Look, surely HIV exists and is transmitted en utero. That's not at issue.
What is at issue is the consequence of this. If left alone there would be no consequence whatsoever of an HIV infection; epidemiological data suggests this virus has been infecting humans for centuries, millennia or longer. But when Doctors decide to poison innocent children with lethal anti-virals in the name of "curing" a harmless passenger virus, they are inadvertently causing with their treatment the very disease they claim to be curing.
It's happened before, and its happening with AIDS.
Some people are bound to notice and object, that's natural, and its also entirely natural that Doctors are not too eager to face the horror they have created, and will insist that they are acting rationally. This means that by and large they will continue to insist that HIV causes AIDS even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Otherwise they would have to admit horriffic responsibility.
I'm not saying antiretroviral drugs don't have any adverse drug reactions. I always have a first suspicion about adverse drug reactions. I don't buy Duesberg's argument of misdiagnosis, and I don't buy that it's a big Pharma cabal.