HIV not causing AIDS

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Nobel prizes generally go to the person who made the original discovery. The prize wasn't awarded to 2008 amongst some dispute over who did find it first.

Further nobel prizes may be awarded for AIDS research.

No Nobel Prize for the causative link between HIV and AIDS. Simply because the proof isn't there yet although there have been been almost 40 years of research on the topic.

You are finally correct on this matter: Nobel Prizes maybe given in the future for proving the cause and effect when it comes to AIDS and HIV.

But nothing yet and it gets pretty suspicious after 40 years given that 'everyone' is so confident that HIV causes AIDS and is the sole cause of the syndrome i.e necessary and sufficient.

a reply to: Asmodeus3


The science cult will never admit the fraud , we knew that .

Trust the science

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Nobel prizes generally go to the person who made the original discovery. The prize wasn't awarded to 2008 amongst some dispute over who did find it first.

Further nobel prizes may be awarded for AIDS research.

No Nobel Prize for the causative link between HIV and AIDS. Simply because the proof isn't there yet although there have been been almost 40 years of research on the topic.

You are finally correct on this matter: Nobel Prizes maybe given in the future for proving the cause and effect when it comes to AIDS and HIV.

But nothing yet and it gets pretty suspicious after 40 years given that 'everyone' is so confident that HIV causes AIDS and is the sole cause of the syndrome i.e necessary and sufficient.

Thete is evidence.

You just choose not to believe it.

What is the mechanism by which HIV kills the T-helper cells that it infects?

I'm not a microbiologist, but I will take a stab at this based on what I have read.

The HIV virus is cunning in that it's main avenue of attack is Furin enzyme Chain Cleavage.

Furin enzyme chains are basically the T-cell starter mechanism. The virus is able to basically spearate these chains, and insert itself. By attaching via this method, it has the ability to basically render the T-cells blind initially, then like a worm in a computer, destroys them all together, writes them out of existence.

When it came out early on that the original Covid variant had what was called an "HIV like Attachment" it really kinda scared the crap out of me. I'm thinking, " Have they now made HIV airborne?" Most started screaming that there was no way that an "HIV like attachment was possible, but it then was didcovered that the Covid virus could attack the body via cleaving and attaching itself to Furin enzymes.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Nobel prizes generally go to the person who made the original discovery. The prize wasn't awarded to 2008 amongst some dispute over who did find it first.

Further nobel prizes may be awarded for AIDS research.

No Nobel Prize for the causative link between HIV and AIDS. Simply because the proof isn't there yet although there have been been almost 40 years of research on the topic.

You are finally correct on this matter: Nobel Prizes maybe given in the future for proving the cause and effect when it comes to AIDS and HIV.

But nothing yet and it gets pretty suspicious after 40 years given that 'everyone' is so confident that HIV causes AIDS and is the sole cause of the syndrome i.e necessary and sufficient.

Thete is evidence.

You just choose not to believe it.

Evidence of correlation between HIV and AIDS.

Proof of the causative link between HIV and AIDS isn't there yet. If it was we would have known who gets the credit for such an important discovery.

I choose not to believe in things and especially when it involves scientific and medical matters. But it's up to you what you accept or not.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Nobel prizes generally go to the person who made the original discovery. The prize wasn't awarded to 2008 amongst some dispute over who did find it first.

Further nobel prizes may be awarded for AIDS research.

No Nobel Prize for the causative link between HIV and AIDS. Simply because the proof isn't there yet although there have been been almost 40 years of research on the topic.

You are finally correct on this matter: Nobel Prizes maybe given in the future for proving the cause and effect when it comes to AIDS and HIV.

But nothing yet and it gets pretty suspicious after 40 years given that 'everyone' is so confident that HIV causes AIDS and is the sole cause of the syndrome i.e necessary and sufficient.

Thete is evidence.

You just choose not to believe it.

Evidence of correlation between HIV and AIDS.

Proof of the causative link between HIV and AIDS isn't there yet. If it was we would have known who gets the credit for such an important discovery.

I choose not to believe in things and especially when it involves scientific and medical matters. But it's up to you what you accept or not.

