Then the best way to confront them is to present a formal scientific
hypothesis, with proposals for experiments that isolate all possible
variables and with precisely-defined language.  If the experiments
fail, then "HIV/AIDS" must be abandoned.  As to specific criticisms, I
am willing to moderate an academic-style debate on my forum, but nobody
from the "establishment" has shown any interes, yet I have found the
Perth Group's analysis to be a great example of how to think in a
manner consistent with the scientific method.  I have seen nothing from
the "establisment" except for what I would call suggestions - what
various biochemical markers could mean, for instance.  Many of these
people don't seem to even be aware of the difference between a proposed
and tentative model and a clear demonstration of the scientific
reality, down to the molecular level (in the case of biological
phenomena).  But "science journalism" seems to be in a sad state of
affairs these days, with a few exceptions like Gary Taubes (who
nontheless appears to not understand the role of oxidized cholesterol
in "heart disease," despite the evidence that now exists).  On the
"book TV" cable channel, there were a couple of "science journalists"
speaking to an audience.  One wrote a book titled "Secret Agents,"
about the "dangers" of "infectious diseases," and the other wrote
"Liberation Biology," about how "disease" will be almost abolished
within a decade or two.  These kinds of books are a good example of
what passes for "journalism" these days.