HIV has existed for eons, but that it made a jump from apes and monkeys to people several decades ago. This isn't totally surprising since HIV is a very adaptive and constantly evolving virus, like a flu virus only much more devastating.
There is even a minority in the health community which believes that HIV and AIDS are two different things with at best a tenuous relationship to each other (
http://www.lightparty.com/Health/Aids1.html).
Among the dissenters, the feeling is that AIDS attacks primarily people who are overexposing their immune systems to alien substances, be they drugs or organic substances (e.g., semen, blood, fecal matter as from analingus).
"It was Dr. Duesberg who first threw down the gauntlet in 1987 to challenge the huge and growing industry around the 'HIV causes AIDS' theory when he published a paper in the Journal of Cancer Research. He pointed out that HIV does not destroy immune system T cells in laboratory petri dishes even at thousands of times the concentration found in humans, that none of the 150 chimpanzees injected with HIV have AIDS, the growing number of HIV negative AIDS cases (now over 4,000 documen- ted), that only two perc ent of HIV positive hemophiliacs have AIDS symptoms, the same percentage as HIV negative hemophiliacs, that AZT (at that time the most expensive and only drug approved for HIV infections) was a known toxin with documented side effects which were attributed to AIDS, and that nearly every AIDS patient was known to be a frequent user of hard drugs.
...
"(Duesberg) claims that AIDS in Africa, Haiti, and other third world countries is entirely different than AIDS in America, and can be blamed on malnutrition, appalling sanitation and parasitical infection." (You might add sexual practices which are considerably less hygienic than in more highly-developed countries.) As is frequently the case, poverty and ignorance are the main causes of Third World problems.
With drug users and promiscuous male homosexuals, the problem may be overexposure to foreign substances, but since accepting this theory would involve depriving themselves of enjoyable behavior, naturally that possibility will be addressed last, which is too bad if it's true.
Despite the fact that this and related theories are seeming more plausible and more likely all the time (given the abysmal failure of the predominant "explanation" to result in effective treatments), the reaction from both the AIDS establishmen and gay communities has been to reject this explanation almost out of hand, even though it might explain at least SOME of the AIDS cases which currently remain a mystery under the orthodox AIDS theory.
If you want to investigate a real conspiracy, look into the one which is keeping science from taking this alternative explanation for AIDS more seriously.
I'm only bringing this up for discussion and I'm not taking sides.
I just find that most people accept the orthodox view on the cause of AIDS. Searching for "Duesberg" AND "AIDS" on Google will turn up both pro and con articles on this theory. I think it's worth more attention than it gets from the mainstream.