Mecanism for HIV virus affecting immune system.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Nobel prizes generally go to the person who made the original discovery. The prize wasn't awarded to 2008 amongst some dispute over who did find it first.

Further nobel prizes may be awarded for AIDS research.

No Nobel Prize for the causative link between HIV and AIDS. Simply because the proof isn't there yet although there have been been almost 40 years of research on the topic.

You are finally correct on this matter: Nobel Prizes maybe given in the future for proving the cause and effect when it comes to AIDS and HIV.

But nothing yet and it gets pretty suspicious after 40 years given that 'everyone' is so confident that HIV causes AIDS and is the sole cause of the syndrome i.e necessary and sufficient.

Thete is evidence.

You just choose not to believe it.

Evidence of correlation between HIV and AIDS.

Proof of the causative link between HIV and AIDS isn't there yet. If it was we would have known who gets the credit for such an important discovery.

I choose not to believe in things and especially when it involves scientific and medical matters. But it's up to you what you accept or not.

Mecanism for HIV virus affecting immune system.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

This is one of the proposed models but the mechanism is still not known.

Main issue is here

Indeed, the discovery that the simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) infections of African NHPs (the larger viral family from which HIV originated) are largely nonpathogenic vividly illustrates this conclusion. The SIVs that infect these natural hosts are just as cytopathic to NHP CD4+ T cells as HIV is to human CD4+ T cells, but in the vast majority of these animals, CD4+ T-cell depletion is not progressive and AIDS does not ensue (27–31). These hosts have obviously adapted to viral replication and CD4+ T-cell destruction, whereas pathogenic infections (HIV infections of humans and SIV infections of Asian NHPs) reflect cross-species transmission of infection to non-adapted hosts, a situation in which genetically determined differences in host response result in vastly different outcomes from otherwise similar viral infections.

From the same article

Here, we review the evolution of this new model, with the hope of providing a better explanation for why a rapidly replicating, cytotoxic virus causes such a slowly progressing disease.

It is well known that HIV allegedly takes several years to damage the immune system and it is now described as cytotoxic. The questions remain the same as why it takes some many years and how does it deplete the T helper cells it infects. There are still no answers. Viruses don't take 10 or more years to damage cells from everything we know so far. I might be wrong about it but getting an infection now and getting sick 10 or 15 years later is something that doesn't exist anywhere else apart when you are infected with HTLV1 and develop a rare form of leukemia 40 years later. Which is not believable. Only 5% of those infected with HTLV1 develop this type of leukemia or lymphoma. You can include HPV for which some strains allegedly cause cervical cancer (long time after primary infection).

a reply to: Kenzo

Excellent post Kenzopolis !

Can see that you have attracted a crowd now ... LoL !!

One of the major ongoing issues affecting Africa, is that it has been purposely kept in the dark by Western Governments™ and Institutions™, for the age-old purpose of Raping-and-Pillaging™.

It is done for their buddies : Big-Ag™ and Big-Mining™.

These industries have free reign in Africa, to exploit her to the max, while having low restrictions on industrial pollution.

Ignoring the concept that her rivers and fields are polluted with toxic chemicals, is done by the crowd of armchair Doctors™ and Biologists™, with 40 year-old Diplomas™ on the wall, and zero experience in field.

So you get a child in Africa, poisoned from the village's water-supply, who is tested, and some fancy-pants Doctor™ in the city looks at his bloodwork, and diagnoses the child with " Theoretical-AIDS™ ".

Because the file shows that the parents have also been diagnosed with " Theoretical-AIDS™ " !!

It's an open-and-shut case !

Send in Bill-Gates™, with another suitcase full of syringes and highly concentrated toxic-sludge, and stick it directly into their bloodstreams !!

Wonder why it doesn't work so well, eh ?





Again : all of the above is temporary opinion, and not any kind of provable fact.
Think.

Kary Mullis on HIV & AIDS
Nobel Prize for the invention of PCR

www.bmj.com...

