 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / July 2007History of Medicine
1) The U.S. Health Department currently claims that peptic-ulcers are caused by an infectious-disease (H. Pylori). However, prior to 1994, the U.S. Health Department claimed that peptic-ulcers were caused by "stress" / "worry"; and the Department's misinformation campaign had been so effective, that in 1995, "nearly 90 percent of those with ulcers [still] blame[d] their ulcers on stress or worry...." http://www.cdc.gov/ulcer/history.htm 2) Prior to 1981, what did the U.S. Health Department claim was the cause of HIV symptoms/signs? > 1) The U.S. Health Department currently claims that peptic-ulcers are > caused by an infectious-disease (H. Pylori). However, prior to 1994, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.cdc.gov/ulcer/history.htm Yeah, it takes people a while to learn new information. > 2) Prior to 1981, what did the U.S. Health Department claim was the > cause of HIV symptoms/signs? HIV wasn't discovered until 1984 by Bob Gallo (who called HTLV-3 for Human T-Cell Virus type 3) and Luc Montagnier, who called it LAV (lymph adenopathy associatead virus). AIDS wasn't recognized until June 5, 1981. Jeff > > 2) Prior to 1981, what did the U.S. Health Department claim was the > > cause of HIV symptoms/signs? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Jeff Thank you, Jeff. I think my question still makes sense, though. I'm wondering, on June 4, 1981 (and earlier), when an HIV-infected person presented to an M.D., with what disease did the M.D. dx the patient? >2) Prior to 1981, what did the U.S. Health Department claim was the >cause of HIV symptoms/signs? It was unknown. There was a brief interval where there were reports of "Gay-related immune disorder" (GRID), since AIDS first mostly showed up in homosexual males, but nobody knew what caused it. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Only George Bush could start a war for oil and not get any." -- Bill Maher Before the coining of terms 'GRID', 'AIDS', and 'HIV', what dx's did symptomatic HIV-patients receive from M.D.'s? >Before the coining of terms 'GRID', 'AIDS', and 'HIV', what dx's did >symptomatic HIV-patients receive from M.D.'s? Depends on how they presented. Could have been based on the specific disease, e.g. PCP, or maybe some sort of general immune system failure, but how do you diagnose something you've never seen before? -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Only George Bush could start a war for oil and not get any." -- Bill Maher > In article <1184151615.649044.73...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Depends on how they presented.... how do you diagnose something you've never seen before? If you follow the APA's guidelines, and a patient presents with an infectious-disease that's unknown to you, and the patient presents with certain symptoms, and you fail to identify the infectious- disease; then you diagnose with Somatization Disorder - no? If you follow the APA's guidelines, and a patient presents correctly interpreting his symptoms as signifying the presence of a serious infectious-disease, and you fail to identify the infectious-disease; then you dx with Hypochondriasis - no? >>In article <1184151615.649044.73...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > infectious-disease, and you fail to identify the infectious-disease; > then you dx with Hypochondriasis - no? I'm pretty sure that no one presenting with KS or PCP gets diagnosed with somatization disorder. Oral thrush is also not a common symptom that leads people to diagnose somatization.  SignatureDavid Rind drind@caregroup.harvard.edu > I'm pretty sure that no one presenting with KS or PCP gets diagnosed > with somatization disorder. Oral thrush is also not a common symptom > that leads people to diagnose somatization. I'd meant the term 'symptom' according to the U.S. Health Department's definition: "subjective evidence of disease or physical disturbance observed by the patient." http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mplusdictionary.html By 'symptoms', I'd meant specifically: subjective, patient-observed evidence (in contrast to objective signs). Are you saying that oral- thrush (a sign) is preceded by no symptoms in HIV cases? >> I'm pretty sure that no one presenting with KS or PCP gets diagnosed >> with somatization disorder. Oral thrush is also not a common symptom [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >evidence (in contrast to objective signs). Are you saying that oral- >thrush (a sign) is preceded by no symptoms in HIV cases? f.ck me!! I've heard of moving the goalposts, but the mover usually tries to keep them in the same suburb. SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com > f.ck me!! I've heard of moving the goalposts, but the mover usually > tries to keep them in the same suburb. I moved nothing. Linguistic precision is not a crime. p.s. The distinction between symptoms and signs matters to the U.S. Health Department and APA, so it matters to you too. >>I'm pretty sure that no one presenting with KS or PCP gets diagnosed >>with somatization disorder. Oral thrush is also not a common symptom [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > evidence (in contrast to objective signs). Are you saying that oral- > thrush (a sign) is preceded by no symptoms in HIV cases? Oral thrush is a symptom when the patient comes in and says, "My mouth hurts and there are white patches all over it." SignatureDavid Rind drind@caregroup.harvard.edu On Jul 14, 10:13 pm, Alan_K...@yahoo.com wrote: > Are you saying that oral-thrush (a sign) is preceded by > no symptoms in HIV cases? The medical-establishment is evading that question. -- Dr. Dre http://geocities.com/drdre5478965/ On Jul 14, 10:13 pm, Alan_K...@yahoo.com wrote: > Are you saying that oral-thrush (a sign) is preceded by > no symptoms in HIV cases? The medical-establishment is evading that question. -- Dr. Dre http://geocities.com/drdre5478965/ On Jul 14, 10:13 pm, Alan_K...@yahoo.com wrote: > Are you saying that oral-thrush (a sign) is > preceded by no symptoms in HIV cases? The medical-establishment is evading that question. -- Dr. Dre http://geocities.com/drdre5478965/ On Jul 14, 10:13 pm, Alan_K...@yahoo.com wrote: > Are you saying that oral-thrush (a sign) is preceded > by no symptoms in HIV cases? The medical-establishment is evading that question. -- Dr. Dre http://geocities.com/drdre5478965/ On Jul 14, 10:13 pm, Alan_K...@yahoo.com wrote: > Are you saying that oral-thrush (a sign) is preceded > by no symptoms in HIV cases? The medical-establishment is evading that question. -- Dr. Dre http://geocities.com/drdre5478965/ On Jul 14, 10:13 pm, Alan_K...@yahoo.com wrote: > Are you saying that oral-thrush (a sign) is preceded > by no symptoms in HIV cases? The medical-establishment is evading that question. -- Dr. Dre http://geocities.com/drdre5478965/ On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:13:45 -0700, Alan_K_FL wrote: "Are you saying that oral-thrush (a sign) is preceded by no symptoms in HIV cases?" The medical establishment is evading the question. Signaturehttp://geocities.com/drdre5478965/ quit copying me, dr. dre >> In article <1184151615.649044.73...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >with certain symptoms, and you fail to identify the infectious- >disease; then you diagnose with Somatization Disorder - no? Not when the patient is suffering from infections. Those, at least, were quite visible. So your little MCS hobby-horse doesn't enter into the matter here. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Only George Bush could start a war for oil and not get any." -- Bill Maher > So your little MCS hobby-horse doesn't enter into the matter here. Que dices? No comprendo idiota? > >If you follow the APA's guidelines, and a patient presents with an > >infectious-disease that's unknown to you, and the patient presents [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not when the patient is suffering from infections. Those, at least, > were quite visible. What's visible about Borrelia-burgdorferi infection (in cases without erythema migrans)? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.