101–104 of 104 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A "syndrome" is a classification of related signs and symptoms without relating them to a single underlying cause, so yeah, that's what it means. As more is learned about the causes, different disorders can be removed from the syndrome.
True. But note that "can be" does not mean "will be". For example, AIDS is a syndrome (thus the "S") whose causes have been pretty well understood for some time. However, it is still defined as a syndrome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I understand it, AIDS is a syndrome rather than a disease because while the cause of the immune system deficiency has a single cause, many of the symptoms are caused by secondary problems that arise because of the immune system deficiency, and so the symptoms do not have a single direct cause, even though they're all indirectly the result of HIV, and the immune deficiency itself is a direct result of HIV
I think it would be more accurate to say that AIDS is a syndrome because it's defined as such. You can also speak of HIV disease[1]. HIV disease would be the disease associated with the human immunodeficiency virus. AIDS refers to a particular syndrome. They mostly overlap, but they describe slightly different concepts. My speculation is that the reason the distinction persists is mainly historical: AIDS was describe…
I imagine another reason for the distinction is that AIDS is typically a late stage of HIV infection. That is, people who develop AIDS have usually been infected with HIV for some time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True. But note that "can be" does not mean "will be". For example, AIDS is a syndrome (thus the "S") whose causes have been pretty well understood for some time. However, it is still defined as a syndrome.
Not according to people like Serge Lang
If one takes the position that we do not have enough evidence to come to a particular conclusion (as Lang did), then one takes that position with respect to the information available at a particular time. I don't know at what point Lang last stated such a position. Regardless, he's been dead for nearly 9 years.
AIDS is one of the most studied diseases in all of history; we learn more about it every year. It is certainly possible to state that we know HIV causes AIDS, without disagreeing with with Lang.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it would be more accurate to say that AIDS is a syndrome because it's defined as such. You can also speak of HIV disease[1]. HIV disease would be the disease associated with the human immunodeficiency virus. AIDS refers to a particular syndrome. They mostly overlap, but they describe slightly different concepts. My speculation is that the reason the distinction persists is mainly historical: AIDS was describe…
> My speculation is that the reason the distinction persists is mainly historical .... I imagine another reason for the distinction is that AIDS is typically a late stage of HIV infection. That is, people who develop AIDS have usually been infected with HIV for some time.