"...HIV-based definition of AIDS (see § 3) can not be used in Africa to distinguish AIDS-defining from otherwise indistinguishable diseases, because as of 1985 the WHO decided at a conference in Bangui, Africa, to accept African AIDS diagnoses without HIV-tests (see § 3)."
If this is true, then why can't the reverse be true to offset the few cases that may be misdiagnosed? How many people who die of AIDS are said to have died of demon possession?
I diagnosed a man at San Francisco airport as having AIDS, and I am not even a doctor. He was about 75 pounds, in a wheelchair, on oxygen and had purple legions all over his arms and face. What else causes purple legions in conjunction with "wasting away" and respiratory symptoms?
I have a nurse friend (with little AIDS experience) who was called by her ex husband to help him because he was sick. She walked in, looked at him and said "You have AIDS." He did. If she can diagnose AIDS correctly, so can an African doctor in an area with a 25% infection rate.
No, even if someone can correctly guess right once in a while, or even fairly often in places where AIDS is common, like San Francisco, you can't possibly make a conclusive diagnosis of AIDS by clinical examination.
That's the whole point of the crituque. Exactly, precisely, the same symptoms can be present in two patients,, indistinguishable from one another except that one is HIV positive and the other is not. The first has AIDS, the other does not. The one that is not HIV positive will be diagnosed with the actual disease present only.
You could avoid posting silly questions like this if you would actually read the reference material at the link.