Clarifying Terms Used in AIDS Story

Regarding: “A Second Chance to Prevent AIDS” (Aug. 6): I was surprised to see The Times yet again confuse and misuse the terms HIV and AIDS. It’s very complicated, and space probably doesn’t allow for the distinction of every term to be defined in every article, but readers should know that “HIV seropositivity” and “having AIDS” are very different medical conditions that must be distinguished for proper patient care. Someone with HIV but not AIDS might be very sick, and someone with AIDS might be very healthy, or vice versa; it all depends on overall clinical factors such as viral load, CD4 cell numbers, presence or absence of opportunistic infections, type/frequency/intensity of medication side-effects, co-occurring health conditions, etc.

But overall, it was a good article. The Times should be reporting on something HIV-related nearly every day because it would take more than 365 articles per year to explain HIV issues and explode commonly held misconceptions and myths.

KEN HOWARD

Los Angeles

*

In “A Second Chance to Prevent AIDS,” an epidemiologist from the CDC was quoted as follows: “If you’re in Omaha, Neb., where’s the doctor going to send you for behavioral risk reduction?”

Speaking as the doctor in Omaha, Neb., I can answer that question. The Nebraska AIDS Project is funded by the CDC to provide such services and more. It is one of the country’s oldest and longest-running AIDS service organizations, one of the few in the United States to offer services statewide.

Similar risk-reduction counseling is also available from my own program at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. Frankly, I am offended at the suggestion that enlightened attitudes to HIV prevention are unavailable in the heartland. This kind of stereotyping is a disservice to those of us working very hard out here and with much fewer resources than states such as California.

DR. SUSAN SWINDELLS

Department of Internal Medicine

Nebraska Medical Center

Omaha, Neb.