General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhen did the name change to "HIV-AIDS"?
Last edited Sat Mar 12, 2016, 01:08 AM - Edit history (1)
Not a political question, but the Nancy Reagan back and forth got me wondering this.
When I was in high school (early 90s) the name of the disease as far as I can remember was "AIDS", and its cause was HIV. Sometime between then and now the "official" name seems to have changed to "HIV-AIDS". Was that a policy decision by somebody? (WHO? CDC? Somebody else?) I get that there are probably many ways to acquire an immunodeficiency syndrome of some sort, so being more specific might be necessary, but I just don't remember ever getting the memo, as they say.
EDIT, because I'm apparently not being clear:
I'm aware of the difference between the virus HIV and the disease it causes. I'm asking whether I am correct in remembering that the name of the disease used to be "AIDS" and now seems to be "HIV-AIDS".
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)I think one can be HIV positive and not have "full blown" AIDS.
Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)JennyMominFL
(218 posts)First post. I've been HIV positive since 1990. Diagnosed with AIDS from the beginning. I have seen HIV/Aids used since I was first diagnosed. Some people just have HIV. Other are HIV+ with AIDS. It's just trying to incorporate everyone who is HIV pos into one statement
Greybnk48
(10,176 posts)and thank you for your brave and informative post.
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)...for your first post at DU. May it be the first of many...
TYY
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)There's a lot of back and forth between HIV and AIDS. Often someone is described as HIV positive, especially when that person tests positive for the virus but does not otherwise show symptoms.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)HIV can manifest a symptom which is known as AIDS.
(I believe this is correct)
Wounded Bear
(58,704 posts)the thing is that the AIDS crisis of the 80's was kind of the first widespread knowledge of a whole range of auto-immune diseases. I imagine the current name is a way to keep it specific to the HIV derived version of AIDS.
This was badly mis-handled by the Reagan administration, largely because of the religious influence on them. Since it first became endemic among gay men, many "Christians" called it a cross between a scourge from God and a blessing, because it attacked one of their favorite groups to hate on. Once it bled over into the straight community through blood transfusions and needle sharing among druggies, it was all whoops! we better look into this.
Not sure when the transition occurred, though. I do know that several other disease vectors have been classified as auto-immune disorders now that didn't used to have a lot of knowledge about them like lupus.
Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)AIDS is the condition when the virus begins destroying the immune system. Hence one can have the virus om them, but not develop AIDS.
Warpy
(111,338 posts)It was GRID (gay related immunodeficiency) until straight women, drug users and blood recipients started to get it. Then it was AIDS. HIV was isolated after years of holocaust with few treatments. Now it's mostly a chronic, progressive disease that's a pain in the ass to take care of but which we've been able to slow down considerably.
I think the HIV-AIDS hypenation is a little silly, although it does differentiate between viral and other acquired immunodeficiency.
Solly Mack
(90,785 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 12, 2016, 01:44 AM - Edit history (1)
But it was called AIDS for the first time during the summer of '82. GRID was stigmatizing and inaccurate and people voted to give it another name. Those people being the ones on the front-line.
People (finally) realized that HIV/AIDS wasn't just infecting gay men.
HIV (as LAV) dates back to 1983 but it wasn't until 1986 that it was officially known as HIV. Entire story behind that, covered in the book/movie, "And the Band Played On".
I won't get into the Gallo/Montagnier battles, but I will say that it was the French who took the Nobel Prize for discovering the cause of the disease AIDS - which is the virus HIV.
Igel
(35,356 posts)During all this time, though, the funding through various government agencies for investigating it soared. By '86 in one agency HIV/AIDS research funding alone was greater than funding for all other diseases, and not because of funding cuts, either.
Then there were all the problems with trying to figure out how to stop it. ACT UP got fast tracking for HIV drugs, but most of those wound up doing nothing good. Some did some bad things. But each "we got this drugged approved" was a great victory, and when it turned out to be not so useful nobody remembered anything but the victory. That's how echo-chamber communities work. After years of failure, all anybody remembered were victories and the question, Why didn't we score all those awesome victories years earlier? Few stopped to ponder that the victories were mostly pyrrhic.
In hindsight, it's perfectly clear that they knew what the virus was that caused AIDS. At the time, there was a lot of debate about whether it was one identified virus, another identified virus, a set of viruses, or a virus still unknown, or a virus (or some viruses) plus environmental factors. Mostly because they found the virus in AIDS patients, but they often didn't find the virus.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)Then they figured out it was a virus and called it Human Immunodeficiency Virus.
HIV and AIDS were often put together after that, but not officially. A person can be HIV-infected but not have AIDS because their immune system is still working and they aren't sick. Once the virus destroys the immune system, then a person can get a constellation of secondary illnesses that fall under the umbrella of AIDS.
Rex
(65,616 posts)That was in the 80s, 90s.