Page 1 of 1
Why Say HIV Aids? Isn't Aids Adequate?
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2015 10:25 am
by Abraham
I'm reading Peter Schweizer's book, "Clinton Cash" and in one chapter of the book the author keeps referring to HIV Aids.
In the 80's/90's it was simply referred to as Aids, without the additional mouthful of adding the prefix of HIV.
Anyone know why HIV has been tacked on?
Is it a PC thing somehow or ...?
Thanks!
Re: Why Say HIV Aids? Isn't Aids Adequate?
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2015 10:41 am
by howdy
AIDS is the final stage of HIV infection, and not everyone who has HIV advances to this stage. People at this stage of HIV disease have badly damaged immune systems, which put them at risk for infections.
Re: Why Say HIV Aids? Isn't Aids Adequate?
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2015 10:45 am
by MechAg94
Might be confused with Administrative Aides or visual aides.

Re: Why Say HIV Aids? Isn't Aids Adequate?
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2015 10:48 am
by oohrah
and there are other types of acquired immune deficiencies not related to HIV.
Re: Why Say HIV Aids? Isn't Aids Adequate?
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2015 10:57 am
by Abraham
howdy,
Thanks for the information.
So, one could simply say HIV all by it's lonesome when/while it's developing, but has not yet made it to full blown AID's?
Once it does, one could just say AID's?
Does that make sense?
Thanks!
Re: Why Say HIV Aids? Isn't Aids Adequate?
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2015 11:57 am
by Dave2
This is just speculation on my part...
IIRC, AIDS was discovered before HIV. Assuming that is correct...
Say you have stage-4 cancer (or whatever the final stage is... let's say it's 4). Do you tell people "I have stage-4", or do you tell them "I have stage-4 cancer"? The only difference here is that the "4th stage" of HIV was given its own name before they understood what caused it.
Speaking of "cancer", that's the name of the symptom -- uncontrolled cell division -- rather than the cause. There are a nearly incalculable # of problems that cause "cancer", and the fact that one "thing" has so many different causes has led to it being somewhat shrouded in confusion, at least in the public's eye. In the same way, "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome" describes the symptom, not necessarily the underlying cause (aside from the "acquired" bit, which distinguishes it from any genetic causes). Perhaps they're just trying to be proactive about their nomenclature in case another way to acquire an immune deficiency is discovered (or perhaps that discovery's already been made and I just missed the memo).
...Or maybe Peter Schweizer just likes using big(ger) words.
Re: Why Say HIV Aids? Isn't Aids Adequate?
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2015 12:07 pm
by Abraham
Dave2,
Excellent explanation!
Thanks again!
P.S. I'm only a few chapters in and I'm afraid the book's going to give me nightmares...
Re: Why Say HIV Aids? Isn't Aids Adequate?
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2015 12:24 pm
by The Annoyed Man
AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) is the syndrome/disease, which has a whole array of symptoms depending on the severity and/or stage of the infection. HIV is the organism which causes the infection. If you transmit the disease, you are transmitting the HIV virus (Human Immunodeficiency Virus). AIDS is what the person will come down with from having contracted the HIV virus.
Example. Pneumococcus bacteria are one of a class of bacteria which can cause pneumonia. If you get sick, you are said to have pneumonia, not "he has pneumococcus". However, there are other kinds of pneumonia: aspiration pneumonia for instance (pneumonia caused by inhaled substances like water, vomit, or food). So when one has the kind caused by the pneumococcus bacteria, it would be called "pneumococcal pneumonia".
It is medically significant/important to separately identify the disease and the organism which causes it. For instance, one can be exposed to an infectious organism (including HIV), and NOT catch the disease. How many times have you ever been around a person who had a cold (you're exposed), and NOT caught it yourself? Also, one can be a carrier, but not have the illness caused by the organism one carries. For instance, certain species of animals can carry rabies without having rabies. Similarly, one can be a carrier of HIV, but not yet show any signs of AIDS.
There are certainly other reasons, but that is one reason why HIV and AIDS are often identified together, but by individual acronyms.
Re: Why Say HIV Aids? Isn't Aids Adequate?
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:44 am
by Abraham
TAM,
Great information.
Thanks!
Re: Why Say HIV Aids? Isn't Aids Adequate?
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2015 1:16 pm
by RoyGBiv
MechAg94 wrote:Might be confused with Administrative Aides or visual aides.

Or Presidential aids.
Re: Why Say HIV Aids? Isn't Aids Adequate?
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2015 1:28 pm
by C-dub
And then there is also viral pneumonia in addition to at least ten different types of bacteria that can cause pneumonia. Learned a lot of that in school a long time ago and have since not used and forgotten much of it. I'm sure there have been more discoveries of other things that may cause pneumonia since then.
There are also many types of immune difficency syndromes or diseases.
Re: Why Say HIV Aids? Isn't Aids Adequate?
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2015 4:13 pm
by The Annoyed Man
C-dub wrote:And then there is also viral pneumonia in addition to at least ten different types of bacteria that can cause pneumonia. Learned a lot of that in school a long time ago and have since not used and forgotten much of it. I'm sure there have been more discoveries of other things that may cause pneumonia since then.
There are also many types of immune difficency syndromes or diseases.
This....... and let's not mention auto-immune diseases, where you body attacks itself. I've had that particular blessing in my life, and care not to repeat it.