Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV

[buginme2]

I read a great article the other day (of course I cannot find it now) where the author was proposing doing away with the verbiage "AIDS" as it no longer has any relevancy and is an out of date term.  He proposed replacing it with "advanced HIV disease." 

AIDS was a term that was thought up before the identification of HIV to describe what people were experiencing, as having a cd4 less than 200 or with an OI.  However, once HIV was discovered, it did not replace AIDS.  Now, when a person is able to recover by taking HAART are they still considered as having AIDS once their CD4 goes above 200 and they recover from an OI? 

I feel like the term is one from the past and still carries with it a lot of negative connotations. 

[Hellraiser]

We all have pretty much said the same thing here.  It's an archaic term with little relevance imo.

[Miss Philicia]

Yes! This proposal will surely make the boys on manhunt all the more accepting of you. Fab idea.

[woodshere]

I think it's easier to say "I have the AIDS" instead of "I have advanced HIV disease."

In the long run does it really matter?

[drewm]

My ID doc feels the same way FYI.

[thunter34]

I've got full blown AIDS and I'm not afraid of having to say so.

[Miss Philicia]

I've got full blown AIDS and I'm not afraid of having to say so.

Again? How many times have you allowed it to blossom like that?  And don't start blaming the Baby Jesus cuz I'm not buying that one.

[drewm]

Now, when a person is able to recover by taking HAART are they still considered as having AIDS once their CD4 goes above 200 and they recover from an OI?

The short answer is yes. I still have AIDS. My numbers, now, represent what would be considered HIV and are in a category that I would not have started meds yet, however, once you are dxd with AIDS and while meds can turn the clock back in terms of the numbers, the dx remains. My ID doc says that we are in newly charted territory when it comes to HAART. My case worker expresses concern that changing someone's dx could affect the ability to get meds/treatment in theory because decisions are based on the dx.

[Miss Philicia]

I feel like banging my head on a wall.

[WillyWump]

This thread is infecting me with Full Blown boredom

[thunter34]

This thread is infecting me with Full Blown boredom

I think you mean Advanced Ennui Disease.

[drewm]

[skeebo1969]

   This thread needs some good music to spice things up:

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3FSRW2qFjM

[tednlou2]

The name of this website is called AIDSMEDS.  Should it be called Advanced HIV MEDS? I know the word AIDS does have psychological and stigmatizing implications.  But, I guess it is what it is.   

I've noticed many docs will take issue with the term "Full Blown AIDS", saying you either have AIDS or you don't--not halfway or slightly blown AIDS.  Although, there is a difference between a CD4 of 200 and 0.     

[drewm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEszTzdUMcY

[leatherman]

My case worker expresses concern that changing someone's dx could affect the ability to get meds/treatment in theory because decisions are based on the dx.

having that dx of teh aids for almost 20 yrs has allowed me to have access to health care for almost 20 years which has kept teh aids from killing me during almost 20 yrs. ()

but that's just me though. looking back at my numbers I see that I probably semi-officially had teh aids for about 16 yrs until I reached my first UD and had CD4s over 200. Going that long with the AIDS moniker attached to me, it lost it's power to disturb me. Now it's just a word to describe how sick I once was and to guarantee my meds and health care benefits.

then again, I also like the term "full blown AIDS". It seems a pretty good descriptor of the difference between when you're at home with 150 tcells and 300,000 viral load, feeling sick from teh aids; and when you're in the hospital with 5 tcells, 1,000,000 viral load, on O2, with 3 or 4 IVs of antibiotics stuck in you, puking your guts out, barely able to breathe and doctors are saying your family should get there soon cause you're probably dying of The AIDS. Trust me, when you have "full blown AIDS" you know it. 

[drewm]

having that dx of teh aids for almost 20 yrs has allowed me to have access to health care for almost 20 years which has kept teh aids from killing me during almost 20 yrs. ()

but that's just me though. looking back at my numbers I see that I probably semi-officially had teh aids for about 16 yrs until I reached my first UD and had CD4s over 200. Going that long with the AIDS moniker attached to me, it lost it's power to disturb me. Now it's just a word to describe how sick I once was and to guarantee my meds and health care benefits.

then again, I also like the term "full blown AIDS". It seems a pretty good descriptor of the difference between when you're at home with 150 tcells and 300,000 viral load, feeling sick from teh aids; and when you're in the hospital with 5 tcells, 1,000,000 viral load, on O2, with 3 or 4 IVs of antibiotics stuck in you, puking your guts out, barely able to breathe and doctors are saying your family should get there soon cause you're probably dying of The AIDS. Trust me, when you have "full blown AIDS" you know it. 

Good post leatherman.

[aztecan]

If you want to change the terminology, you will first have to tell the government.

The definintion of AIDS was developed to not only describe a person's medical status to doctors, etc., but to let the government have a barometer to measure when people are eligible for certain services such as disability and Medicare.

Think of AIDS like virginity. Once you've popped that cherry, it ain't growing back.

Once AIDS, always AIDS, if for no other reason than, without care, we will all go there.

HUGS,

Mark
 

[hope_for_a_cure]

Great!  I think I will just call it 'a little condition I have' when I chat with guys on A4A.  The acronym ALCIH will do it!  Hell, most of em just want me to unlock my x-rated pics anyhow.  Once I tell em I've got AIDS they run like cheetahs and click on the BLOCK USER function. 

[hattershateme225]

Dang that is mean@Hope_For_a_Cure They should not do that don't they realize u reap wat you sow I just tell a person I am HIV positive if they don't like then oh well they missing out on a true woman...lol

[mecch]

Newbies have a need to thresh this out.

Every disease has its own history, baggage. Myths about it, reactions, identities applied, treatment, etc etc - these can go on long past their validity. 

Or, sometimes something seemingly outdated is in fact still useful.  An "AIDS" diagnosis is VERY useful for some hiv+ people - actually makes life better or easier.  Newbies may not realise this.

to the OP:  if you can wave a magic wand and replace the "AIDS" diagnosis for a different term, but maintain the benefits of an AIDS diagnosis, OK, by me.

[Dachshund]

When did they change it from da gay flu?

[Jeff G]

Once a Cootie Queen , always a Cootie Queen .

[TakingAChance]

Yes! This proposal will surely make the boys on manhunt all the more accepting of you. Fab idea.

I sure do love that sarcastic reply...Amen

[Theyer]

1-Positively riddled with HIV does not scan as well as Positively riddled with AIDS, so I would like to stick to AIDS please.
mhtv

[TakingAChance]

Great!  I think I will just call it 'a little condition I have' when I chat with guys on A4A.  The acronym ALCIH will do it!  Hell, most of em just want me to unlock my x-rated pics anyhow.  Once I tell em I've got AIDS they run like cheetahs and click on the BLOCK USER function. 

