Jackal wrote:
Dude, whatever you say. HIV and AIDS are different, go read about it. lol and your last comment is completely assanine.
riddla is correct. The difference between HIV and AIDS is the CD4 count.
HIV is a virus that does in fact affect the CD4 count of T cells but it certainly is not AIDS. That would be like saying a tumor is automatically cancer, which isn't the case.
Jackal wrote:
HIV is a virus that does in fact affect the CD4 count of T cells but it certainly is not AIDS. That would be like saying a tumor is automatically cancer, which isn't the case.
When the CD4 count drops low enough it is AIDS. Nothing else is different about it. Where's your information coming from?
Jackal wrote:
HIV is a virus that does in fact affect the CD4 count of T cells but it certainly is not AIDS. That would be like saying a tumor is automatically cancer, which isn't the case.
When the CD4 count drops low enough it is AIDS. Nothing else is different about it. Where's your information coming from?
It was coming from wikipedia, which I know isn't very reliable, so I called up a buddy in med school. He said that AIDS is most often the end affect of HIV but they aren't the same thing.
Jackal's right. HIV and AIDS are most assuredly not the same thing. HIV is a virus. AIDS is a symptomatic disease. Sympoms of HIV infection don't exclusively correspond with symptoms of AIDS.
In the context of the "cure" that's being discussed, though, I think we can use the two interchangeably.
Jackal wrote:
It was coming from wikipedia, which I know isn't very reliable, so I called up a buddy in med school. He said that AIDS is most often the end affect of HIV but they aren't the same thing.
And you still have absolutely no idea how they are different.
R00k wrote:Curing someone with HIV does not automatically mean you can cure someone with AIDS.
How hard is that?
If this treatment proves valid, you'll get to eat those words.
That is incorrect.
It will not change the basic fact that HIV Cure != AIDS Cure.
Just because you code a patch that fixes two bugs, does not mean that any patch which fixes one bug will automatically fix the other.
It should cure AIDS. The body ought to be able to right its own T cell levels without the virus around. On the other hand, a cure for AIDS does not mean a cure for HIV.
riddla wrote:
If this treatment proves valid, you'll get to eat those words.
That is incorrect.
It will not change the basic fact that HIV Cure != AIDS Cure.
Just because you code a patch that fixes two bugs, does not mean that any patch which fixes one bug will automatically fix the other.
It should cure AIDS. The body ought to be able to right its own T cell levels without the virus around. On the other hand, a cure for AIDS does not mean a cure for HIV.
But will a cure for HIV necessarily cure all the symptoms associated with AIDS?
At this point I'm half genuinely curious, and half wanting to nitpick this down to the most trivial detail just to keep riddla refreshing the page every 60 seconds.