Years from now, people will find our acceptance of the HIV theory of AIDS as silly as we find those who excommunicated Galileo.As applied, the HIV theory is unfalsifiable, and useless as a medical hypothesis. I can't find a single virologist who will give me references which show HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. If you ask you don't get an answer, you get fury

I want to put a note here.
From all my reading so far and all the experience I have, I haven't seen anything more corrupt than the biomedical and pharmaceutical fields. You get the old eccentric person who teaches you in a maths or a physics class and despite the fact that human nature is such that bias and corruption are expected, in the field of natural sciences is minimal. The biomedical and pharmaceutical sectors have no competition when it comes to corruption.

a reply to: Nothin


Thank you for bringin up the toxemia to this Nothin , since it really is the core. btw i like the Kenzopolis name lol

In this case of toxemia it just happens to build to Theoretical-AIDS™


WHAT IS TOXEMIA?

Thought i dont agree that " Every so-called disease is a crisis of Toxemia"

Old video of Jon Rappoport giving speech , ages ago ...he allready knew then what scam this is LOL

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Who has proved that HIV causes AIDS?

I already said who, and you missed my point completely. We can test for CD4 reduction and it is right in your face. Viruses in general kill cells in their replication process, and I explain there are three types of retroviruses that you seem to get them mixed up. Two of them don't disrupt CD4 cells, but the third one does and that type is HIV.

Your question is more like who says HIV disrupts CD4 cells, and the answer is everyone, As I said already AIDS is just an identification of when CD4 cells drop below 200 cells/mm3 with people HIV positive. You are hung up on the term AIDS so come up with your own, don't really care. There is no "discovery" its just a identification of immunodeficiency at a predetermined level. AIDS is a symptom that "indicates the existence of an undesirable condition or quality". HIV causes the overall disease of CD4 reduction and AIDS is just a point in that reduction. Not hard to understand....

Retroviruses in general are not known for killing cells. There are no retroviruses other than HIV that allegedly kill the cells they infect. If anything they are known for integrating their genome to the genome of the cell they infect and become part of it, living peacefully with the cell, apart in the case of HIV.

You keep saying this and I guess another 100 times it might magically turn into a fact, but it is incorrect and I already explained why.

Retroviruses in general?????? How many Lentiviruses are there in humans? I'll help you..... 1 and it is called HIV... FIV in cats does the same thing as HIV and the Lentivirus in Cattle has a 17% lethality rate, so STOP with the same BS you keep repeating in every post.

As I said before these viruses where pinpointed in the 60s and 70s as targets of human cancers. But it was proved that retroviruses don't have much to do with cancers. Only HTLV1 is associated with a rare type of leukemia/lymphoma but only a very small number of those infected with the virus develops the conditions which obviously doesn't prove causation.

You are not talking about Lentiviruses above... Already explained this...

AIDS stands for acquired immune deficiency syndrome and to have 200 of the CD4+ cells per cubic millimetre (not per mm as you said) on its own doesn't mean you have AIDS. You can have a lower or higher number of these cells in your blood for a number of reasons. It doesn't mean you have disease or you are going to get disease just by looking at this indicator.

AIDS is a complex syndrome which seems to be multifactorial as infection with HIV only doesn't necessarily lead to AIDS especially if you don't belong to the risk groups such as being an intravenous drug user or male homosexual.

I do not understand your point here, HIV started in homosexuals outside of Africa and was bridged across to heterosexuals though blood supply, bi-sexual, prostitution and shared needles with drugs. Why does being male homosexual lead to aids when someone else with HIV doesn't? This is a very confusing point you keep bring up?

You can have a low white blood count below 200 per cubic millimetre and still don't have AIDS.

200 cells per cubic millimeter of blood is written "200 cells/mm3" they are the same...lol

CD4 cell count is a laboratory test that measures the number of CD4 T-cells. The normal range is between 500 to 1500 cells/mm^3. Clinicians use this test to monitor the destruction of CD4 cells, and it also monitors the effectiveness of the antiretroviral treatment (ART). For a physician, the CD4 cell count has become the best indicator of disease progression and is used to stage disease and guide medical therapy. Per the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), one of the indications for the diagnosis of AIDS is when CD4 cell count drops below 200 cells/mm^3. The decline of CD4 T cells can lead to opportunistic infections, and it increases mortality.

