5 ms·

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

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.

EGreg 12y ago
Not according to people like Serge Lang
- ggchappell 12y ago
  Yes & no. 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.
mtdewcmu 12y ago
It's maybe worth pointing out that syndrome is completely absent any value judgment (in keeping with the scientific tradition of modern medicine); it's literally just a combination of symptoms that occur together. From http://dictionary.reference.com/ http://dictionary.reference.com/: Greek syndromḗ concurrence, combination
vidarh 12y ago
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
- mtdewcmu 12y ago
  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 described and became well known before the HIV virus was discovered and was demonstrated as the causative agent. [1] http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/211316-overview http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/211316-overview
  - ggchappell 12y ago
    > 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.
    - mtdewcmu 12y ago
      That would have played a role. No doubt.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

EGreg 12y ago

Not according to people like Serge Lang

ggchappell 12y ago
Yes & no. 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.

mtdewcmu 12y ago

It's maybe worth pointing out that syndrome is completely absent any value judgment (in keeping with the scientific tradition of modern medicine); it's literally just a combination of symptoms that occur together. From http://dictionary.reference.com/ http://dictionary.reference.com/: Greek syndromḗ concurrence, combination

vidarh 12y ago

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

mtdewcmu 12y ago
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 described and became well known before the HIV virus was discovered and was demonstrated as the causative agent. [1] http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/211316-overview http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/211316-overview
- ggchappell 12y ago
  > 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.
  - mtdewcmu 12y ago
    That would have played a role. No doubt.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]