Jump to content

demonicpup

Junior Members
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by demonicpup

  1. Raw Top, this is certainly your site and you have the right to do with it as you please, however, one critical thing which you might have missed is the federal and medical definition of an AIDS diagnosis. As you state, "In case you don't know, an HIV positive person is considered to have AIDS if they get one of a number of opportunistic infections, or when their CD4 ("t-cell") count drops to 200 (or sometimes 250 - depending on the standard used)." This is not fully accurate. It can also be a combination of both infections and CD4 count. Under the CDC rules adopted years ago once these criterion are met, the individual has an AIDS diagnosis. Further, this diagnosis is PERMANENT. I had been diagnosed with Pneumocystis Jirovecii (a fungal pneumonia) and 3 other opportunistic infections which did not show physically. I was hospitalized. However, at that moment I was given an AIDS diagnosis, which would NEVER change, even when I was undetectable. All local, state, and federal medical paperwork will show that I have AIDS. "The CDC has also developed a list of opportunistic infections (OIs), cancers, and conditions that are considered AIDS-defining conditions (see below). If you live with HIV and one or more of these infections or conditions, you have a diagnosis of AIDS, no matter what your CD4 count is or how it changes in the future. This does not necessarily mean you are sick or will get sick in the future. It is just the way the public health system counts the number of people who have had advanced HIV disease ( [think before following links] https://www.thewellproject.org/hiv-information/aids-defining-conditions#:~:text=AIDS stands for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. AIDS,a CD4 cell count of 200 or less) From the Dr. Bob Frascino, via The Body: "A CD4% less than 14% is an AIDS-qualifying condition, even if the absolute CD4 count is still above 200. Consequently yes, you do have AIDS. Does it make any difference? No, not really. HIV disease comprises a spectrum from the early, often asymptomatic stage all the way to the end stage and death. The term "AIDS" was coined and developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) early in the course of the epidemic to help track the spread of the illness. "HIV positive" was not a reportable condition until recently; however, AIDS has been for quite some time. (See below.) Once an AIDS diagnosis is made the diagnosis is not reversible even if your counts improve on combination antiretroviral therapy ([think before following links] https://www.thebody.com/article/can-person-go-aids-back-hiv ) Under the federal guidelines, and by law, I have AIDS, and anything mentioned about me (body part or secretion) is therefore termed within those confines. Ethically it is something which is hard to deal with for many individuals. I completely understand, given your personal experience and what we saw and experienced (and, I do get you there - sans discussion, but I do get you, knowing that circumstances for each individual is different... I get you). Once you have this diagnosis, there is nothing which can be done to remove it from one's medical history. I know exactly where you are coming from and I completely respect your reasoning and your thoughts within these confines. Those years of what we all experienced and saw shall be indelibly etched in our psyche and hearts. However, I would be remiss to not state that there area no medical or legal difference in the ideas of allowing HIV Fetish, Bug Chasing & Gift Giving and the banning of the usage of the phrasing or writing of the word "AIDS." Because, there are millions of people, like me, walking around and taking meds, and have a high CD4 count but still are considered as a "person with AIDS" or under federal law and medical guidance, I am a patient with AIDS. Yes, I do agree that words have power. It is just, and let me say again... I GET IT! I DO UNDERSTAND.. THE GODS IN THE PANTHEON, I UNDERSTAND... but the splitting of semantics does not change the fact that for all intents and purposes, in my case, and the case of millions of others, if I was to deal with a legal issue, there is no difference in the words.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.