If you just want to ignore lentinvirus and the other two subcategories because they do not fit your weird narrative then have fun with that.

BTW you still need to explain why male homosexuals can get AIDS and other people not in that group with HIV do not. What did all the gays die to in the 80s who became HIV positive?

originally posted by: Kenzo

Maybe this subject just triggered some discomfort to you, and your mind is trying to compensate by trying to stay in the

Actually I really don't give a crap, but when I see things that are mainly incorrect I will speak up on just that. What is destroying people's immune system who are HIV positive? I was in my 20s back in the 80s and lived near San Fran so I had up front seats to many dying from this, so what actually killed them?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Who has proved that HIV causes AIDS?

I already said who, and you missed my point completely. We can test for CD4 reduction and it is right in your face. Viruses in general kill cells in their replication process, and I explain there are three types of retroviruses that you seem to get them mixed up. Two of them don't disrupt CD4 cells, but the third one does and that type is HIV.

Your question is more like who says HIV disrupts CD4 cells, and the answer is everyone, As I said already AIDS is just an identification of when CD4 cells drop below 200 cells/mm3 with people HIV positive. You are hung up on the term AIDS so come up with your own, don't really care. There is no "discovery" its just a identification of immunodeficiency at a predetermined level. AIDS is a symptom that "indicates the existence of an undesirable condition or quality". HIV causes the overall disease of CD4 reduction and AIDS is just a point in that reduction. Not hard to understand....

Retroviruses in general are not known for killing cells. There are no retroviruses other than HIV that allegedly kill the cells they infect. If anything they are known for integrating their genome to the genome of the cell they infect and become part of it, living peacefully with the cell, apart in the case of HIV.

You keep saying this and I guess another 100 times it might magically turn into a fact, but it is incorrect and I already explained why.

Retroviruses in general?????? How many Lentiviruses are there in humans? I'll help you..... 1 and it is called HIV... FIV in cats does the same thing as HIV and the Lentivirus in Cattle has a 17% lethality rate, so STOP with the same BS you keep repeating in every post.

As I said before these viruses where pinpointed in the 60s and 70s as targets of human cancers. But it was proved that retroviruses don't have much to do with cancers. Only HTLV1 is associated with a rare type of leukemia/lymphoma but only a very small number of those infected with the virus develops the conditions which obviously doesn't prove causation.

You are not talking about Lentiviruses above... Already explained this...

AIDS stands for acquired immune deficiency syndrome and to have 200 of the CD4+ cells per cubic millimetre (not per mm as you said) on its own doesn't mean you have AIDS. You can have a lower or higher number of these cells in your blood for a number of reasons. It doesn't mean you have disease or you are going to get disease just by looking at this indicator.

AIDS is a complex syndrome which seems to be multifactorial as infection with HIV only doesn't necessarily lead to AIDS especially if you don't belong to the risk groups such as being an intravenous drug user or male homosexual.

I do not understand your point here, HIV started in homosexuals outside of Africa and was bridged across to heterosexuals though blood supply, bi-sexual, prostitution and shared needles with drugs. Why does being male homosexual lead to aids when someone else with HIV doesn't? This is a very confusing point you keep bring up?

You can have a low white blood count below 200 per cubic millimetre and still don't have AIDS.

200 cells per cubic millimeter of blood is written "200 cells/mm3" they are the same...lol

CD4 cell count is a laboratory test that measures the number of CD4 T-cells. The normal range is between 500 to 1500 cells/mm^3. Clinicians use this test to monitor the destruction of CD4 cells, and it also monitors the effectiveness of the antiretroviral treatment (ART). For a physician, the CD4 cell count has become the best indicator of disease progression and is used to stage disease and guide medical therapy. Per the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), one of the indications for the diagnosis of AIDS is when CD4 cell count drops below 200 cells/mm^3. The decline of CD4 T cells can lead to opportunistic infections, and it increases mortality.

If you just want to ignore lentinvirus and the other two subcategories because they do not fit your weird narrative then have fun with that.

BTW you still need to explain why male homosexuals can get AIDS and other people not in that group with HIV do not. What did all the gays die to in the 80s who became HIV positive?

