> Lynton wrote:
> > I know little or nothing about HIV, but the information in Lucia's post does
> > not seem to rule out a possibility that what is being called a virus (HIV)
> > could be "x": a new type of infectious agent (if you call bacteria and virii
> > (?) agents).  And it _could_ be that "x" could cause AIDS in people whose
> > immune systems are compromised, or that can't deal with the infection due to
> > heredity.

It is my understanding, from what I have read, that what is called AIDS
does not "occur" in people with compromised immune systems, so much as it
is a name that has been given to a a collection of conditions and
symptoms, such as hepititus to name but one, that people with compromised
immune systems are vulnerable to.

The burden of proof is on those who want to suggest the existense of "x"
to explain "y" in order to justify public policy and research funding. To
present speculations as evidence about these things is just politics, not
science or medicine, and is very unethical, even criminal in some cases,
in my opinion.

Lucia