Writer and Filmmaker
Send response to journal:
I've been intrigued by Non-HIV AIDS ever since the first cases were announced at the AIDS conference in Amsterdam in 1992. The CDC quickly tried to say that the Non-HIV AIDS cases were not another transmissible epidemic caused by something other than HIV. Why? Because these cases supposedly didn't seem to exhibit "risk factors" for their illness. If the folks at Autoimmune Technologies in New Orleans are correct, that is not exactly the case. They seem to think that there is another separate AIDS epidemic caused by an agent other than HIV. And it may represent one percent of AIDS cases. And it may also involve the famous "risk groups."
Here's what they say on their site:
"Idiopathic CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia, or ICL, is an immunodeficiency syndrome in which human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, cannot be detected. Because HIV is the causative agent of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), ICL can be referred to as Non-HIV AIDS. As in AIDS patients, Non-HIV AIDS patients exhibit reduced numbers of CD4+ T- lymphocytes, and many Non-HIV AIDS patients have developed the opportunistic infections or otherwise rare cancers associated with AIDS.
Non-HIV AIDS patients may comprise perhaps one percent of all AIDS patients. While the majority of Non-HIV AIDS patients do not belong to any of the risk groups such as blood transfusion recipients, male homosexuals, and intravenous drug abusers in which AIDS was first identified, some Non- HIV AIDS patients do belong to these groups. This suggests that Non-HIV AIDS may also be transmissible."
If you go to that site, you'll read about the non-HIV agent they think is the cause of "transmissible" Non-HIV AIDS. Since the blood supply is not being tested for Non-HIV AIDS and since people are not being tested for Non-HIV AIDS, we could be at the beginning of another AIDS epidemic. For all we know, 2004 could be 1981 in the "transmissible" Non-HIV AIDS epidemic.
One wonders if someone can have both HIV AIDS and non-HIV AIDS. What happens when someone with HIV AIDS sleeps with someone with Non-HIV AIDS?
If one percent of AIDS cases are non-HIV AIDS, doesn't that raise serious questions about HIV itself? Couldn't there be some third factor that both HIV AIDS and Non-HIV AIDS have in common? (How about a virus like HHV-6 which seems to be far more destructive than HIV?)
By the way, the original ICL (Non-HIV AIDS) cases seem to have been mostly people who had been diagnosed with "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome." Do the Non-HIV AIDS cases therefore help support the claim that AIDS and CFS are part of the same epidemic?
The bottom line here is that there may be an epidemic of Non-HIV AIDS that has been swept under the rug by the HIV establishment. "One percent of all AIDS patients" is not a small number. People have yet to be told that they should be aware of their Non-HIV AIDS status.
Actually, what the public should do is ask if Non-HIV AIDS is proof that all those in charge of the AIDS research effort should be wearing colorful clown costumes. And seriously considering retirement.
Competing interests: None declared