|
|
AIDS/HIVAids Dissidents
» Khadijah11 - Some believe that HIV does not cause AIDS I find fascinating the information that provides documented research to support that HIV and AIDS related illness is not connected. I encourage people to read and research to critically think about this hot button topic.Check out the following links: -- posted by Khadijah11 » Bee888 - Some believe that HIV does not cause AIDS In response to Some believe that HIV does not cause AIDS posted by Khadijah11:
-- posted by Bee888 » Freda189 - Some believe that HIV does not cause AIDS In response to Some believe that HIV does not cause AIDS posted by Bee888:There is no information on those links that is up to date. Do you have anything else? -- posted by Freda189 » Bee888 - Some believe that HIV does not cause AIDS In response to Some believe that HIV does not cause AIDS posted by Freda189:
-- posted by Bee888 » redback - Some believe that HIV does not cause AIDS In response to Some believe that HIV does not cause AIDS posted by Freda189:
But some of the clue is what the acronyms HIV and AIDS stands for. Here's something claiming to be a fact sheet from the NIH itself claiming to be a leading health authority of the USA: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evid... The other links cited above are never updated and are subjective. -- posted by redback » Bee888 - Some believe that HIV does not cause AIDS In response to Some believe that HIV does not cause AIDS posted by redback:
HIV refers to the virus itself whereas AIDS refers to the syndrome caused by the virus. Not everyone with HIV has AIDS, but everyone with AIDS has HIV. -- posted by Bee888 » redback - Not all birds are sparrows In response to Some believe that HIV does not cause AIDS posted by Bee888:
It wasn't intended to be the main point. I understood people were thinking the 2 problems were totally unrelated when they both relate to attacks on one's (now compromised) immune system. I was involved in this back in the early 80s when it first reared its ugly head in the public health arena in Australia. They tried to label it by categories A, B and C until they realised the progression of the illness wasn't always going to be that simple. (I'm not particularly sure someone who moves from being (asymptomatic) HIV to AIDS also retains the HIV diagnosis in any meaningful way) Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome is a cluster of problems. Each problem as I understand it, is not necessarily unique to AIDS. They used to call them opportunistic diseases. For example, a person who is HIV-positive and develops cervical cancer, is probably going to be diagnosed with AIDS. BUT not all women with cervical cancer have HIV. Stigma is a terrible thing and the total AIDS-related ignorance of the 1980s was sad to see. But I'm coming from a place where stigmatising the sufferer never entered my head. It's actually against the law here to treat someone differently on a belief they have AIDS - whether or not that belief is true. -- posted by redback » Bee888 - Not all birds are sparrows In response to Not all birds are sparrows posted by redback:
-- posted by Bee888 » redback - Not all birds are sparrows In response to Not all birds are sparrows posted by Bee888:
I didn't see the same point in the extract I read and cited above. Denying the link denies optimum treatment, doesn't it? But trying to impose a treatment against cultural differences...and when we pay lip service to the sovereign rights of countries...requires 'courageous decisions' to get results at any faster pace. But there is crisis on crisis in that country so who knows what I'd call its major problem. If there is corruption so the money is misdirected and food not distributed, it seems a sanitised version to say its poverty induced disease. The child in front of us has AIDS and needs treatment well before poverty is solved. -- posted by redback » Alicia Mae Prater - the definition of AIDS In response to Not all birds are sparrows posted by redback:
So AIDS is advanced HIV infection...period There used to be a definition, that is still sometimes applied, that anyone with AIDS defining conditions and a white cell count below 500 clinically was diagnosed with AIDS...AIDS defining conditions being certain fungal or pneumonia infections and kaposi sarcoma. This definition, from what I know, was implemented before HIV had been fully elaborated upon.
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|