It is claimed that HIV doesn't exist, because it hasn't been isolated yet. Well, there is an awful lot of work being done on a virus that doesn't exist:

It is claimed that the HIV "virus" hasn't been officially isolated -- not that it doesn't exist (although some scientists have their doubts, since it shouldn't be that hard to find...). I'm not advancing the idea that it doesn't exist; what I am advancing is that, even if there is such a virus, it's not the whole story.

It's claimed that the tests to show HIV infection can be triggered by a wide variety of conditions, including pregnancy. HIV tests look for antibodies -- except that any number of antibodies and other substances in the bloodstream can set off the test.

It's claimed that drugs to treat AIDS are much worse than the disease. Some, such as AZT, actually inhibit cellular division; cellular division is the primary method the body uses to repair itself and create an immune system! How, then, could we expect anything but a dropping T cell count from AZT?

Regardless of who you are or aren't, the simple truth is that you aren't considering the all sides of this debate.

Courts put innocent people in jail, they set murderers free (remember O.J. Simpson?). In many cases, it all depends on the lawyers presenting their case, and the judge presiding over the case, and not really the facts presented.

Thank you for falling into my trap! Likewise, researchers and "peer reviewed" magazines are subject to all the human folly that we can muster, including a drive for financial gain. We already know that medical journals have suffered so much credibility damage due to the taint of financial backing (and thousands of deaths due to favorable drug-related articles which appear therein) that they're desperate to regain their credibility. So why, then, are you clinging to "peer reviewed articles" like the Gospel Truth?

The United States alone is spending a hefty sum of money on AIDS research. Viruses as the cause of disease is a well-entrenched dogma in the medical community. (Given that we have immune systems which are perfectly capable of fighting off any infection, it is more accurate to say that "lowered immune response" is the "cause" of disease. We're bombarded with infectious agents constantly!) When confronted with an idea which opposes entrenched medical dogma, what do most "respected" scientists do? Reject the idea, or challenge the dogma?

Before you answer, I suggest you study the history of scientific inquiry. It is replete with errors which could not be corrected for generations because of human arrogance, and there is no sign that we have "evolved" beyond such arrogance at this time.

This is not to say that every scientist is a fraud, or that even most scientists are frauds. What every scientist is, however, is human -- even the ones I've offered who have a different tale to tell regarding AIDS. They probably do not have all the answers, either, but they're risking reputation to pursue wherever their data lead them. Given that I have studied the history of scientific inquiry, I find that this behavior at least merits some consideration of what is being presented.

Science really only ever advances when we find new ideas (and eventually accept them) -- not when we rehash the same ideas over and over and try to force them onto data which do not support them. The folly of science and scientists is the failure to recognize this historical pattern and learn from it.