Quantcast

Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
E-newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 22, 2014, 02:38:54 PM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 635667
  • Total Topics: 48227
  • Online Today: 238
  • Online Ever: 585
  • (January 07, 2014, 02:31:47 PM)
Users Online

Welcome


Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and others concerned about HIV/AIDS.  Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning:  Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

  • The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own physician.

  • All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

  • Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

  • We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge.

  • Product advertisement—including links; banners; editorial content; and clinical trial, study or survey participation—is strictly prohibited by forums members unless permission has been secured from POZ.

To change forums navigation language settings, click here (members only), Register now

Para cambiar sus preferencias de los foros en español, haz clic aquí (sólo miembros), Regístrate ahora

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the symbol in each box.

Author Topic: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV  (Read 16586 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline denb45

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,051
  • "1987 Classic Old School POZ+"
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #50 on: March 25, 2011, 01:37:22 PM »
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  :)
« Last Edit: March 25, 2011, 01:50:52 PM by denb45 »
"it's so nice to be insane, cause no-one ask you to explain" Helen Reddy cc 1974

Offline komnaes

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,893
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #51 on: March 25, 2011, 01:44:16 PM »
Basically what AIDS used to mean has no real relevance anymore. 

Wow.. just, Wow..
Aug 07 Diagnosed
Oct 07 CD4=446(19%) Feb 08 CD4=421(19%)
Jun 08 CD4=325(22%) Jul 08 CD4=301(18%)
Sep 08 CD4=257/VL=75,000 Oct 08 CD4=347(16%)
Dec 08 CD4=270(16%)
Jan 09 CD4=246(13%)/VL=10,000
Feb 09 CD4=233(15%)/VL=13,000
Started meds Sustiva/Epzicom
May 09 CD4=333(24%)/VL=650
Aug 09 CD4=346(24%)/VL=UD
Nov 09 CD4=437(26%)/VL=UD
Feb 10 CD4=471(31%)/VL=UD
June 10 CD4=517 (28%)/VL=UD
Sept 10 CD4=687 (31%)/VL=UD
Jan 11 CD4=557 (30%)/VL=UD
April 11 CD4=569 (32%)/VL=UD
Switched to Epizcom, Reyataz and Norvir
(Interrupted for 2 months with only Epizcom & Reyataz)
July 11 CD=520 (28%)/VL=UD
Oct 11 CD=771 (31%)/VL=UD(<30)
April 12 CD=609 (28%)/VL=UD(<20)
Aug 12 CD=657 (29%)/VL=UD(<20)
Dec 12 CD=532 (31%)/VL=UD(<20)
May 13 CD=567 (31%)/VL=UD(<20)
Jan 14 CD=521 (21%)/VL=UD(<50)

Offline Tim Horn

  • Member
  • Posts: 799
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #52 on: March 25, 2011, 02:09:52 PM »
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.

Offline RAB

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,895
  • Joined March 2003
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #53 on: March 25, 2011, 02:27:50 PM »
Thank you Tim for expressing it so well.  Spot on!

RAB

Offline cwbyway102

  • Member
  • Posts: 30
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #54 on: March 25, 2011, 02:30:23 PM »
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.
Feb 22.2010-hospitalized PCP pneumonia
Feb 24 2010-diagnosed CD4 <20 3%    VL 1450000  started Truvada & Reyataz 400mg
April 14  CD4 57  6%  VL 1348
June 24  CD4 97  8%  VL 204
June 25 added Norvir decreased Reyataz to 300mg
August 4 CD4 107 10% VL 107
Nov 3  CD4 144 11%   VL UD
Dec 6  CD4 185  14%  VL UD
Jan 10 CD4 181  12%  VL UD
Mar 29 CD4 294  16%  VL UD
June 29 CD4 211 14%  VL UD
August 21 Switched out Truvada for Epzicom
Sept 29  CD4 220  15%  VL UD

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,705
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #55 on: March 25, 2011, 02:31:21 PM »
Thank you Tim for expressing it so well.  Spot on!

