Let me get this straight...

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Are you speaking of ICL?  Because it presents differently than AIDS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiopathic...ocytopenia).  Low T-cell counts != AIDS in and of itself.

But, again, testing positive for something does not mean you have it.  False positives are a thing.  That's why your doctors ordered more tests.  Severe diagnoses, like AIDS, like cancer require further tests to verify.  One test is never usually enough, considering that actual verification usually means expensive and often painful treatments for the patient down the line.  So, doctors are going to make damn sure they get it right before subjecting their patients to that kind of thing.  And false positives were most certainly more common regarding AIDS back in 1990 than they are today.  1990 was the infancy of AIDS detection and treatment.

Basically, it's what I said.  Instead of understanding science (and, you know, the reality it describes), you have the hubris to think that god saved you because you thought really hard about it rather than there most likely being an error (either in detection, or the doctors knowing what they were talking about) and that error being corrected.

Too funny.

No I'm talking about non hiv AIDS. 

Again AIDS DESCRIBES A AUTO IMMUNE DEFFENCY of which HIV is a primary cause but can have other causes.

http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/content/37...1.full.pdf

All that is needed for an AIDS diagnosis is a super low white cell count. Once the low white cell count has been confirmed then the look to seek out why. First step? HIV TEST. But again HIV is not the only trigger of AIDS

Yeah, that's an article from 1996. I can find no references to the term "non-HIV AIDS" later than 1997, and that article you cite is actually saying that the term "non-HIV AIDS" was a misnomer for simple immune deficiency that cropped up when people suspected that you could get AIDS from sources other than the virus itself (it's called the "AIDS myth" crowd, which was popular in the mid-90s, people who claimed that HIV didn't cause AIDS and it was in fact other elements common in gay communities that was causing it, like the use of certain drugs), a position which today is met with scorn and derision, and is clung to only by the tinfoil-hat crowd, so to speak. 

Did you actually read the article? It's about a conference in which experts met to discuss the possibility that AIDS was caused by something other than HIV, and they found it was not. They coined the term "CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia" to describe what you've been telling us about, here, since the old concept of Non-HIV AIDS was determined to be bunkum. See page 2 of the pdf you cited to, labeled Page 172.

All the references to "non-HIV AIDS" in that article are in reference to the common term used by journalists and some questioning researchers, prior to that conference. That's why you see no references to the term after 1997, when the literature stopped discussing that term, having found it to be bunk.