You can't take A4A seriously. Getting blocked for having HIV? The whole site should be Blocked for spreading it. yeah I know people spread it, not web sites. Most of the people on it don't even get Tested on a regular basis. The Ignorant and Uneducated will always prevail on those sites. Anyone using Sex sites should be tested every 3 months, Condoms or no Condom use. Anyone with a profile on A4A or Manhunt is a sexually active man and therefore should test for STD's and HIV every 3 months.

[TakingAChance]

having that dx of teh aids for almost 20 yrs has allowed me to have access to health care for almost 20 years which has kept teh aids from killing me during almost 20 yrs. ()

but that's just me though. looking back at my numbers I see that I probably semi-officially had teh aids for about 16 yrs until I reached my first UD and had CD4s over 200. Going that long with the AIDS moniker attached to me, it lost it's power to disturb me. Now it's just a word to describe how sick I once was and to guarantee my meds and health care benefits.

then again, I also like the term "full blown AIDS". It seems a pretty good descriptor of the difference between when you're at home with 150 tcells and 300,000 viral load, feeling sick from teh aids; and when you're in the hospital with 5 tcells, 1,000,000 viral load, on O2, with 3 or 4 IVs of antibiotics stuck in you, puking your guts out, barely able to breathe and doctors are saying your family should get there soon cause you're probably dying of The AIDS. Trust me, when you have "full blown AIDS" you know it. 

I agree with you man. That said it all. Great answer.,

[hope_for_a_cure]

You can't take A4A seriously. Getting blocked for having HIV? The whole site should be Blocked for spreading it. yeah I know people spread it, not web sites. Most of the people on it don't even get Tested on a regular basis. The Ignorant and Uneducated will always prevail on those sites. Anyone using Sex sites should be tested every 3 months, Condoms or no Condom use. Anyone with a profile on A4A or Manhunt is a sexually active man and therefore should test for STD's and HIV every 3 months.

I interjected humor into that post (you will find that I do that from time to time).  All kidding aside, I do have an account there and it happened once by a guy who lived in Bumfuck Egypt (figure of speech) so really did not matter.  

[TakingAChance]

I interjected humor into that post (you will find that I do that from time to time).  All kidding aside, I do have an account there and it happened once by a guy who lived in Bumfuck Egypt (figure of speech) so really did not matter.  

I got it..I was laughing really. I hear you too. I have used that site. I hate it. I think Humor is the Best medicine Man.

[woodshere]

You can't take A4A seriously. Getting blocked for having HIV? The whole site should be Blocked for spreading it. yeah I know people spread it, not web sites. Most of the people on it don't even get Tested on a regular basis. The Ignorant and Uneducated will always prevail on those sites. Anyone using Sex sites should be tested every 3 months, Condoms or no Condom use. Anyone with a profile on A4A or Manhunt is a sexually active man and therefore should test for STD's and HIV every 3 months.

Not necessarily, I go just to make friends....LOL.

Seriously, doesn't matter if its A4A, Manhunt, bars, parks, adult bookstores, rest stops, if you are sexually active you should be tested.  Regardless, when the time comes to take that dick up your ass you are responsible for your own actions, unless it's with the HIV-  top guy who barebacks and wants to fuck a clean btm, you can take his word!!

[hope_for_a_cure]

guy who barebacks and wants to fuck a clean btm, you can take his word!!

My bottom is still clean.  LOL I scrub with this amazing organic lemon grass and lavender scented exfoliation bar every day! 

[denb45]

My bottom is still clean.  LOL I scrub with this amazing organic lemon grass and lavender scented exfoliation bar every day!  

Does that mean your ass is ripe for eating & fucking    I LOVE a clean ass 

[Buckmark]

I feel like the term is one from the past and still carries with it a lot of negative connotations. 

The term "AIDS" does carry a lot of negative connotations.  So does the term "HIV", arguably less so than AIDS, but not very much less, IMHO.  I don't care if I'm identified as the guy with HIV, or the guy with teh AIDS.  A different word isn't going to make me feel any differently about it.  Disclaimer:  I technically have never reached an AIDS diagnosis because my T-cells only went as low as 225 in the 22+ years I have had this virus.

Here's how I see it:  HIV is a virus.  AIDS is a medical condition, caused by HIV, and having a (fairly) well-defined set symptoms and manifestations used to make the diagnosis.  I don't see the point of swapping out the term "AIDS" for another.

Regards,

Henry

[denb45]

 Henry, you bring up a good point my take, I don't see this disease as being much of anything, I've had it for so long, and I have so many age-related/AVR prolonged health problems, I keep trying to treat them more then the AIDS, AIDS will always be AIDS to me no matter what spin others might want to put on it just my 2 cents  

[Miss Philicia]

Great!  I think I will just call it 'a little condition I have' when I chat with guys on A4A. 

I actually did this for years when out in public with friends.  I'd just say "my condition" and those that knew about "my condition" knew what I was talking about and those that didn't were left out to dry.

[hope_for_a_cure]

Does that mean your ass is ripe for eating & fucking    I LOVE a clean ass  

If you like lemon grass and lavender then I guess it does... OH by the way, I'm clean and UB2 !!

I actually did this for years when out in public with friends.  I'd just say "my condition" and those that knew about "my condition" knew what I was talking about and those that didn't were left out to dry.

In my neg days I always thought I would be devastated if I developed 'the condition' but have surprised myself (even when gasping for air while hooked up to oxygen) by dealing with it better than expected.  

[denb45]

If you like lemon grass and lavender then I guess it does... OH by the way, I'm clean and UB2 !!

Don't worry, if you ass aint clean shaven, I'm not interested dear, I'm not into the ass hairs  

[hope_for_a_cure]

I'm not into the ass hairs  

Ya dont go for the natural dental floss eh?  LOL  I dont either dude!  That was a nice chuckle here at 4:20.

[denb45]

Ya dont go for the natural dental floss eh?  LOL  I dont either dude!  That was a nice chuckle here at 4:20.

I thought you like it 

[Bucko]

I find the phrase AIDS carries a really nice weight to it. When I finally disclosed to my father and his wife a few years back, I went for full impact: it worked.

[CaptCarl]

   Meh... Call me underwhelmed by the whole idea. People won't be fooled by something as simple as a name change, and they'll still discriminate against you if they feel so inclined, whether it's AIDS or Advanced HIV Disease. The baggage will remain. No matter how much you polish that turd, in the end it's still a turd, and everyone knows it.

