So, basically, you're not saying that it's not transmitted the way now understand it to be transmitted. Your simply saying the HIV virus is not necessarily the cause of it?? And that the origins of it are incorrect also. Have I got this right?
On the contrary, my understanding is that "it" is not a viral disease at all, or sexually transmitted. Immuno-suppression is caused by many things, for example drug abuse and acute malnutrition (e.g. in Africa). I remember reading (although I'm not quoting Duesberg here who is one of the primary individuals attacking the HIV theory) that the level of sexual promiscuity in the gay community in the 70's and 80's (plus peculiar aspects of the homosexual act itself which I'd rather not get into) made that era a hotbed (pardon the pun) of various diseases among gays, so in a sense, "AIDS" may be sex-related.
However, immuno-suppression itself has not been shown to be caused by a sexually transmissable virus. Interestingly, according to unrelated research by Dr. Lorraine Day (i.e. she's not associated with any movement attacking the HIV theory) the HIV virus is not unusually fragile at all - for example, it can survive sitting on a countertop unprotected for over two hours. So if HIV were the cause of immuno-suppression, you wouldn't be immune from it by wearing a condom.
As far as AZT, I assume the reason they were prescribing it is that it was thought that HIV positive people would become immuno-suppressed anyway, so AZT, which most definitely causes immuno-suppression was not seen as causing additional harm. Or, if you are of a conspiratorial mindset, you might assume it was intentionally created epidemic, in which the "cure" was intended to kill people to control population, or some such. (That last statement is strictly my own and pure conjecture.)