Trends in Molecular Medicine has published an open access opinion article by Jay A. Levy that demonstrates some open-mindedness in dealing with AIDS, read here.
What’s interesting is that – on the assumption of HIV theory as true, for argument purposes – the article nods at trying to strengthen innate (non-adaptive) immunity as opposed to just focussing on classic antibody (adaptive) immunity. You could bypass two problems with such a solution: you might not have to worry about confusing between the HIV-antibody-vaccinated and the HIV-infected since both groups would test HIV-positive, and you’re aiming at dealing with a precondition to HIV infection, which is any weakness of innate immunity (or existing immunodeficiency).
Dissidents would flip out Occam’s razor and say that you should only deal with the immunodeficiency that is evident, rather than try and pin things on HIV which seems to us resultant than causal.
The rest of the article almost shakes the hand of dissidents while firmly remaining on its side of the border. For example, questioning the validity of inflammatory markers, admitting “Prescribing ART for a lifetime is like giving chemotherapy forever“, showing doubts about treatment when asymptomatic, and noting that ART impairs immunity itself.