   Our society tends to do this very thing on a regular basis, and it never works. Look at the history. How many times have various ethnic groups and cultures have changed their preferred names for themselves, in an effort to improve their public perceptions, only to have nothing change?

   From Negro, to Black to African-American, to Persons of Color, racists will still hate you for the color of your skin. Same goes for being Chicano, Latino, Mexican, Hispanic, or Mexican American, people in places like Arizona will still want to deport you to wherever it is they percieve you to have come from. We used to be the Gay Community, then the Gay and Lesbian community, from there we progressed through Gay, Lesbian, and Bi-Sexual, eventually adding Transgendered, then Queer, then Questioning, then Intersexed, then something else that starts with an "I", that I forget. But guess what? Fred Phelps still wants me dead, reagrdless of what we may refer to ourselves as.

   I think more would get accomplished in the world if we stopped wasting energy on things that, in the long run, won't change anything, and spent it instead, on things that actually can make a tangible difference.

   Nor will changing the name of the disease change the way having it makes you feel.

CaptCarl

[Hellraiser]

I think you're getting confused.  Basically what AIDS used to mean has no real relevance anymore.  There is no one way street to immune-compromised status from which there is no return.  So instead of having HIV and then the more specific subclass of AIDS, we all just have HIV.  If you think anyone is tossing and turning at night about having one over the other then you missed the point entirely.  I have AIDS by the medical definition, but it doesn't impact my life any more than being HIV+ does.  Once I get over 200 CD4 (assuming I do) nothing magically changes, it's just cleaning up the nomenclature.

[mecch]

There is a difference between having been diagnosed with AIDS and being HIV+.
Let's not kid ourselves.  
Is anyone in denial about this?
I don't have AIDS but I can take a stab at explaining to people who don't see the point:

The disadvantages of the diagnosis are of course that someone had opportunistic infections related to immune destruction, and also that ones immunity was desroyed.  Duh.

The advantages of having been diagnosed as such are social and personal.
Obvious example, is that the way things are set up in the US for the safety net - an AIDS diagnosis historically and still now means something.

Also the obvious personal meaning is that if someone has an AIDS diagnosis and is still around, this is a survivor and this demands some respect all around and is also a indication to others that this person experienced the above health traumas - so take can be taken into consideration, for whatever.  

So I think we coudl swap out the terms, if you want, but its miserly to a lot of people, living mostly but also the dead, to get rid of the identity.  

Also I think HIV+ people who are new to this or who had relatively manageable experiences so far - I think some of these might be uncomfortable with all the baggage of the AIDS so would perfer it to just go away.  

Rather, the challenge is exactly on HIV+ people who have had an "easy go" --- to inform the public of ALL the different possibilities of living with HIV.  Its not by lobbing off the "AIDS" cases that society is going to come to grips with everything it fears and judges and misunderstands about HIV. 

So rather than pointing the finger at people with AIDS as some sort of problem we should just blab to others about some of the more mundane and manageable aspects of being HIV+ and really, eventually this will move public opinion quite a bit.   It'll always be an STD though, for the most part!  Can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

[GSOgymrat]

So I think we coudl swap out the terms, if you want, but its miserly to a lot of people, living mostly but also the dead, to get rid of the identity.

AIDS isn't an identity, it is a diagnosis. If the medical community decides the term is inaccurate or not useful they can phase it out.

"AIDS" is like "bipolar disorder". They are both a collection of symptoms that have been developed into a criteria agreed upon by medical professionals so that these professionals may communicate more effectively with each other. Bipolar disorder used to be called "manic depression" but was changed to make the diagnosis more accurate by breaking it down into multiple types, e.g. "bipolar I disorder, single episode, moderate". True, public perception is considered when assigning these labels. For example the IQ test was followed by a classification system that used such terms as moron (IQ of 51–70), imbecile (26–50), and idiot (0–25); later these terms were softened and classifications redefined somewhat to mild (IQ of 55–70), moderate (40–54), severe (25–39), and profound (0–24) retardation.Let's keep in mind the real purpose of diagnosis is to help professionals communicate.

[emeraldize]

AIDS isn't an identity, it is a diagnosis. If the medical community decides the term is inaccurate or not useful they can phase it out.

"AIDS" is like "bipolar disorder". They are both a collection of symptoms that have been developed into a criteria agreed upon by medical professionals so that these professionals may communicate more effectively with each other. Bipolar disorder used to be called "manic depression" but was changed to make the diagnosis more accurate by breaking it down into multiple types, e.g. "bipolar I disorder, single episode, moderate". True, public perception is considered when assigning these labels. For example the IQ test was followed by a classification system that used such terms as moron (IQ of 51–70), imbecile (26–50), and idiot (0–25); later these terms were softened and classifications redefined somewhat to mild (IQ of 55–70), moderate (40–54), severe (25–39), and profound (0–24) retardation.Let's keep in kind the real purpose of diagnosis is to help professionals communicate.

Agreed. The importance of the terminology becomes clear when educating at the community level and also to straighten out misuse of the terms (acronyms) and most important misunderstandings.  The language is here to stay -- however, there will always be opportunities to dissolve misinfomation, bias or stigma resulting from or related to its use. That's where I suggest spending any energy.

[Basquo]

I think you're getting confused.  Basically what AIDS used to mean has no real relevance anymore.  There is no one way street to immune-compromised status from which there is no return. 

Really? Tell that to my friend who barely has double-digits t-cells and now has to be on SIX meds and hasn't seen any improvement in YEARS despite compliance. Then ask him WTF his problem is and why he still doesn't follow your two-way street analogy. Then ask me if I worry every day that that he's just going to collapse one day...

...sorry to be so blunt but there ARE still people out there who die from AIDS. And it's not always a compliance, access, or denialist issue.

[denb45]

Really? Tell that to my friend who barely has double-digits t-cells and now has to be on SIX meds and hasn't seen any improvement in YEARS despite compliance. Then ask him WTF his problem is and why he still doesn't follow your two-way street analogy. Then ask me if I worry every day that that he's just going to collapse one day...

...sorry to be so blunt but there ARE still people out there who die from AIDS. And it's not always a compliance, access, or denialist issue.

