HIV and AIDS: Questions of Scientific and Journalistic Responsibility

I

6

HIV AND AIDS

negative, then the diseases are given another name. Statistics based on
such a definition are very misleading, because the definition assumes
the correlation. Furthermore, some statistics from some sources are
based on the CDC definition, while others are not. What good are
statistics obtained or reported under such circumstances? For example,
to what extent did the inclusion of cervical cancer and tuberculosis in
the group of AIDS-defining diseases cause statistics to show an increase
in the rise of AIDS among heterosexuals?
Just talking about the "AIDS" situation is difficult because there are
at least four possible notions defining AIDS differently for different
people, namely:
(a) One definition, which is that of the Centers for Disease Control,
is that AIDS is any one of a list consisting currently of 29 diseases,
which are called AIDS if and only if the person is HIV positive. About
40% of these diseases do not involve immunodeficiency (e.g. cervical
cancer).
(b) A second notion is that of an HIV-positive person who has a
disease such that the person is wasting away, getting thinner,
generally breaking down, and dying.
(c) A third notion is that of a person who is HIV positive, currently
without any symptoms of a disease, but it is assumed that the person
will be dying of a disease as in case (b), in ten years, more or less.
(d) A fourth notion is that of a person who has currently (or had) a
severe case of irreversible immunodeficiency, and is dying (or died) of
immunodeficiency.
I shall attempt to make the distinctions clear in what follows, and I
ask readers to exercise great caution and critical judgment when they
are faced with material in the U. S. media concerning the nature and
cause of AIDS. Readers should note that in many instances (and
practically all instances which have come to my attention), being HIV
positive is identified in U. S. newspapers with having AIDS
(whatever AIDS is). So-called "news" articles usually do not make
clear whether this means being sick and having severe
immunodeficiency symptoms, or having one of the other diseases listed
by the CDC as an AIDS-defining disease (in the presence of HIV), or
whether it means being HIV positive while not having any diseases,
on the status of laboratory evidence of HIV infection, as shown below."