“AIDS 2.0” has its own Wikipedia page. It refers to an epidemic of HIV-analogous AIDS in China, where of course the people affected do not test HIV+. If this media frenzy is to be believed, we here have proof, at the very least, that HIV is not an exclusive cause of AIDS – if we happened to grant that HIV exists and is dangerous.
However, it’s perhaps much better to apply Occam’s razor and state that AIDS has always been a multi-factorial disease; no need to give AIDS a software revision extension. If we believe the problem in China is environmental, why cannot we believe that the problem in Africa is too, fuelled by poverty? The big clue being that there’s no gender disparity in the disease compared to the western world.
Vitamin D expert Dr. William B. Grant kindly read the HIV/AIDS chapter in Prescribing Sunshine… and concluded “What I wonder is whether it is possible to advance the vitamin D story without also claiming that there is not an HIV virus?” While I deeply respect his viewpoint, why aren’t we allowed to question the existence and pathogenicity of HIV at the same time?
You would think that HIV-negativity is a sufficient reason to define a 2.0 AIDS (even if temporarily), but you have to remember that HIV positivity is not an exclusive requirement under AIDS 1.0. A ‘1.1. service pack’ suggests that you can just require a low CD4 count to count as an AIDS patient.