Thanks Basquo 

Hey Trey, have you EVER seen anyone DIE of AIDS? I as well as many others on this forum has, dear, it's not pretty, YES people still die of AIDS, be careful making such a rash statement  

[Dachshund]

Really? Tell that to my friend who barely has double-digits t-cells and now has to be on SIX meds and hasn't seen any improvement in YEARS despite compliance. Then ask him WTF his problem is and why he still doesn't follow your two-way street analogy. Then ask me if I worry every day that that he's just going to collapse one day...

...sorry to be so blunt but there ARE still people out there who die from AIDS. And it's not always a compliance, access, or denialist issue.

While he's at it Hellraiser might want to read about Christine and Katie in In Memoriam.

[Assurbanipal]

I think you're getting confused.  Basically what AIDS used to mean has no real relevance anymore.  There is no one way street to immune-compromised status from which there is no return.  So instead of having HIV and then the more specific subclass of AIDS, we all just have HIV.  If you think anyone is tossing and turning at night about having one over the other then you missed the point entirely.  I have AIDS by the medical definition, but it doesn't impact my life any more than being HIV+ does.  Once I get over 200 CD4 (assuming I do) nothing magically changes, it's just cleaning up the nomenclature.

There's two issues here:

1) Others have called you on the assumption that everyone has good results from the medications.  

2) Even for those who have good results from the medicines, AIDS continues to affect their lives, and it will continue to affect yours:
 - you (and I) are susceptible to faster disease progression if our drugs are interrupted
 - we are more likely to have any number of side effects and bad results
 - CD4 nadir predicts increased likelihood of a vairiety of potential bad results

It's great to be sunny, to be optimistic, to not let AIDS get in your way. AIDS does not control you.  That's important.

But AIDS is a serious condition, and the fact that you have controlled it with drugs for now doesn't mean it has gone away and does not impact you..

[Jeff G]

I wish someone would explain to me why the new generation of people with HIV/Aids so desperately want to rewrite or redefine the history of Aids  . I'm not trying to be snarky , I'm seriously curious to know the answer .

[denb45]

I wish someone would explain to me why the new generation of people with HIV/Aids so desperately want to rewrite or redefine the history of Aids  . I'm not trying to be snarky , I'm seriously curious to know the answer .

Jeff your not being anything, it's true, I cannot understand this, and sometimes, I don't even want to post in anything other than in the LTS forums, at least I know in that thread, I'm not gonna be disrespected, shit on
and told, I don't know what I'm speaking about, but, I still try tho to get thur to someone who wants to learn & listen, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" with each new generation
this will always happen, that is just the way it is   "Those who don't learn form the past are doomed to repeat it" STOP marginalizing what has come before you, there is still a lot to LEARN from it, and the people who actually lived it  

[komnaes]

Basically what AIDS used to mean has no real relevance anymore. 

Wow.. just, Wow..

[Tim Horn]

This thread is upsetting for a number of reasons. Until AIDS is truly a matter of history, discourse regarding whether to remove it from our vernacular is pointless and, dare I say it, offensive.

Fact is, AIDS is still very much with us -- 1.8 million people around the world died of AIDS-related complications in 2009 alone. And it's still very much with us in the United States, where approximately 20 percent of people don't learn that there even infected with the virus until they've been diagnosed with TB, MAC or some other opportunistic illness in an emergency department.... not to mention a growing number of people who have truly gone through today's first-, second-, and salvage-tier options and are once again starting to see their CD4s drop out of the black and back into the red.

Many individuals in these Forums are fortunate in that they have their health, have never known truly life-threatening illness and may very well have decades ahead of them, given the longevity of today's antiretroviral options. But make no mistake, the risk of AIDS -- especially for those of us who have been there, no matter what our CD4s are now, or are running low on treatment options -- is very real indeed.

Until all of us in these Forums and beyond this virtual community are truly without risk of being sickened, crippled, disabled, or killed by an AIDS, it is a term that is here to stay.  And rightfully so.

[RAB]

Thank you Tim for expressing it so well.  Spot on!

RAB

[cwbyway102]

I agree with Tim.I'm Living proof.I had no Idea I had HIV until Feb 24,2010 when I was laying In the hospital On a respirator with an O2 reading of 69% and a resting heart-rate of 150.
   Ive been faithfully married for over 7 years(my wife is neg)I figure I was infected Sometime in 1999.All these
years I had HIV and had no clue.I lived with PcP for almost 6 months before my doctors thought to test me for HIV.(They kept telling me I had Reoccurring bronchitis.)I was about as close to death as you can get from this disease.
 Thankfully with a few pills a day I feel like i'm back to normal,and getting better every day.But there are plenty of people like me who don't get tested and won't find out til they are on their deathbed.
 So yes Aids is still around.

[skeebo1969]

Thank you Tim for expressing it so well.  Spot on!

RAB

I agree

[Joe K]

I wish someone would explain to me why the new generation of people with HIV/Aids so desperately want to rewrite or redefine the history of Aids  . I'm not trying to be snarky , I'm seriously curious to know the answer .

I will venture a guess. I don't think the issue is the term "AIDS", as much as it is the connotation that the term implies. For those of us infected in the early days of HIV, the word AIDS=DEATH. We all know it, we watched it happen and we thank the powers that be that we survived. Now, move ahead 25 years and given the advances in treating HIV, AIDS is no longer the most probable outcome of being infected, however the meaning of the word AIDS would indicate otherwise. In many ways, the face of HIV today can be very different for people who have access to treatment and I can understand how their may be a disconnect for the newly infected, when they are diagnosed with AIDS.

I can see how if you are initially diagnosed as having AIDS, which still implies you are going to die, but are then told that HIV is simply a chronic manageable disease. To me, that represents a very real confusing message, especially for someone newly infected. I think aversion to the term AIDS, could be simply that someone newly infected, is unable to simultaneously understand the ideas of being poz, with AIDS, on effective treatment that will sustain them, while being labeled as having a disease that history tells us, almost always kills.

I see no benefit in arguing whether AIDS is a valid term, because it is and the only way we can change its meaning, is to find a way to stop it from killing people. If someone finds the word offensive, I would ask that you comment on your own feelings and not make blanket statements that are offensive to many of the posters here. If you wonder why some of us LTS remain so distant at times, you need to consider that words do indeed have power... sometimes they heal, but often they wound. Never ever, seek to discount what having AIDS means to another person and I do mean never.

[Jeff G]

Thanks Joe , well said .

[woodshere]

HIV sounds so much cleaner than AIDS, I guess.

When I have been a guest speaker to some college classes or talk about my volunteering with AIDS LifeCycle with friends  I always say them both.  Since I have had AIDS diagnosis from the start, they are one and the same for me.

