Bags of rocks are well understood scientifically - they are not the
issue, nor why Mr. Carter never addresses the scientific issues.  I'm
only interested in the science, and that is what people like Mr. Carter
cannot tolerate.  For him, it seems, this is some sort of religious
experience, and he sees himself as some sort of Grand Inquisitor.

However, if Mr. Carter is ever interested in the science, I propose to
subject him to a great deal of foreign antigens, the common and usually
non-dangerous STDs (and other common "bugs," such as EBV), and lipid
peroxidation over the course of about 2 years.  Towards the end of this
period, he would experience all kinds of "opportunistic infections"
that become dangerous, and the reason will be that his T regs are
suppressing his CD4+ T cells.  Simple as that, no "HIV" required, not
that anyone can find it anyway.

However, if Mr. Carter wishes, he can present a formal "HIV/AIDS"
hypothesis, and then I can research that, and present evidence to
either support it or debunk it.  At present, there is no "HIV/AIDS"
hypothesis, but instead all kinds of claims, more than a few which
contradict each other.  Science can only go forth if a clear hypothesis
is presented.  I just presented one above.  Clinical syndromes do not
exist on a higher level than the scientific method, of course, but this
is the only position someone like Mr. Carter can take at this point,
whether he realizes it or not.  Clincial syndromes (such as "AIDS") are
meant to be used for practical purposes, until the scientific method
can determine exactly what is occurring.  In the case of the "HIV/AIDS"
claim, with our current technology, there is no reason for scientists
to not understand exactly what is occurring.  And when they made the
determination, they would be able to present a formal hypothesis.  The
problem, of course, is that their experimental findings do not match
any of their notions, and so they resort to claims of a "mysterious,
insidious retrovirus" that "mutates rapidly."  The only thing mutating
rapidly are the ludicrous claims made by the "HIV/AIDS experts" because
they refuse to reconsider any underlying assumptions (ones that were
never established by the use of the scientific method in the first
place).

Who said anything about an OI?

It talks about how HIV infection results in the steady loss of T
cells. That leads to an OI.

But then you're a f.cking racist and also not much brighter than that
there bag o' hammers that's crushing monty's pointy head.