HIV vs. AIDS

[koi1]

I think that the reason that the AIDS diagnosis is not fluid, is because once you get AIDS by that definition, you will most likely die without HAART. And once you start HAART you will need it to keep the virus at bay. It is a sad fact with this disease. I have been slowly climbing out of the casket, but I know that the lid can slam on me indefinitely. AIDS does not mean death for everyone. What it does mean is vigilance and lifestyle changes if we want to live.

rob

[Maestro]

I think that the reason that the AIDS diagnosis is not fluid, is because once you get AIDS by that definition, you will most likely die without HAART. And once you start HAART you will need it to keep the virus at bay. It is a sad fact with this disease. I have been slowly climbing out of the casket, but I know that the lid can slam on me indefinitely. AIDS does not mean death for everyone. What it does mean is vigilance and lifestyle changes if we want to live.

rob

Rob,

I think you hit the nail on the head.  Once my uncle progressed to AIDS, he would have been dead without HAART.  Now he needs it to stay healthy (which in his case is a relative term anyways).  My sister was actually shocked at how he is on his own living in California.  I said to her, Look, if he called tomorrow and said he was deathly ill, we would probably say something like "That Figures.  It was just a matter of time".  So the AIDS label, in his case, somehow fits.

Steve

[Miss Philicia]

My name is philly267, and I have had AIDS.

[AlanBama]

Use your gifts for good or evil as you see fit, but use them when the chance approaches. Immediate mortality is a wonderful focussing tool when used properly. You'll learn...

In the meantime, and within your own reflexive self-awareness, you are exactly whom you were a week ago. If a newly found label fosters empowerment, why argue? But if that same new-found label causes you to self-victimize, beware. There's no strength in that, now is there?

Brent, Brent, Brent.....I am SO GLAD you're back!

David, this thread made me reflect back to my own AIDS diagnosis...at the time, I remember feeling (strange as it may seem) relief.  At that time, you didn't have AIDS until you had the O.I....mine was MAC of the liver.  I remember being terrified, but strangely relieved....a memory I have managed to forget about for quite some time until today.

[Elizabeth]

I think that the reason that the AIDS diagnosis is not fluid, is because once you get AIDS by that definition, you will most likely die without HAART.

Naaah.  The answer is much more mundane.  Paperwork.

Every time one of us shifts from HIV+ to AIDS it's reported to the CDC as part of their data for their survellience reporting.  Disability can be based on this.   Funding can be based on this.  Etc. Etc.

Now.  Imagine if you will, if everytime someone went from AIDS to HIV back to AIDS, back to HIV it was reported.  Everything based on the figures would have to change.  Back and Forth.  Back and Forth.  That's about 900,000 people to keep track of.

That's a paperwork nightmare.   

[Mike89406]

Heres an Interesting short cut and dry explanation of the defintion maybe not gospel but easy to understand

http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/Labs/Current/Q182090.html

Now I understand some people may benefit from keeping the AIDS status and rightfully so.

[David_CA]

Here's an Interesting short cut and dry explanation of the defintion maybe not gospel but easy to understand

http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/Labs/Current/Q182090.html

Now I understand some people may benefit from keeping the AIDS status and rightfully so.

It makes sense to me, but from what I can tell, this isn't how the CDC looks at it.  I still don't know if I have AIDS or not.  Some list 'recurrung OI's'.  I had PCP once and my t-cells never dropped below 200 and my % was never very low, so who the hell knows?  I'll ask my Dr. next month when I have an appt.  I'm sure he'll know what was reported to the Dept. of Health.

David