RAB

I agree
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Online Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,605
  • 31 Years Poz
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #56 on: March 25, 2011, 02:34:30 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2011, 02:38:04 PM by killfoile »

Online Jeff G

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 11,236
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #57 on: March 25, 2011, 02:40:05 PM »
Thanks Joe , well said .

Offline woodshere

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,477
  • ain't no shame in my game
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #58 on: March 25, 2011, 03:20:39 PM »
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.
"Let us give pubicity to HV/AIDS and not hide it..." "One of the things destroying people with AIDS is the stigma we attach to it."   Nelson Mandela

Offline BT65

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 9,908
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #59 on: March 26, 2011, 04:43:10 AM »
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. 

I've never killed anyone, but I frequently get satisfaction reading the obituary notices.-Clarence Darrow

Offline wolfter

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,460
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #60 on: March 26, 2011, 09:07:30 AM »
I have the condition previously called AIDS?   I'm like Prince.  (or princess)
Complacency is the enemy.  ;)  Challenge yourself daily for maximum  return on investment.

Offline thunter34

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,310
  • His name is Carl.
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #61 on: March 26, 2011, 09:38:08 AM »
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.
AIDS isn't for sissies.

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,991
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #62 on: March 26, 2011, 10:18:16 AM »
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.
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Offline CaptCarl

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,114
  • Located in the Palinsville subdivision, JesusLand
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #63 on: March 26, 2011, 10:21:48 AM »
I have the condition previously called AIDS?   I'm like Prince.  (or princess)

 :D :D :D :D :D Good one Wolfie!!!

CaptCarl
The only thing I can do straight is shoot..

Offline aztecan

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,394
  • 29 years positive, 57 years a pain in the butt
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #64 on: March 26, 2011, 10:35:29 AM »
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
"May your life preach more loudly than your lips."
~ William Ellery Channing (Unitarian Minister)

Online mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,444
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #65 on: March 26, 2011, 11:54:16 AM »
I wonder if there are any studies on the relation to access to health care to getting tested regularly.
ďFrom each, according to his ability; to each, according to his needĒ 1875 K Marx

Offline OneTampa

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,159
  • "Butterflies are free."
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #66 on: March 26, 2011, 02:02:07 PM »
LIFE = DEATH...eventually
"He is my oldest child. The shy and retiring one over there with the Haitian headdress serving pescaŪto frito."

Offline buginme2

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,834
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #67 on: March 26, 2011, 02:47:58 PM »
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).


Offline leatherman

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,130
  • Google and HIV meds are Your Friends
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #68 on: March 26, 2011, 02:51:30 PM »
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 (aka mIkIE)


chart from 1992-2013; updated 2/09/13  Reyataz/Norvir/Truvada

Offline leatherman

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,130
  • Google and HIV meds are Your Friends
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #69 on: March 26, 2011, 02:52:36 PM »
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 ;)
leatherman (aka mIkIE)


chart from 1992-2013; updated 2/09/13  Reyataz/Norvir/Truvada

Offline Hellraiser

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,136
  • Semi-misanthropic
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #70 on: March 26, 2011, 03:01:49 PM »
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.

Offline hope_for_a_cure

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,502
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #71 on: March 26, 2011, 03:27:46 PM »
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. 

Offline buginme2

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,834
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #72 on: March 26, 2011, 03:40:19 PM »
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.

Offline hope_for_a_cure

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,502
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #73 on: March 26, 2011, 03:45:26 PM »
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! 

Offline buginme2

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,834
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #74 on: March 26, 2011, 04:02:14 PM »
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.

Offline hope_for_a_cure

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,502
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #75 on: March 26, 2011, 04:31:43 PM »
Quote
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. 

Offline buginme2

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,834
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #76 on: March 26, 2011, 04:32:44 PM »
haha Either that or he is passionate about his cause. 

Offline hope_for_a_cure

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,502
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #77 on: March 26, 2011, 04:39:13 PM »
My apology, I should not actually resort to 'name calling'.  It is a rather arrogant statement (in my opinion).   