[BT65]

I just went to do an intake at one of the hospitals here (I work at an ASO).  I had to talk to the gentleman's parents, as he is incapacitated.  He has dementia, esophageal thrush, wasting, and various other things.  He just got tested for HIV on this hospital admission.  His parents had no idea, and have been trying to navigate all the paperwork (luckily they are the guy's POA's).  He has an AIDS diagnosis, which allowed his Medicaid to be expedited, and is allowing him to get his HIV meds.  The infectious disease doctor treating him did not want to start HIV meds until she knew he was going to have some type of medical coverage, so he can continue them upon his discharge.  So, having an AIDS diagnosis does serve its purpose, especially in situations as these. 

[wolfter]

I have the condition previously called AIDS?   I'm like Prince.  (or princess)

[thunter34]

I have the condition previously called AIDS?   I'm like Prince.  (or princess)

We can all just go by the biohazard symbol.  Leave it to people to guess how AIDSy we are.

[Miss Philicia]

So, having an AIDS diagnosis does serve its purpose, especially in situations as these. 

And we all know there are more situations exactly like that for a diagnosis than we care to realize.

[CaptCarl]

I have the condition previously called AIDS?   I'm like Prince.  (or princess)

  Good one Wolfie!!!

CaptCarl

[aztecan]

Hey Betty,

I hear you. I have had to do very similar visits four times this month.

Either these people never got tested, for whatever reason, or they knew they were positive but were afraid of the meds, or were on meds, but stopped for some reason or another.

Whatever, it all comes to the same end. Right now, I know people who have toxoplasmosis, PML, KS, thrush, and other maladies.

I am also seeing a lot more cases of TB of various types (hence my needing to be checked annually now) and lymphomas.

As Tim said, when people stop kicking the bucket as a result of AIDS complications, then we can talk nomenclature.

HUGS,

Mark

[mecch]

I wonder if there are any studies on the relation to access to health care to getting tested regularly.

[OneTampa]

LIFE = DEATH...eventually

[buginme2]

Jeff your not being anything, it's true, I cannot understand this, and sometimes, I don't even want to post in anything other than in the LTS forums, at least I know in that thread, I'm not gonna be disrespected, shit on
and told, I don't know what I'm speaking about, but, I still try tho to get thur to someone who wants to learn & listen, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" with each new generation
this will always happen, that is just the way it is   "Those who don't learn form the past are doomed to repeat it" STOP marginalizing what has come before you, there is still a lot to LEARN from it, and the people who actually lived it  

 I did not start this thread out of disrespect (maybe out of being naive, but not out of disrespect).  Isn't that what this site is for?  To learn.  I admit that I do not know everything about HIV and AIDS.  It is not fair for those who are newly poz to disrespect LTS's but it is also not okay to assume you know what my intentions are either.  I do not think I was disrespectful in my posting.  I simply restated what I had read in an article (which I wish I could find because it was well written and explained it much better than I did) and expressed an opinion I had about it (even if I was wrong).

[leatherman]

LIFE = DEATH...eventually

yeah, but it's vastly different dying at 75 compared to AIDS killing you when you're only in your twenties like many of my friends and my first partner. Please don't try to equate normal longevity and passing away from old age with someone dying prematurely from an illness.

[leatherman]

I simply restated what I had read in an article (which I wish I could find because it was well written and explained it much better than I did) and expressed an opinion I had about it (even if I was wrong).

was this article online? perhaps you could do a search in your browser history to find it

[Hellraiser]

The debate was whether or not AIDS is still relevant as a term instead of just calling HIV by that moniker trough the entire progression of the disease.  I nor anyone else was arguing that HIV doesn't lead to AIDS, but what I may have been a little inarticulate at communicating was the fact that this disease like any other has a progression and renaming the end of the progression to something else no longer serves the purpose it once did due to modernization of treatment.  Yes people will still die of AIDS but what got them there:  HIV.  To argue the semantics of one not being the other sounds eerily familiar to another group of people who we're all for the most part not particularly fond of.  With as many words as have been put in my mouth in the last 48 hours in this thread alone I've practically had a speech written for me.

A number of people seem to disagree and that's fair enough, but please don't accuse me of belittling or undermining the history of HIV/AIDS because it is patently untrue.

[hope_for_a_cure]

I read a great article the other day (of course I cannot find it now) where the author was proposing doing away with the verbiage "AIDS" as it no longer has any relevancy and is an out of date term.  He proposed replacing it with "advanced HIV disease."

Interesting to see the various responses here, if this was online, did you see comments posted from readers there?  I know you cant find it just curious if you noted any responses.  When I googled this, the information returned was about named based reporting and links about groups removing AIDS from their name(s).  I wouldn't expect this to move forward in the medical community. 

[buginme2]

Interesting to see the various responses here, if this was online, did you see comments posted from readers there?  I know you cant find it just curious if you noted any responses.  When I googled this, the information returned was about named based reporting and links about groups removing AIDS from their name(s).  I wouldn't expect this to move forward in the medical community. 

I am in grad school and recently worked on a project regarding the failure of HIV prevention in the U.S. and the possiblity to transition to a concept of "treatment as prevention".  During my research I came across the article.  The author was discussing some failures of HIV prevention and made an argument about the term AIDS.  It wasnt relevant to my project at the time so I didnt save it.  It could have been from a journal article and those don't search on google unless you are using google scholar.  I havent been able to find it since this whole thread debacle.  At this point.  I don't think it matters much.

[hope_for_a_cure]

I havent been able to find it since this whole thread debacle.  At this point.  I don't think it matters much.

I understand.  I was just curious if you noted any feedback associated with the actual article that you referenced.  Good luck with your research and project! 

[buginme2]

I understand.  I was just curious if you noted any feedback associated with the actual article that you referenced.  Good luck with your research and project! 

Thanks, I did however find this response to a recent article regarding HIV prevention in Washington DC.  It basicially repeats what I had said earlier.

These are not my words.

" I am disturbed by the sloppy treatment of the HIV disease vocabulary and the lack of thought to the full human impact of testing 1 million people. 
Shifting between "HIV," "AIDS," and "HIV/AIDS" conflates the virus with an outdated name for advanced infection. "AIDS" was coined in 1982 to describe a host of seemingly related conditions with an unknown etiology. When HIV was confirmed soon after as the infectious agent precipitating immune system decline, "AIDS" should have been replaced by "advanced HIV disease," but the culturally ingrained stigma against "AIDS" was carried forward in intellectually lazy government, medical, and public health discourse. The continued use of "AIDS" in the era of effective anti-retroviral therapy contradicts the message to the untested and to newly-diagnosed HIVers that, even with HIV, one is more likely to die of heart disease and the other "usual suspects" than any of the conditions (e.g. PCP, PML, KS) which mark advanced HIV disease. I urge the local community, as I have encouraged the International AIDS Society, to abandon "AIDS" and its baggage and focus, instead, on the single clinical adversary HIV. Too bad if that messes up acronyms and letterheads, but it accurately reflects HIV disease in 2011.

