The more difficult question for HIV-causes-AIDS advocates is why there exists
patients with full blown AIDS in the absence of HIV—that is, there
exists patients who are diagnosed with one of the AIDS defining diseases
together with a depressed immune system. Apparently apart from the lack
of the presence of AIDS antibodies such patients are indistinquishable
from those with AIDS antibodies. HIV-causes-AIDS advocates define such
problems away by labeling such patients as “idiopathic
CD4-lymphocytopenia.” A deceptive label meaning “AIDS without HIV.”

ICL is _NOT_ AIDS.

There are several differences. The main similarity is a low CD4
count. However:

The CD4 count is rarely as low as seen in AIDS cases (below 200 per ul)

The CD4/CD8 ratio is rarely, if ever, reversed. It is however
characteristic of the immunosuppression seen in HIV+ people.

CD8 counts are not relevant.

Look at “The Official U.S. Government Definition Of AIDS (1993)”:
http://www.aegis.com/topics/definition.html

CATEGORY 1 (Asymptomatic HIV Disease)

You are in Category 1 only if you are asymptomatic (no symptoms)
and have never had less then 500 CD4 cells.”

So we have the proof that ICL patients would be considered at least
AIDS-cases of category 2 (i.e. AIDS related complex) if they were
HIV positive.

CATEGORY 2 (ARC)

You are in Category 2 if —

1. your T-cells have dropped below 500 but never below 200;

— or —

2. you have never had any Category 3 diseases (see below) but
have had at least one of the following defining illnesses —
…

CD4 counts between 500 and 1500 are quite normal. The figure “CD4
lymphocyte counts” of the Sabin et al study shows big changes in
the CD4 cell counts of the same persons over time, e.g. from
around 500 to over 1500 cells per microliter in a HIV negative
person: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/312/7025/207/F02

Temporary changes in CD4 counts resulting from different causes
are well-known. So the more frequently your CD4 cells are counted,
the more likely is a value below 500.

Your disease classification — asymptomatic, ARC, or AIDS —
is based on the lowest t-cell test you ever had.

For example, if you are HIV positive and a concatenation of
unfavourable events leads to a measured CD4 value of 190, then
you remain an AIDS PATIENT (category 1) for the rest of your life,
even after all immunosuppressive causes, which taken together were
responsible for the low CD4 count, have disappeared.

It must also be noted that ***EITHER*** an AIDS defining illness
***OR*** a CD4 count below 200 is enough for AIDS to be diagnosed.
So the claim that all AIDS patients have very low CD4 counts is
simply wrong.

People with ICL do NOT present with AIDS-defining conditions. They seem
to have functional immune systems, just low CD4 counts. This is reflected
in the name of the disease, which literally translates as “low CD4 T cell
counts in the blood due to an unknown cause”, with no mention of a
resulting effect on immunity.

“Just low CD4 counts” and “functional immune system”? But why then
are HIV positive people terrorised with their CD4 figures? Isn’t it
rather absurd to assume that the functionality of a system as
complex as the immune system can be reduced to one single figure,
the CD4 count?

If I remember correctly, even immune systems without CD4 cells can
work sufficiently well.

Some may present with mild signs of
impaired immunity, but I challenge anyone to find a case of ICL presenting
with PCP, which typically occurs with T cell counts well below 100 and
was the presenting complaint in about half of the early AIDS cases.

“Since bacterial opportunists of immune deficiency, like
tuberculosis bacillus or pneumococcus, are readily defeated with
antibiotics, fungal and viral pneumonias predominate in countries
where antibiotics are readily available. This is particularly
true for risk groups that use antibiotics chronically as AIDS
prophylaxis (Callen, 1990; Bardach, 1992).

Indeed, young rats treated for several weeks simultaneously with
antibiotics and immunosuppressive cortisone all developed
Pneumocystis pneumonia spontaneously (Weller, 1955).”
http://www.duesberg.com/ch6.html

T cell counts “well below 100” are not at all typical of HIV
positivity. An extract from “Fauci presents new data on structured
intermittent therapy at XIIIth World AIDS Conference in Durban,
South Africa”:

“Among five patients receiving HAART on a seven-day-on, seven-
day-off schedule, small blips of rebounding virus were observed
when patients came off therapy, but only infrequently and at
levels that have not exceeded several hundred copies. In this
study, patients’ lowest lifetime CD4+ T-cell counts ranged from
262 to 510 cells/mm3 (mean, 350); at study entry, the patients
had CD4+ T-cell counts that ranged from 428 to 1331 (mean, 940).”
http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/nnia-fpn071000.html

The differences between AIDS and ICL have been made clear several times
in the literature, and to say otherwise is either due to ignorance of
the facts or a desire to spread misinformation.

Even if this were true, it would not change the fact that normal ICL
is diagnosed as AIDS related complex and severe ICL even as AIDS in
the presence of HIV antibodies.

AIDS is far more than simply having disease X in the presence of anti-HIV
antibodies. That definition may exist for surveillance, but you must
acknowledge the vast amount of knowledge linking such a diagnostic basis
with the immunological deficit seen in AIDS.

The only reason that “AIDS is far more than simply having disease X
in the presence of anti-HIV antibodies” is a quasi-theological belief
system leading to the vicious AIDS circle.