Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 151 posts

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#21

Post by snowwrestler »

seiji wrote: post #20
kmfrk wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even today, people have a very poor understanding on how you can - rather can't - contract it from HIV+ people, alas. (Not saying that HIV==AIDS.) http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/how-you-get-hiv... If an HIV+ person sneezes in an elevator, some will have a panic attack, I reckon. Not to mention the travel bans some countries impose. 1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/30/hiv-travel-ban-lift... 2) ht…

(Not saying that HIV==AIDS.) Why make that disclaimer?

Not everyone who is HIV-positive develops AIDS.

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#22

Post by asveikau »

lawn wrote: post #11
enraged_camel wrote: post #6

In the movie Forrest Gump, there is a scene taking place in the late 70s or early 80s where Jenny is explaining to Forrest that she is ill and the doctors do not know what it is. She dies a few years later. It is never stated explicitly, but the idea is that she was suffering from AIDS, which she contacted during her years as a promiscuous drug addict groupie. In my opinion it is one of the most powerful scenes in th…

Wow! I love Forrest Gump and I've seen it a few times at least, but I never realized the connection to AIDS. Thanks.

I wonder if it's the younger YN crowd that is not seeing the connection? I was pretty young when I saw that movie in 1994, but it never occurred to me that it could be anything other than AIDS; the reference was completely unambiguous. I guess things had changed in the 12 years between the coinage of "AIDS" and that movie, but it still resembled the way people talked about it, and I think the memory of not knowing what it was was still fresh in the culture.

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#23

Post by heywire »

asveikau wrote: post #22
lawn wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow! I love Forrest Gump and I've seen it a few times at least, but I never realized the connection to AIDS. Thanks.

I wonder if it's the younger YN crowd that is not seeing the connection? I was pretty young when I saw that movie in 1994, but it never occurred to me that it could be anything other than AIDS; the reference was completely unambiguous. I guess things had changed in the 12 years between the coinage of "AIDS" and that movie, but it still resembled the way people talked about it, and I think the memory of not knowing wh…

I would have been 13 at that time, and I have the same thoughts. It was very clear to me what it was they were suggesting.

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#25

Post by kmfrk »

seiji wrote: post #20
kmfrk wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even today, people have a very poor understanding on how you can - rather can't - contract it from HIV+ people, alas. (Not saying that HIV==AIDS.) http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/how-you-get-hiv... If an HIV+ person sneezes in an elevator, some will have a panic attack, I reckon. Not to mention the travel bans some countries impose. 1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/30/hiv-travel-ban-lift... 2) ht…

(Not saying that HIV==AIDS.) Why make that disclaimer?

It's an important distinction - and a mistake that many make - but more than anything, I didn't want some asshat to derail the message of my comment by nitpicking about this to appear smart and insightful.

This sometimes happens, unfortunately.

Even I can't remember the details, but for anyone whose curiosity has been picqued, this explains it well: http://www.aids.org/topics/aids-faqs/difference-between-hiv-....

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#26

Post by jaggederest »

snowwrestler wrote: post #21
seiji wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Not saying that HIV==AIDS.) Why make that disclaimer?

Not everyone who is HIV-positive develops AIDS.

As an example, Magic Johnson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Johnson#HIV_activism

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#27

Post by caycep »

Contrast this from recent papers describing the breathtaking molecular capabilities we have these days with the HIV virus (using inactivated/re-engineered HIV to treat T cell lymphomas/leukemias, bone marrow transplants to treat HIV itself), and it's humbling both - how far we've come, and with HIV still a major killer on the global scene, how far we have to go....

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#28

Post by mikeash »

seiji wrote: post #20
kmfrk wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even today, people have a very poor understanding on how you can - rather can't - contract it from HIV+ people, alas. (Not saying that HIV==AIDS.) http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/how-you-get-hiv... If an HIV+ person sneezes in an elevator, some will have a panic attack, I reckon. Not to mention the travel bans some countries impose. 1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/30/hiv-travel-ban-lift... 2) ht…

(Not saying that HIV==AIDS.) Why make that disclaimer?

I suspect you're thinking it's a concession to conspiracy theorists who think that AIDS is caused by something other than HIV. At least, that was my initial reaction. But it's true that they are not the same, because AIDS is the syndrome you develop due to having HIV, but they don't happen at the same time, and AIDS can be put off indefinitely in a person with HIV using modern treatment.

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#29

Post by seiji »

kmfrk wrote: post #25
seiji wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Not saying that HIV==AIDS.) Why make that disclaimer?

It's an important distinction - and a mistake that many make - but more than anything, I didn't want some asshat to derail the message of my comment by nitpicking about this to appear smart and insightful. This sometimes happens, unfortunately. Even I can't remember the details, but for anyone whose curiosity has been picqued, this explains it well: http://www.aids.org/topics/aids-faqs/difference-between-hiv-... .

Ah, got it. At first I thought you were one of those crazy people saying AIDS isn't caused by HIV.

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#30

Post by samspot »

My vote for the key quote (from the bottom of the article):

"Dr. Friedman-Kien said he had tested nine of the victims and found severe defects in their immunological systems. The patients had serious malfunctions of two types of cells called T and B cell lymphocytes, which have important roles in fighting infections and cancer.

But Dr. Friedman-Kien emphasized that the researchers did not know whether the immunological defects were the underlying problem or had developed secondarily to the infections or drug use."

Post reply on HN