31-07-2003 00:28									#151
	Suffering from ads?

quote: In fact, this guy knowing Urdu (or whatever his first language is) is probably rather advantageous for him to carry out his office since he can communicate better with the local constituents.

Indeed.

He'll be even more effective once he can communicate in English.

	31-07-2003 06:43									#152
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom You're out by three years (first use of the term was in 1982). You still don't seem to be aware of the difference between a disease and a syndrome. A syndrome is a set of symptoms or a combination of symptoms at the same time, as a result of contracting or developing a disease. You're putting the cart before the horse. As for Bodds disingenuously asking 'when did he say the syndrome was a disease?', he merely highlights the error of bigots like him who confuse and conflate the human immuno-deficiency virus with its resultant SYNDROME. The Pasteur Institute in Paris isolated H.I.V. in 1983, and in 1984 it was discovered that A.I.D.S. was a result of infection with H.I.V. . No-one had to make H.I.V.- like smallpox, syphilis, and influenza, it's simply another disease that has evolved/mutated.

You're wrong. I first heard the term AIDS used in a medical conference in 1979.

Yes, a syndrome is a constellation of symptoms and signs, but they don't have to be simultaneous, nor do they have to occur as the result of a single disease. A set of symptoms and signs is generally termed a "syndrome" when their relationship to a specific disease process is unknown. At this time the cause of AIDS is well known and an attempt to nit pick seperate AIDS from HIV infection is silly and disingenious - it's arguing a moot point.

Mind you I'm not at all saying that anyone "made" HIV. In the 1990s the WHO was able to track HIV all the way back to a case in the 1940s in the Congo. While it's true that to a certain degree medical researchers have been experimenting with viruses ever since Jenner began innoculating people with vaccina, I feel certain that most virologists would agree with me when I say that in the 1940s no medical facility had the technology to alter a monkey virus into one that infected humans.

	31-07-2003 09:42									#153
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove You're wrong. I first heard the term AIDS used in a medical conference in 1979. At this time the cause of AIDS is well known and an attempt to nit pick seperate AIDS from HIV infection is silly and disingenious - it's arguing a moot point.

I think it’s neither a moot point nor disingenuous on my part. A slogan used in the British Government’s early campaign to educate the public on H.I.V./A.I.D.S. awareness was ‘don’t die of ignorance’- alas it seems not to be working in Boddington’s case.

I’m intrigued by your claim that ‘A.I.D.S.’ was first used in 1979 at a ‘medical conference’. My memory is good enough to recall that when clusters of gay men began appearing reporting symptoms such as Kaposi’s Sarcoma and pneumoscystis carinii pneumonia, it was referred to as ‘Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome’- in late 1981/early 1982. Only when significant numbers of injecting drug users, haemophiliacs and Haitians (presumably heterosexual Haitians, haemophiliacs and injecting drug users) began reporting the same symptoms did a less sexuality specific term begin to be used. If memory serves me correctly, I believe A.I.D.S. was first used at a conference at the Centre for Disease Control in Atlanta- later in 1982.

Perhaps you could let us know which medical conference you’re referring to, where it was, who first used the term, and your role in the conference. And why they would continue using the term G.R.I.D., if they already were using the term A.I.D.S. .

A.I.D.S. first appeared IN PRINT in 1982 in the C.D.C.’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

My definition of syndrome wasn’t meant to be exhaustive or proscriptive, so you’re picking the wrong nits there buddy. If you have a problem with the definition, take it up with the Oxford English Dictionary- it was after all, appearing only for Boddington’s benefit. I wouldn’t want him thinking he could catch Marfan’s Syndrome or Korsakov’s Syndrome- or heaven forbid, Stockholm Syndrome.

It’s clear from Boddington’s post he was referring to an infectious agent (disease) that could be created- such as a virus or bacterium. While you might attempt to ‘create’ or mutate a virus, you wouldn’t create a ‘syndrome’ in the same way.