GERRI@IBM.COM (Gerri Oppedisano) (07/30/90)
I'm really confused. Firstly, I didn't think being determined as HIV+ meant you had full blown AIDS. Isn't the patient in this case only HIV+ and not actively suffering from AIDS? (Forgive me if I missed something; it was a long article). Secondly, related to this is the mention of the fact that 2 years is a short period of time to be found HIV+ after being infected. I thought I heard something very different from that at a health clinic I went to 2 years ago asking on the subject. The people there taking your blood and also the people you speak to on the phone tell you that within 6 months to a year a blood test can reveal some link to the virus if you were in fact infected.. What was the link? I thought being determined HIV+ was it. PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, which it seems I must be. Another thing related to the dentist-patient case recently discussed is that it seems that all the facts conclude there was no blood to blood contact between dentist and patient. By considering the possibility that there was in fact a transfer of desease from the dentist to the patient, are they saying they don't believe that there wasn't a blood to blood contact or are they suggesting the desease was transferred magically some other way? I find it extremely difficult to consider the possibility that AIDS had been transferred without blood-to-blood or semen-to-blood contact.. When the report talked about possible needle pricks on the dentist does that mean the dentist pricked himself with the needle, drawing some blood into it and then stuck the needle into the patient? Or did it mean the needle pricks allowed an opening between the pricked gloves to the patient's mouth? Again, please forgive me if I missed something entirely but I found this case very confusing, as I imagine others might've. Thanks for any more info.. gerri
jfh@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Jack Hamilton) (07/31/90)
I don't know if the woman has AIDS according to the CDC definition, but she has it by the street definition - she has had candidiasis and pneumocystis (I assume that PC was what the Examiner meant by "a kind of pneumonia associated with AIDS"). AIDS does not usually develop within two years of infection. That's one of the things that is puzzling the researchers. Seropositivity, however, is thought to show up fairly soon (usually 3-6 months). I think that most people stay in the "asymptomatic positive" stage for a relatively long time. ---------- Copyright 1990 by Jack Hamilton. Copyright abandoned. May be reproduced commercially or non-commercially, with or without attribution. -- ------------- Jack Hamilton jfh@netcom.uucp