Well, about your method of participation here, looking over your comments here and elsewhere, one is left its clear that you either are unacquainted with our governing content and behavior, or willfully ignoring them. Assuming good faith, I've went with the former, but if you still insist that it's the latter, I'll take your word for it. Either way, it's becoming disruptive and incivil and needs to end.

As for your question, if you were indeed as up to speed on our guidelines and policies as you'd like everyone here to believe, then you'd know that WP:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources secondary sources are preferred over primary sources. We have three secondary sources that support the existing content, and one primary (and very partisan) source. "He also rejects the prevailing view of the scientific community that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the sole cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)." accurately summarizes the three secondary sources, while your version, "He also proposed a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS." merely repeats the rhetoric of the partisan primary source, in effect giving that fringe viewpoint undue weight. Have I made this clear enough for you?