"...pathogenic viruses are REAL..."

I have to point out that you're not acknowledging the opportunistic nature of living things if you completely deny that pathogens exist in every form that can be pathogenic. Do take care to be aware of your biases. It isn't necessary to believe the polio virus was the sole cause of symptoms of polio to grant that there is a pathogen that causes those symptoms. The fact that DDT causes those symptoms doesn't mean some, or several, pathogens don't. There are various causes of AIDS that have been proven since the 19th Century, malnutrition, foreign DNA in our blood, certain chemicals, like vinyl nitrite, vaccines, and etc, but that neither proves nor disproves some virus from Green Monkeys does or doesn't cause AIDS too.

The base condition is nescience. Learning that Bob steals money and becoming secure from Bob's larcenous actions doesn't make your money safe, because you don't know that no one else steals money. We need to acknowledge we cannot be sure we know all possible mechanisms of action regarding anything, and that certainly includes virii. The basic premise of pathogenic virii is sound, and it is consilient with living systems. That should give us pause before we dismiss the entire concept of pathogenic virii out of hand.

IMHO, doing so is contrary to observed natural mechanisms. Were there no pathogenic virii, that would be inconsistent with what we observe living things do at every scale, from banks stealing from us by fraud, to anemones eating plankton. Note that nothing I've said is support for any particular claim of viral disease. I have given specific examples where false claims confound the theory of pathogenic virii, that neither is that confounding evidence that virii don't cause disease.

I appreciate good information, and I'll watch Dr. Willner's presentation with that mindset. I hope you take this comment the same way, so you are not deceived and lulled into a false sense of security regarding real risks. BTW, not until just now did I realize that this video had anything to do with AIDS, so my above remarks were prior to that realization.

I have heard about half of his presentation, and find some strong disagreement with some of his statements, which I consider irrational. He presumes that because he has knowledge of some causes of AIDS, no other causes can exist, and this - however much he believes it to be true - isn't demonstrable.

Thanks!