In order for it to be brought under the rubric of "science," one either
has to put forth a hypothesis and the evidence there is for it.  If
experiments have yet to be done, the advocate must specifiy what
experiments should be done to verify or repudiate the hypothesis.
Often, requests for funding follow, and somtimes preliminary
experiments or lab work have been done.  Then, the community of
scientists who are "experts" in this field review the evidence, make
suggestions, propose new or different experiments, etc.

"HIV/AIDS" was never a hypothesis - it was press release.  In order or
this claim to be taken seriously by anyone who knows as the rudiments
of science, "HIV/AIDS" needs to be put forth as a hypothesis, which can
then be tested.  Much of the "evidence" cited by the "true believers"
is terribly flawed, fraudulent, or not on point.  In Gallo's own book,
he points out that the "correlations" are just about as good for a
number of "opportunistic infections" and viruses many if not most
people have encountered.

If anyone thinks such a hypothesis has been put forth, please cut and
paste it here or cite a link.  Since the definitions of "HIV infection"
and "AIDS" vary from place to place, it will be interesting to see how
they could all come under the umbrella of a single hypothesis that
meets the fundamental requirements of the scientific method.  In many
cases, after a claim has been improperly established, those of the
"mainstream" state that they cannot do the proper experiments due to
"ethics."  In "HIV/AIDS," we are told, no animal model suffices.
However, another possibility should certainly be explored, but has not.
That is, animals should be exposed to the kinds of stressors those who
"die of AIDS" have been, and that would include diet, alcohol
consumption, lack of sleep, legal and illegal drugs, semen in various
orifices, etc.  If "AIDS" can be generated in animals under such
conditions, the notion that a retrovirus that has not been properly
isolated and that cannot be found doing the kind of harm that is found
in truly deadly viruses should simply be abandoned, mostly because the
drugs that are given as "anti-virals" are so dangerous that they
themselves can create "AIDS."

All the hypotheses put forth to date have failed to account for the
actual data, with the exception of the "correlations," "surrogate
endpoints," and other abstract entites that one can make just about any
claim for.   Ho tried and failed.  Give him some credit for pursuing
the logic of his notions, regardless of how many may have been harmed.
He did not force anyone to do something against his or her will.  It is
the community of experts who needed to step up and say something like,
"hold on, we need to wait until we know if that it is actually going on
in the body," which it of course was not.  Aside from Duesberg, the
Perth Group, and a few others, the rest of the "experts" should be
ashamed of themselves.

Bascially, what the "experts" are saying these days, implicitly mostly,
is something like, "well, we really don't understand how a virus could
do all this extreme and varied damage, but you should keep believing
that a virus that we never properly isolated, and that some scientists
are willing to try to properly isolate but can't get funding to do so,
is the cause, and the only cause."