[hope_for_a_cure]

I urge the local community, as I have encouraged the International AIDS Society, to abandon "AIDS" and its baggage and focus, instead, on the single clinical adversary HIV. Too bad if that messes up acronyms and letterheads, but it accurately reflects HIV disease in 2011.

What an arrogant asshole the author of this must be. 

[buginme2]

haha Either that or he is passionate about his cause. 

[hope_for_a_cure]

My apology, I should not actually resort to 'name calling'.  It is a rather arrogant statement (in my opinion).   

[Miss Philicia]

So this is all just about "baggage" amirite?

[buginme2]

So this is all just about "baggage" amirite?

What are you talking about

[Gio]

I read and reread the article exactly who would benefit in this change?   Speaking as a newbie does it matter what it is called?  It does not change the fact that I am pos it does not make it easier it does not make it more accepting.  It is what it is!  Thats just my 2 cents

[manc]

I hesitated to jump in, but in the UK I rarely hear reference to AIDS at all. The goverment health website states

The term AIDS was first used by doctors when the exact nature of HIV was not fully understood. However, the term is no longer widely used because it is too general to describe the many different conditions that can affect somebody with HIV. Specialists now prefer to use the terms advanced or late-stage HIV infection.

Source - http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/HIV/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Perhaps it is an attempt to move away from the days of the famous tombstone TV advert.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/films/1979to2006/filmpage_aids.htm

[buginme2]

I hesitated to jump in, but in the UK I rarely hear reference to AIDS at all. The goverment health website states

The term AIDS was first used by doctors when the exact nature of HIV was not fully understood. However, the term is no longer widely used because it is too general to describe the many different conditions that can affect somebody with HIV. Specialists now prefer to use the terms advanced or late-stage HIV infection.

Source - http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/HIV/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Perhaps it is an attempt to move away from the days of the famous tombstone TV advert.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/films/1979to2006/filmpage_aids.htm

The U.K. government must be trying to rewrite history, or maybe they are just trying to make it easier to get laid on Manhunt.

[elf]

ICD-9 uses 2 different codes:

http://www.icd9data.com/2011/Volume1/V01-V91/V01-V09/V08/V08.htm

http://www.icd9data.com/2010/Volume1/001-139/042-042/042/default.htm

I don't find the word AIDS that discriminating, but the word SIDA.

[Miss Philicia]

I feel like the term still carries with it a lot of negative connotations.  

... in what setting exactly?  Medically or socially?  Whether or not the UK socialized health bureau doesn't use the term doesn't determine what is used socially by HIV-negative people in the street or in the press.

The (probably) largest UK news aggregator for all things "advanced HIV infection" is called aidsmap.

If you're referring to a medical/clinical setting then I agree, the term is not useful.  That said I can't recall a doctor using it, and I'm on my 5th HIV specialist.  I'm sure they used it when I was initially diagnosed, but I was first labelled "advanced HIV" in the late 90's and that's all I've heard since.

Outside a clinical setting, good luck with that.  What was that you said about manhunt?  Sounds sexy!

[buginme2]

 Miss P what is your obsession with manhunt? 
The term doesn't have much relevance in a medical setting. The article I was quoting was regarding HIV prevention, and the author was arguing that it didn't have much relevance in prevention either.  As far as HIV prevention goes, AIDS does have a negative connotation.  Especially when you are trying to get people tested and into treatment.  There is an argument that it creates undo fear and resistance to people getting tested.  The argument is valid, especially since the model of HIV prevention in the United States, which has been a model of education and condom use has failed and a new model of prevention is needed.  There is a push by some to move into a treatment as prevention model and there are people who feel that they can get more people tested and into treatment by dropping the term.  You don't have to agree with it.  But dint insult me or insinuate that I use manhunt or am rewriting AIDS history or don't care about PWA's. 

[Miss Philicia]

Please.  Aren't you the one so embarrassed by his diagnosis that he won't be seen entering an ASO office?  Would changing the term to HIV Service Organization make any difference?  You're so AIDS-phobic you even think you have a buginyou.

What's this all about again?  And you're right, I don't agree with it and I'm not alone by any measure with that in this thread.

[BT65]

AIDS does have a negative connotation.  Especially when you are trying to get people tested and into treatment.  There is an argument that it creates undo fear and resistance to people getting tested. 

I guess I don't follow.  At the organization I work at, we do testing all the time, and never once have I heard "we're testing you for Aids."  No, it's always for "HIV antibodies."  So, where does this testing for AIDS come in?  I think maybe you're jumping ahead of things.

[mecch]

This controversy is like the one about safe sex education. Do you throw fear and show HIV in the worst case scenario? Or, do you talk about how manageable it is. 
Finally, you gotta do both. Why can't slightly incompatible discourses exist at the same time. That's life, and its complicated.

[RapidRod]

This controversy is like the one about safe sex education. Do you throw fear and show HIV in the worst case scenario? Or, do you talk about how manageable it is. 
Finally, you gotta do both. Why can't slightly incompatible discourses exist at the same time. That's life, and its complicated.

What would you like to do, paint HIV as a life of roses? You want to say, "Don't worry about HIV, it's manageable?"

[phildinftlaudy]

As far as HIV prevention goes, AIDS does have a negative connotation.  Especially when you are trying to get people tested and into treatment.  There is an argument that it creates undo fear and resistance to people getting tested.  .. and there are people who feel that they can get more people tested and into treatment by dropping the term.    

I would disagree strongly with dropping the term.  To me, AIDS is supposed to have a negative connotation - not a stigma - but definitely a negative connotation.  Many LTSers could tell you the real stories of those they lost to AIDS.  AIDS does kill and silence does equal death.  

To say that using the term creates undo fear --- well, I think it is a realistic fear that needs to be created and maintained.  One of the biggest issues in effective prevention is that the "younger" generation feels for the most part that because HIV is "treatable" and they no longer see the front page headlines and/or the photos of those whose lives/bodies have been ravaged by AIDS and AIDS-related conditions that they don't have to worry - they don't have to fear.  If the use of the term AIDS and its related images and realities were still emphasized, prevention might be more effective - as it was many years ago.