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,991
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #78 on: March 26, 2011, 04:39:52 PM »
So this is all just about "baggage" amirite? ::)
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Offline buginme2

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,834
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #79 on: March 26, 2011, 04:42:58 PM »
So this is all just about "baggage" amirite? ::)
What are you talking about

Offline Gio

  • Member
  • Posts: 92
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #80 on: March 26, 2011, 04:54:38 PM »
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

Offline manc

  • Member
  • Posts: 19
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #81 on: March 26, 2011, 05:16:48 PM »
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

Offline buginme2

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,834
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #82 on: March 26, 2011, 05:45:00 PM »
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.

Offline elf

  • Member
  • Posts: 605
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #83 on: March 26, 2011, 05:50:47 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2011, 05:56:31 PM by elf »
Let's have a Kiki!

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,991
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #84 on: March 26, 2011, 05:53:19 PM »

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!
« Last Edit: March 26, 2011, 06:23:37 PM by Miss Philicia »
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Offline buginme2

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,834
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #85 on: March 26, 2011, 06:03:06 PM »
 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. 

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,991
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #86 on: March 26, 2011, 06:09:02 PM »
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.
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Offline BT65

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 9,908
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #87 on: March 26, 2011, 06:22:17 PM »
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.
I've never killed anyone, but I frequently get satisfaction reading the obituary notices.-Clarence Darrow

Online mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,444
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #88 on: March 26, 2011, 06:44:18 PM »
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.
ďFrom each, according to his ability; to each, according to his needĒ 1875 K Marx

Offline RapidRod

  • Member
  • Posts: 15,286
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #89 on: March 26, 2011, 06:54:55 PM »
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?"

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,961
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #90 on: March 26, 2011, 07:07:35 PM »
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.
September 13, 2008 - diagnosed +
Labs:
Date    CD4    %   VL     Date  CD4  %   VL
10/08  636    35  510   9/09 473  38 2900  12/4/09 Atripla
12/09  540    30    60   
12/10  740    41  <48   
8/11    667    36  <20  
03/12  1,041  42  <20
05/12  1,241  47  <20
08/12   780    37  <20
11/12   549    35  <20
02/12  1,102  42  <20
11/12   549    35  <20

Offline buginme2

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,834
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #91 on: March 26, 2011, 07:14:35 PM »
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.

Offline RapidRod

  • Member
  • Posts: 15,286
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #92 on: March 26, 2011, 07:19:10 PM »
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.

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,991
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #93 on: March 26, 2011, 07:21:07 PM »
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.
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Online Jeff G

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 11,236
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #94 on: March 26, 2011, 07:24:58 PM »
OK , I give up , go ahead and change the name to something mystical and classy like Unicornhole Disease so it wont scare the younguns .

Online mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,444
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #95 on: March 26, 2011, 07:33:22 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2011, 07:35:54 PM by mecch »
ďFrom each, according to his ability; to each, according to his needĒ 1875 K Marx

Online Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,605
  • 31 Years Poz
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #96 on: March 26, 2011, 08:25:08 PM »
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.

Offline buginme2

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,834
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #97 on: March 26, 2011, 08:52:42 PM »
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.

Offline woodshere

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,477
  • ain't no shame in my game
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #98 on: March 26, 2011, 09:35:31 PM »
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.
"Let us give pubicity to HV/AIDS and not hide it..." "One of the things destroying people with AIDS is the stigma we attach to it."   Nelson Mandela

Offline CaptCarl

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,114
  • Located in the Palinsville subdivision, JesusLand
Re: Time to do away with "AIDS" and just call it HIV
« Reply #99 on: March 26, 2011, 10:04:36 PM »
 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
 
« Last Edit: March 26, 2011, 10:22:51 PM by CaptCarl »
The only thing I can do straight is shoot..

 


Terms of Membership for these forums
 

© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved.   terms of use and your privacy
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.