>Since "HIV" has not been isolated, the term "infected person"
>used in that context seems premature.
This is incorrect, The many members of the HIV virus family have been isolated.
>If AIDS in Africa is the same condition with the same cause
>as anywhere else in the world then AIDS in Africa and
>AIDS in the West should be identical. This is not the case
>and what is called AIDS in Africa is almost unrecognizably
>different from AIDS in the West, so much so that if African
>patients suddenly switched continents, very few
>Africans would remain AIDS cases. This is due to the
>existence of multiple AIDS definitions, one for Africa
>(the same for adults and children), one for adults in North
>America, Europe and Australia, one for children in these
>countries and one for Latin America.
HIV isn't "a virus", it is a family with more than 150 members at last count, they are very similiar geneticaly yet different enough to produce vastly different effects in human hosts. The ones that are closely related are grouped into clades. "B" clade infections are very different from "D" clade infections. Think in terms of the different effects various types of colds (another retrovirus) have.
See Laurie Garret's book "The Coming Plague" for real info.
Member, Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
Life Extension Foundation, www.lef.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888 Mars Society, www.marssociety.org
Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W