Lentivirus is just a euphemism for something we don't know and don't understand. The concept of a slow virus is something that has never been proven to be the case. When you retrospectively apply the term is for the purpose to buy time to see why such a disease is very slow progressing.

Back to my questions:

Who gets credit for the causation of AIDS by HIV? There seems to be nobody who can get credit for such important discovery. That's a very strange situation. If you know you can state it.

What is the mechanism of killing the T-helper cells? It is still not known and it's in a hypothetical stage after almost 40 years in the field.



The reason you know only 1 lentivirus in humans is because this a constructed term for the purpose of buying time for something else. When you get infection now and you develop disease 10 years later or even 15 years later then there something wrong with the model of lentiviruses.

Retroviruses are well known for not destroying the cells they infect and that's why they have been studied as potential causes of cancer. If retroviruses were killing cells scientists would have known them and not studied them as potentially cancer causing agents. HIV is a retrovirus.

The classification of a retrovirus doesn't change the fact that they copy their genome into the genome of the host cell through reverse transcriptase.

HTLV1 that is called a cancer virus is allegedly causing cancer several decades after infection. But is this true? How many human oncoviruses do you know? HTLV1 allegedly causing leukemia or lymphoma to about 5% of those infected.

Do we really entertain the idea that viruses infect us now and we get disease 10 or 15 years later in the case of HIV or 30-40 years later in the case of HTLV1. Do they have magical properties??


For information the two major risk groups identified back in the 80s were male homosexuals (young) and intravenous drug users. There was a third group, hemophiliacs. And the two major diseases were Kaposi sarcoma and Pneumocystis pneumonia. Heterosexual AIDS has never materialised with the syndrome still confined in the above two groups in the majority of cases in the Western world.

I think you have asked whether you can get AIDS without HIV. The answer is yes. It's called

Idiopathic CD4+ T cell lymphocytopenia

I don't think you have a good idea of the syndrome given that you read without the historical references. Clearly you present a lack of understanding of what the syndrome is


Here is Kary Mullis the Nobel Prize Winner for the invention of PCR

Years from now, people will find our acceptance of the HIV theory of AIDS as silly as we find those who excommunicated Galileo.As applied, the HIV theory is unfalsifiable, and useless as a medical hypothesis. I can't find a single virologist who will give me references which show HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. If you ask you don't get an answer, you get fury

a reply to: Xtrozero

AIDS= immune-deficiency caused, in various people, by a variety of factors-


My HIV/AIDS investigation, and the parallels to the COVID hoax


The various factors can include, chemicals ( toxins, air pollution, drugs ) And certain groups are more risk , and certain geographic areas are also more exposed . In Africa malnutrition play bigger part also .

They got the fear factor in to level where it started to roll out the bigger deaths, because the AIDS drugs killed a lot, which then of cource even further increased the fear factor and people started to look where to get drugs and treatment for this , so even more died eating AZT .

originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: Xtrozero

AIDS= immune-deficiency caused, in various people, by a variety of factors-


My HIV/AIDS investigation, and the parallels to the COVID hoax


The various factors can include, chemicals ( toxins, air pollution, drugs ) And certain groups are more risk , and certain geographic areas are also more exposed . In Africa malnutrition play bigger part also .

They got the fear factor in to level where it started to roll out the bigger deaths, because the AIDS drugs killed a lot, which then of cource even further increased the fear factor and people started to look where to get drugs and treatment for this , so even more died eating AZT .

The most toxic drug ever was given to people with immune suppression and disease such as Kaposi Sarcoma. A drug that had been taken off market for being the most toxic and lethal chemotherapy. But now prescribed indefinitely to AIDS patients...
Good lord!!

a reply to: Asmodeus3

That drug is the most crazy drug ...suicidal.

a reply to: Xtrozero

And no, contrary to what you said, there is nobody to get credit for the causative link between HIV and AIDS.

Luc Montagnier was awarded the Nobel Prize for finding the virus and he shared it with one of his colleagues Francoise-Barre Sinoussi.

