Throwing around facts is not scientific in the strictest sense, neutralino. All "facts" are circumstantial and empirical, and therefore are limited by observations.
SLAC doesn't have a "theory" and their interpretations -
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/quarks.html - are even semi-consistent with the standard model. Yet it allows a linking to kinetic energy theories and shadow gravity theories. Their "theory" would simply be one of high energies producing all energy quanta.
It doesn't matter what names we give particles as long as energy, momenta, charge, etc. is conserved. If we invoke neutrinos, residual particles of annihilation/creation, we can invoke protinos, electrinos, positrinos that are all variable forms of photon quanta or energy.
The gist of the thread can be applied to an atomic model that is based on the cyclic creation and destruction of masses and charges as though each atom is a miniature big bang. The center of the atom is like t0, a point of annihilation/creation, which produces kinetic energy with a high enough energy to create the atomic charges and anticharges that
are continually annihilating. This way we don't have to add extra dimensions to our three-brane model, but only allow, as to your question, right-handed neutrinos to exist in backward time - not very likely to be detected.
Further, the
time, dilation, that it takes the events to scale via radiation is the cause for inferring stability. Just like star light transferring observable energy from events that have long-since passed, the same can apply to the microcosmic events. We observe both the annihilation in the form of the cmb, and the creation in the form of stable particles.
This site is about questing for the TOE, not necessarily only the study of orthodox theories, and I cannot take these things further in any clearly expressible terms. Perhaps, I thought, you might be able to.