Here is a quote concerning aids from Dr Vernon Coleman's website, he explains his reasoning here.
If you read it you might learn that things are never as black and white as you seem to think.
The full transcript is here
http://www.vernoncoleman.com/aids.htm
AIDS was first noted in 1981 in the US. At the time it was described as GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency) because it only seemed to affect gay men. And it seemed most prevalent among promiscuous gay men. One early survey showed that the first 100 men with the disease had had, on average, no less than 1,120 sexual partners each. (Though how they each remembered the precise figure I can't imagine.)
None of the diseases associated with GRID were new. Some had previously occurred in drug addicts. And some observers wondered if the new syndrome had developed among these gay men because of their promiscuous, drug taking lifestyle.
But at the same time as doctors had identified the existence of what they thought was a new syndrome scientists had developed a technique to classify and count different types of lymphocytes – white blood cells – and researchers noticed that some GRID patients had low numbers of particular types of white blood cell. It was, therefore, assumed that GRID was infectious and caused by some sort of organism. And thus the AIDS syndrome was born. AIDS was never a new disease but merely an artificial syndrome consisting of several already existing diseases.
Surprisingly, it was upon this fragile theory that the whole AIDS industry has been built.
Naturally, everyone wanted to find the organism responsible for causing AIDS. When HIV was allegedly identified it was given this dubious honour, despite the fact that it was originally isolated in no more than around a third of AIDS patients. (Even today most AIDS patients do not have an HIV infection.)
The strange fact is that despite the billions that have been spent on research the world is still waiting for someone to prove that AIDS really does exist. There is not and never has been any solid research linking HIV to AIDS – let alone proving that HIV causes AIDS.
So, the big question now may appear to be 'What causes AIDS?'
But, in fact, I suspect that in truth that isn't the big question at all.
In reality, I suspect that the big question is: 'Does AIDS actually exist?'
And I suspect that the answer is that it doesn't.
As I have already pointed out AIDS is a syndrome which does not consist of any new symptoms or diseases.
And in order to justify the huge expenditure of time and money on research into finding a cure many of those involved in helping to maintain the AIDS industry have for years been busily changing the rules about the way that AIDS is defined. These days if you die of influenza or tuberculosis there is a good chance that you will be included in the AIDS statistics. (Including TB victims in the AIDS statistics is one of the ways in which the alleged AIDS plague in Africa has been created. This type of 'bending' of the statistics is nothing new. When the authorities wanted to give the impression that smallpox had been conquered by the vaccination programme they attributed many deaths caused by smallpox to chickenpox – even though chickenpox is very rarely a fatal disease.)
I suspect that the immune system breakdown which, in 'developed' countries usually leads to a diagnosis of AIDS, is probably a result of any one of a number of factors.
The use of illicit and recreational drugs has been offered as one explanation but I suspect that the over use of prescription drugs (including, I fear, some of those which may be recommended for the 'treatment' of AIDS) is probably just as significant.
Nutritional deficiencies, constant stress and a steady exposure to carcinogenic chemicals all probably help to explain why AIDS (and other immune system problems) are now so commonplace.
The AIDS syndrome is still commonest among gay men, drug users and haemophiliacs – many of whom are probably exposed to drug use of one sort or another. The available evidence – such as it is – supports my hypothesis as well as any other.
It is my view that the best treatment for AIDS is a powerful immune system reinforcement programme – similar to the one I recommend for avoiding and treating cancer and for avoiding and treating infectious diseases.
There is no doubt that the original predictions for AIDS have all been proved utterly wrong.
In the 1980s a spokesman for the British Medical Association warned that by 1991 every family in Britain would be touched by AIDS and attacked me viciously when I quoted evidence supporting a less scary point of view. Other medical establishment groups jumped on the 'AIDS is going to kill us all so give us lots of money to try and find a cure' bandwagon and the official line was defended with unprecedented ferocity and an astonishing amount of self righteous, sanctimonious venom.
The World Health Organization forecast that 100 million people might be infected by the year 1990 and the Royal College of Nursing in the UK forecast that one in fifty people in Britain would have the disease by the early 1990s. As far as I know none of these groups have apologised for their absurd scaremongering and none have provided an explanation for the size of their error.
In addition numerous organisations and individuals have, when applying for grants, made dramatic promises of 'miracle breakthroughs' and 'wonder vaccines' perhaps because they know that the bigger the promise the larger the grant will probably be.