There is no Nobel Prize or any other award for the scientists or scientists who proved causation. Simply because it is cannot be proven given the available data. It has been asserted as a fact and the evidence for correlation has been presented as evidence for causation.

If you still think that Robert Gallo is the scientist who proved causation then you need to look again.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

I don't think you have a good idea of the syndrome given that you read without the historical references. Clearly you present a lack of understanding of what the syndrome is

I have asked twice, what is depleting the CD4 cells in gay men with HIV to the point they end up dying?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

If you still think that Robert Gallo is the scientist who proved causation then you need to look again.

This is written 100 different ways in every major medical and academic statement about him.

"Dr. Gallo is recognized internationally for his co-discovery of HIV as the cause of AIDS" but no says you...

a reply to: Xtrozero



Stop Giving People Toxic Drugs: HIV Does Not Cause AIDS

Review of the medical literature revealed that the short and the long term use of glucocorticoids at therapeutic doses, resulted in a variety of effects on the immune system that range from a transient reduction in T cells count in peripheral blood to the development of full blown AIDS.

in 1976, Fauci and Fauci et al. described in detail the effects of corticosteroids on the immune system [12,13]. These effects resemble the immune abnormalities that are found in patients suffering from AIDS or Idiopathic CD4 T cells lymphocytopnea (ICL), which are also described by Fauci et al. in 1998 [8]. For instance, in 1976, Fauci et al. stated that “we have reviewed many aspects of the host defenses that are altered by corticosteroids, and the combined effects of these changes must be considered in trying to understand the relation between corticosteroids and infections. Since the defect with corticosteroids is broad, it is not surprising that many types of infections seem to occur more often in patients treated with corticosteroids. Of the bacterial infections, staphylococcal and Gram-negative infections, as well as tuberculosis and Listeria infections, probably occur most often. Certain types of viral, fungal, and parasitic infections also occur often. Studies of bronchial aerosols showed that with higher doses of steroid in the aerosol, Candida infections of the larynx and pharynx occurred more often” [13].

The reversal of CD4+ T cells depletion in the peripheral blood was reported in HIV-positive homosexual men after the termination of their treatment with glucocorticoids [14, 15]. Sharpstone et al. reported that eight HIV-positive males with inflammatory bowel disease who used rectal steroid preparation had a decline in their CD4+ T cells at a rate of 85 cells/µL per year [14]. Four of them underwent coloectomy that eliminated the need for the steroid and their CD4+ T cells increased 4 cells/µL per year. Eight HIV-positive men used as match control who did not have surgery continued to have a decline of 47 cells/µL per year as the result of the use of rectal steroid. In addition, investigators from George Washington University and the National Institutes of Health reported a case of HIV-positive homosexual man with ulcerative colitis who developed a severe reduction in CD4+ T cells counts following 9 days treatment with corticosteroids and the depletion in CD4+ T cells number was reversed following the cessation of the treatment [15]. Briefly, approximately 3 weeks prior to surgery for ulcerative colitis that was unresponsive to corticosteroids, the patient's CD4+ T cell count was 930 cells/µL of blood and the count fell to 313 cells/µL within 10 days of treatment with corticosteroids. Five days postoperatively, the patient become asymptomatic and was discharged on tapering prednisone without the use of antiretroviral agents. After surgery, the patient's CD4+ T cells counts progressively rose. The CD4+ T cells counts were 622 cells/µL and 843 cells/µL at 3 and 6 weeks following the operation, respectively.

Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS), an AIDS-indicator disease also developed in HIV-negative patients chronically treated with glucocorticoids [1, 16]. For example, KS developed eight months after initiation of prednisone treatment (40 mg per day for three months) in HIV-negative man. He also had lymphocytopenia (896/µL), reduction of T4 (CD4+) cells (215/µL), and T4/ T8 ratio of 0.7. [16]. In addition, there are many cases who developed KS following treatment with glucocorticoids and they had reversal of their KS after the termination of the treatment [1]. My investigation also revealed that the majority of AIDS patients suffer from metabolic and endocrine abnormalities [1]. The high prevalence of adrenal insufficiency observed among AIDS patients provides very strong evidence that AIDS in these patients is caused by the use of corticosteroids.