The comparison could be made with breast cancer - informing women, their families and friends of the number of women who die from breast cancer every year, (which creates a fear) increases the number of women who receive mammograms - thus preventing or allowing for early detection of breast cancer.

So, I would say that the negative connotation and/or fear of keeping the word AIDS and its relevance to prevention and treatment can not and should not be diminished.

I take my HIV meds everyday because I don't want to get AIDS - the message is clear to me ---- Condoms and other safe sex practices prevent HIV; preventing HIV prevents AIDS; treatment of those with HIV prevents AIDS; and treatment of those with AIDS prevents death.

[buginme2]

Except for the fact that creating fear does not prevent new infections.  The number of new HIV infections each year has held constant throughout the epidemic.  All the campaigns including the most recent in New York showing how bad HIV is does not prevent transmission.  It only keeps people from testing to find out if they are infected.  There are about 300,000 people infected in the U.S. that do not know they are infected.  If the message just happens to get changed to something less offensive such as HIV so they get into treatment which would reduce transmissions (see the results from Vancouver BC that implemented the same exact policy and saw a 50% reduction in HIV transmissions) then so be it.

[RapidRod]

Except for the fact that creating fear does not prevent new infections.  The number of new HIV infections each year has held constant throughout the epidemic.  All the campaigns including the most recent in New York showing how bad HIV is does not prevent transmission.  It only keeps people from testing to find out if they are infected.  There are about 300,000 people infected in the U.S. that do not know they are infected.  If the message just happens to get changed to something less offensive such as HIV so they get into treatment which would reduce transmissions (see the results from Vancouver BC that implemented the same exact policy and saw a 50% reduction in HIV transmissions) then so be it.

If it scares the hell out of one person it would be worth it.

[Miss Philicia]

The place I walk by always says "Free HIV testing" not "Free AIDS testing" -- btw, when did the thread become about treatment and prevention?  It sure wasn't when you began the thread.

I still maintain this is all about something else.

[Jeff G]

OK , I give up , go ahead and change the name to something mystical and classy like Unicornhole Disease so it wont scare the younguns .

[mecch]

The place I walk by always says "Free HIV testing" not "Free AIDS testing" -- btw, when did the thread become about treatment and prevention?  It sure wasn't when you began the thread.

I still maintain this is all about something else.

I agree. I was only making an analogy but that falls on deaf ears.

So what do you think this is about? I think its about the "baggage" of AIDS and thats why I called it an identity that some newbies resist. And yes I know its a diagnosis, not an "identity" but to many people its an identity, which of course is quite part of the problem.

But in the end, I see both sides of the argument. Thats why I think its not a right or wrong situation.  

As we have seen in this thread, the discourse does vary by country, these days.

Edit: wouldnt this conversation be ridiculous in a country where many HIV+ get sick and die.

[Joe K]

Except for the fact that creating fear does not prevent new infections.  The number of new HIV infections each year has held constant throughout the epidemic.  All the campaigns including the most recent in New York showing how bad HIV is does not prevent transmission.  It only keeps people from testing to find out if they are infected.  There are about 300,000 people infected in the U.S. that do not know they are infected.  If the message just happens to get changed to something less offensive such as HIV so they get into treatment which would reduce transmissions (see the results from Vancouver BC that implemented the same exact policy and saw a 50% reduction in HIV transmissions) then so be it.

Please cite a reference for your above claims. If I remember correctly, Vancouver BC saw a large drop in infection rates, for various reasons, one of them being the opening of clinics where drug users could safely shoot up and get new works for each fix.

[buginme2]

Please cite a reference for your above claims. If I remember correctly, Vancouver BC saw a large drop in infection rates, for various reasons, one of them being the opening of clinics where drug users could safely shoot up and get new works for each fix.

The claim that BC saw a reduction of 50% in newly diagnosed HIV? 

http://www2.catie.ca/en/pif/january-2010/views-front-lines-treatment-prevention

You could also google BC Center for Excellence in HIV or Treatment as Prevention.  I beleive the statistic about 300,000 people in the US being infected with HIV and not knowing it is a CDC statistic.  I am not home right now so I don't have easy access to it.

[woodshere]

The term doesn't have much relevance in a medical setting. The article I was quoting was regarding HIV prevention, and the author was arguing that it didn't have much relevance in prevention either.  As far as HIV prevention goes, AIDS does have a negative connotation.  Especially when you are trying to get people tested and into treatment.  There is an argument that it creates undo fear and resistance to people getting tested.  The argument is valid, especially since the model of HIV prevention in the United States, which has been a model of education and condom use has failed and a new model of prevention is needed.  There is a push by some to move into a treatment as prevention model and there are people who feel that they can get more people tested and into treatment by dropping the term.  You don't have to agree with it.  But dint insult me or insinuate that I use manhunt or am rewriting AIDS history or don't care about PWA's. 

Seriously, you're saying that people don't get tested because they fear having a virus that results in being associated with the word AIDS?  So, I guess if AIDS is dropped from all aspects regarding, HIV people will be flocking to get tested.  I just find that hard to believe, perhaps if you could site some studies that give facts that this would occur my mind along with many others might be changed.

[CaptCarl]

 To say that using the term creates undo fear --- well, I think it is a realistic fear that needs to be created and maintained.  One of the biggest issues in effective prevention is that the "younger" generation feels for the most part that because HIV is "treatable" and they no longer see the front page headlines and/or the photos of those whose lives/bodies have been ravaged by AIDS and AIDS-related conditions that they don't have to worry - they don't have to fear.  If the use of the term AIDS and its related images and realities were still emphasized, prevention might be more effective - as it was many years ago.

   I think Phil is correct in this line of thinking. If people see HIV as nothing more than a manageable health issue, they may be disinclined to make much effort to be safe. If they view it as a deadly threat, they may be likely to take it more seriously.

   Sorry Bugsy, but I can't get behind this well-intentioned, but ulitmately poorly thought out idea.

CaptCarl
 

[denb45]

   I think Phil is correct in this line of thinking. If people see HIV as nothing more than a manageable health issue, they may be disinclined to make much effort to be safe. If they view it as a deadly threat, they may be likely to take it more seriously.

   Sorry Bugsy, but I can't get behind this well-intentioned, but ulitmately poorly thoght out idea.

CaptCarl
 

teh AIDS is still the AIDS at least to me 

[skeebo1969]

Seriously, you're saying that people don't get tested because they fear having a virus that results in being associated with the word AIDS?  

While it's not just simple word association, it is one of the reasons people don't get tested.  

