The global challenge of HIV/AIDS remains one of the most pressing public health issues today. According to the latest data from UNAIDS, around 38.4 million people worldwide are living with HIV/AIDS, underlining the need for not only medical intervention but also comprehensive awareness, education, and social change. Despite the significant strides made in treatment and prevention, the confusion surrounding the relationship between HIV and AIDS still persists.

Young people have become influential advocates in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Research from UNICEF shows that youth-led initiatives can lower HIV transmission rates by as much as 45% in targeted communities. These young activists utilize digital platforms and peer-to-peer education to dispel myths, promote safe practices, and foster supportive environments for those affected by HIV/AIDS.

Dr Gowri Kulkarni, an expert in Internal Medicine, explains that while the terms HIV and AIDS are often used interchangeably, they are distinctly different. "HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) is a virus that attacks the immune system, whereas AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) is a condition that occurs when HIV severely damages the immune system," she clarifies. To understand the implications of these differences, it's important to explore the fundamental distinctions between the two.

1. HIV is a Virus; AIDS is a Syndrome

HIV is the virus responsible for attacking the body’s immune system, specifically targeting CD4 cells, which are crucial for the body’s defense against infections. As HIV progresses, it destroys these cells, weakening the immune system over time. If left untreated, this continuous damage can lead to AIDS.

AIDS, on the other hand, is a syndrome, not a virus. Dr Kulkarni further elaborates that AIDS is a collection of symptoms and illnesses that emerge when the immune system is severely compromised due to prolonged HIV infection. It represents the most advanced stage of HIV, and is characterized by very low CD4 counts or the onset of opportunistic infections like tuberculosis, pneumonia, or certain cancers.

2. Not Everyone with HIV Develops AIDS

A key distinction to remember is that not everyone with HIV will progress to AIDS. Thanks to advancements in medicine, particularly antiretroviral therapy (ART), individuals living with HIV can manage the virus and maintain a healthy immune system for many years, or even decades, without ever developing AIDS. ART works by suppressing the virus to undetectable levels, effectively preventing the damage HIV would otherwise cause to the immune system.

Without treatment, however, HIV progresses through three stages:

- Acute HIV Infection: This stage occurs shortly after transmission and may include symptoms like fever, fatigue, and swollen lymph nodes.

- Chronic HIV Infection: Often asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, the virus continues to damage the immune system but at a slower rate.

- AIDS: This is the final stage, marked by severe immune damage and the presence of infections that take advantage of the compromised immune defenses.

3. HIV is Transmissible; AIDS is Not

Another key distinction between HIV and AIDS is the way in which they are transmitted. HIV is highly contagious and can be transmitted through the exchange of bodily fluids such as blood, semen, vaginal fluids, and breast milk. It is primarily spread through unprotected sexual contact, sharing needles, or from mother to child during childbirth or breastfeeding.

AIDS, however, is not transmissible. It is not a disease that can be passed from one person to another. Rather, AIDS is the result of untreated, advanced HIV infection and is a direct consequence of the virus’s damage to the immune system.

4. Diagnosis Methods Differ

HIV and AIDS are diagnosed through different methods. HIV is diagnosed through blood tests or oral swabs that detect the presence of the virus or antibodies produced by the immune system in response to the virus. Early detection of HIV is crucial, as it allows for timely intervention and treatment, which can prevent the virus from progressing to AIDS.

AIDS, on the other hand, is diagnosed using more specific criteria. Dr Kulkarni notes that the diagnosis of AIDS is made when the individual’s CD4 cell count falls below 200 cells/mm³, or when opportunistic infections or certain cancers (such as Kaposi's sarcoma or lymphoma) are detected. Diagnosing AIDS involves a more thorough assessment of the individual’s immune function and overall health, as opposed to just the detection of HIV.

5. Treatment Goals Are Different

The treatment goals for HIV and AIDS differ significantly, although both involve antiretroviral therapy (ART). For HIV, the primary treatment goal is to suppress the virus to undetectable levels, thus maintaining a strong immune system and preventing further transmission of the virus. People living with HIV can often live long, healthy lives if they adhere to ART.

For individuals diagnosed with AIDS, the treatment plan becomes more complex. While ART remains an essential part of managing the virus, treatment for AIDS also focuses on addressing the opportunistic infections and secondary health complications associated with severe immune suppression. The goal of treatment for AIDS is not only to manage the HIV virus but also to improve the quality of life and extend survival by treating these secondary health issues.

