based on unsubstantiated assumptions, unfounded estimates and improbable predictions. OPEN YOUR EYES to a lot of ESSENTIAL INFORMATION contained in: 1)http://www.whale.to/a/lanka6.html 2)http://www.theperthgroup.com/ 3)http://www.redflagsweekly.com/ 4)http://www.aras.ab.ca/ 5)http://www.robertogiraldo.com/ 6)http://www.virusmyth.com/ 7)http://www.thenhf.com/vaccinations_104.htm Thanks in ADVANCE.

HIV has never been proved conclusively to cause Aids

[goddess-lize · 10/10 · 14 December 2011]

There is evidence for what is being said here & most of the people who make these judgments are educated or involved enough to ask these valid questions.

However, I am not interested in the credentials of a person who suggests a theory, I am interested in clear, logical reasoning or common sense.

Science is NEVER conclusive about anything, no good science would claim this, that being said, if there is only 1 scientist who disputes mainstream scientific findings it is the duty of science to investigate such possibilities, esp in the case of HIV/Aids where after 3 decades of research on which billions of dollars has been spent has brought us no closer to any of the promises made in the 80's & 90's re vaccinations & cures. If anything, more questions have been raised, but are still unanswered by mainstream medicine. Instead they rely on arguments of character assassination of the dissidents. Is it not time to consider the possibility that HIV doesn't = Aids and that for this reason we have not been able to cure it?

How is it that somebody with Aids, who has been sent home to die because he's so weak he can't eat/walk, can be completely healthy & back at work weeks after making lifestyle changes? I am South African and I can tell you that Aids in Africa is nothing new,certainly not something that has popped up during the past 30 years. It's malnourishment and lack of proper hygiene that has the so-called millions of Africans dying of 'Aids'. Of this we have more than enough proof, as we have assisted many back to health after having Aids with simple dietary adjustments. There is no funding for HIV tests in Africa, so I'm curious on what grounds these millions have been diagnosed? How can medicine prescribe drugs like AZT & Nevirapine when they are known to cause adverse side effects and health problems, amongst them liver failure, kidney failure, muscle deterioration, diabetes & many other health concerns, most of which define Aids? Is it possible to distinguish between a person that has Aids due to a killer virus & one who is experiencing side effects from Aids medication? AZT was an experimental drug for cancer treatment which was considered too toxic to be considered a viable treatment. What ever happened to the ethics of scientists who love to quote Hippocrates: "First do no harm"?

How can you treat immune deficiency with immune deteriorating medication? Does it make sense? How can one trust anything surrounding the HIV=Aids hypothesis if the solution suggested is no better than the disease?? Esp when it's a multi billion $ business and it's not hard to see motivation behind creating mass panic? Why is there still no explanation for persons who have Aids symptoms but do not test positive for HIV? Why is it that there are countless cases of people who have tested positive for HIV, but never develop Aids? How can babies test HIV+ while their mothers test neg? How are couples who have unprotected sex able to maintain 1 HIV- status and 1 HIV+, if it's sexually transmitted? Could it be that like with all viral infections once neutralized by the immune system it's no longer infectious, as the living virus is no longer in your system, but only antibodies? How can a virus take 15 years before producing symptoms? Actually I believe it now takes anything from 20-30 years, in which time you are told you will develop any one of 30+ known Aids diseases (but the list of Aids related diseases keeps growing, so ANY disease you develop within 20-30 years after known infection with HIV can be ascribed to HIV induced Aids - this is a bit like predicting the future by palm reading and being told that you will be faced with a major decision sometime in your future... who isn't at some stage??) I ask again, is it not perhaps time to finally venture alternative theories? Why is medical science so arrogant in believing they are right and refusing to fund research into these alternative theories? And this after they have had 30 years, billions of dollars and apparently irrefutable scientists on their team, who thus far seem to have been out-smarted by a virus!! If they really wished to cure Aids I would think that they would be prepared to try just about anything by now, esp in light of the fact that they have stooped to using drugs as toxic as AZT... which has not saved a single life to date.

Why not do the logical thing when confronted with the problem of immune deficiency, and focus on building the immune system up????

I will conclude by saying that I have first hand experience with HIV infection and it is a joke at best!!! I urge you to do your own research & think why would any of these scientists who refute the HIV=Aids hypothesis place their names & careers on line if the evidence doesn't warrant it? Think what would happen if it were confirmed that HIV doesn't cause Aids. The economy would suffer a dip, 100 000's of people will be jobless, some may face prison if it's proved they knowingly supported a hypothesis of no substance. And of course, inquiry won't end with HIV - cancer will be the next. It could mean the collapse of arguably the biggest industry in the world. Perhaps this is reason enough for mainstream science to argue so vehemently for the HIV=Aids hypothesis.