I wish a simple name change was the answer.  The stigma of having HIV/AIDS stems from ignorance.

How will calling it advanced HIV disease change that?  

[Miss Philicia]

The stigma isn't from the word AIDS, it's from being forever associated as homosexual (and a promiscuous one at that), drug user, prostitute, etc.  Changing the name won't change this.  Ever.

Also, as far as treatment as prevention? Good luck with that.

[denb45]

The stigma isn't from the word AIDS, it's from being forever associated as homosexual (and a promiscuous one at that), drug user, prostitute, etc.  Changing the name won't change this.  Ever.

Also, as far as treatment as prevention? Good luck with that.

"hurt me with the truth rather than a lie, truth warrants respect, and a lie  just makes you a liar"

read into that whatever ya'll want to......

that about somes it up as far teh aids go's you can call it whatever you want, but it's still a deadly disease if not treated, not getting tested for this is just DUMB, due to stigma, why DIE because you don't want any
stigma, that's just fucking crazy...

[RapidRod]

The stigma isn't from the word AIDS, it's from being forever associated as homosexual (and a promiscuous one at that), drug user, prostitute, etc.  Changing the name won't change this.  Ever.

Also, as far as treatment as prevention? Good luck with that.

IV drug abusers with AIDS are going to be associated as being homosexuals? Really? I would think they would be associated with "junkies."

[CaptCarl]

IV drug abusers with AIDS are going to be associated as being homosexuals? Really? I would think they would be associated with "junkies."

Pretty sure Philly didn't mean it that way. But it does bring to mind when back in the early days, it was also linked to Haitians as well. Do you remember the old joke from back then?

Q: What's the hardest part about having AIDS?
A: Trying to convince your parents that you're Haitian.

Also, if your a super old timer, you might remember what they called it before they came up with AIDS, they called it GRID: Gay-Related Immune Deficiency

CaptCarl

[thunter34]

IV drug abusers with AIDS are going to be associated as being homosexuals? Really? I would think they would be associated with "junkies."

Um...if you read Phillicia's post (which you actually quoted, btw) it says right in there, "associated as homosexual (and a promiscuous one at that), drug user, prostitute, etc."

And Captain, I may not be a "super old timer" (at least I try not to think so, but no spring chicken either), but even I remember GRID.  I guess it was because of early sexual questioning or some such, but I was paying super close attention to um...GRID way back when.  I remember people being thrown right out on the streets with no recourse whatsoever.

[Miss Philicia]

IV drug abusers with AIDS are going to be associated as being homosexuals? Really? I would think they would be associated with "junkies."

Roddles, I have no idea why you're electing to read what I wrote that way.  Pity that your little jihad is manifesting itself in this way today.  What's next -- Tourettes?

[skeebo1969]

But it does bring to mind when back in the early days, it was also linked to Haitians as well. 

I had a good friend in high school who committed suicide the day his sister spoke Creole to him in the hallway, this was during the mass hysteria days when Miami news was portraying the poor people of Haiti as nothing more than AIDS carriers.   He felt the best way to fight it was to hide his nationality, and when his sister spoke to him in Creole he felt he had been outed.  He went home that day and shot himself in his mom's basement. 

[RapidRod]

Roddles, I have no idea why you're electing to read what I wrote that way.  Pity that your little jihad is manifesting itself in this way today.  What's next -- Tourettes?

That is the way you posted it. Not all people that have HIV that read these forum are gay.

[skeebo1969]

That is the way you posted it. Not all people that have HIV that read these forum are gay.

I don't know Rod, even with my current circumstances I'm pretty darn happy. 

[Miss Philicia]

That is the way you posted it. Not all people that have HIV that read these forum are gay.

1) it was not written that way, stop acting like it was

2) really?  They're not all gay?  Gee Roddles, in my two decades of dealing with HIV in an urban setting I simply had no idea.

[mecch]

What would you like to do, paint HIV as a life of roses? You want to say, "Don't worry about HIV, it's manageable?"

RR read my post wrong as well. I think he just needs a good night's sleep.

[skeebo1969]

RR read my post wrong as well. I think he just needs a good night's sleep.

Maybe Rodney is suffering from a form of PTSD caused by Am I Infected...

I've witnessed this once before and the results weren't pretty. 

[Miss Philicia]

No, it's just called trolling.

[mecch]

Anyone who voluntarily answers those questions deserves the Purple Heart, a good stiff.... cocktail, and many thanks.

[skeebo1969]

[hope_for_a_cure]

There is a spray for that. 

[CaptCarl]

That is the way you posted it. Not all people that have HIV that read these forum are gay.

   And nobody made such an implication, Roddles. Nor was the assertion made that the only negative association that comes with AIDS is being asscociated with being gay. How you came up with that defies logic or comprehension. So do everyone a favor and stop twisting the words of others around, you do yourself no favors. Seems pretty obvious you're spoiling for a fight here.

   Perhaps popping a Klonnie or two and taking a nap might help your disposition today...

CaptCarl

[denb45]

No, it's just called trolling.

Well, at least Roddy isn't trolling for sex   not that it's a bad thing, it can be fun in most cases  
miss P relax and breath dear   I got what u meant sweetie, it wasn't a swipe @ anyone's sexual
preference  

And Roddy, you are correct as well, not everyone that has teh Aids is homosexual, so both of you are correct in your opinions 

[WillyWump]

Wow, that's a spittin image of my Matty-Matt right before he pounces for my jugular.

[denb45]

Wow, that's a spittin image of my Matty-Matt right before he pounces for my jugular.

Oh come on now, Matty isn't all the bad once you get to know him  I find his dark humor refreshing 

[anniebc]

The stigma isn't from the word AIDS, it's from being forever associated as homosexual (and a promiscuous one at that), drug user, prostitute, etc.  Changing the name won't change this.  Ever.

It's well know around NZ that I'm very open about my status because of the talks I do, but I have been asked on a couple of occasions if I had ever worked in the "sex industry"..my answer was "no, I did dress up in a nurses uniform though, and most of the men I dealt with were always pretty happy to see me"....

Aroha
Jan

[Hellraiser]

It's well know around NZ that I'm very open about my status because of the talks I do, but I have been asked on a couple of occasions if I had ever worked in the "sex industry"..my answer was "no, I did dress up in a nurses uniform though, and most of the men I dealt with were always pretty happy to see me"....

Aroha
Jan

Nice

[BT65]

.my answer was "no, I did dress up in a nurses uniform though, and most of the men I dealt with were always pretty happy to see me"....

Aroha
Jan

I can relate Jan, but on a totally different sphere.