Role of Community Engagement in Combatting HIV/AIDS

While the medical community has made great strides in managing HIV, the battle to curb its transmission is also a social and cultural issue. Dr Daman Ahuja, a public health expert, highlights that HIV/AIDS awareness and education are vital to reducing transmission rates and supporting those affected by the virus. "Young people, especially, have become key advocates in the fight against HIV/AIDS," says Dr Ahuja. "Research from UNICEF shows that youth-led initiatives can lower HIV transmission rates by as much as 45% in targeted communities."

Additionally, grassroots activism plays a significant role in raising awareness and addressing stigma. As the World Health Organization reports, community-based interventions have been proven to increase HIV testing rates and improve treatment adherence, which are crucial in the fight against the pandemic.

The ultimate goal of organizations like UNAIDS is to eliminate the HIV/AIDS pandemic by 2030. Achieving this requires global collaboration, from medical treatment advancements to public health strategies, education, and advocacy. Dr Kulkarni’s insight underscores the importance of early detection, treatment adherence, and community support in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Dr Gowri Kulkarni is Head of Medical Operations at MediBuddy and Dr Daman Ahuja, a public health expert and has been associated with Red Ribbon Express Project of NACO between 2007-12.

If screening is made available and accessible to those between 40 to 85 years of age, it could detect 94% of lung cancers. Even if 30% of people get screened, it could prevent 26,000 deaths in the US. Despite that, the screening for the deadliest cancer in the US still misses most cases, reveals a JAMA Network study. As per the American Cancer Society, 226,650 new cases of lung and bronchus cancer in 2025, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) notes 18,893 new cases in 2022. As for deaths, the American Cancer Society estimates around 124,730 lung cancer deaths in 2025.

The Washington Post reports that when a 42-year-old mother of three, Jessie Creel first developed a stubborn cough in May last year, she did what most people would do. She went to her doctor, took the prescribed antibiotics and hoped to bounce back quickly. Instead, her cough worsened. She began losing weight, struggled to sleep and even coughed up blood during a camping trip. Nothing about it felt normal anymore.

Six months later, she was diagnosed with Stage 4 lung cancer. Creel ran, swam, avoided alcohol and had never smoked, yet her cancer had spread to her bones, brain and lymph nodes by the time it was detected. Her story is becoming more familiar among cancer specialists, who now say lung cancer is no longer a disease that fits the old stereotype of the heavy smoker. The JAMA Network study is pushing experts to ask whether current lung cancer screening guidelines are excluding thousands of people who might benefit from early detection.

The Current Screening Rules That Limits People From Getting Themselves Screened

Right now, lung cancer screening in the United States is recommended only for people between 50 and 80 who have a heavy smoking history and who either still smoke or quit within the last 15 years. However, the researchers of the new study examined around 1000 lung cancer patients treated at Northwestern Medicine. Only one third would have qualified for screening under today’s guidelines. Women, people of color and those who had never smoked made up a large portion of the patients who fell outside the criteria.

According to the study’s authors, this means most lung cancer cases in the country are detected only after symptoms appear, which often happens when the cancer has already advanced.

Also Read: Lung Cancer No Longer A Smoker's Disease, It's A Breather's Disease: Story Of A 31-year-old Non-smoker NCR Woman Who Had Stage 2 Lung Cancer

Experts suggest a broader, age based approach similar to breast or colon cancer screening. If everyone between 40 and 85 could get screened, researchers estimate that nearly 94 percent of lung cancer cases could be identified, potentially preventing more than 26,000 deaths each year even if only a fraction of eligible people participated.

How Is Lung Cancer Detected?

For those who qualify, lung cancer screening is done using a low dose CT scan once a year. These scans use far less radiation than a regular CT and have been shown to catch cancers early.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines decide who gets insurance covered screening. The American Cancer Society has its own recommendation, which is slightly more flexible but does not guarantee full coverage.

Doctors say that when lung cancer is caught early through screening, cure rates can exceed 90 percent. But many people who do not meet today’s criteria never get that chance and are often diagnosed only once symptoms set in. By that stage, treatment is more complex and outcomes are less optimistic.

Why Are Experts Asking For A Change In System?

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer related deaths. It kills more people than breast, colon and prostate cancers combined. Yet smoking rates have dropped significantly over the years, which means screening based on smoking history alone no longer reflects who is actually getting sick.

The new study suggests that continuing with the current guidelines would mean detecting only one third of new cases. Experts call the findings alarming and believe shifting to an age based model could save more lives than the number of people who die each year from brain cancer.

Broader screening may also reduce long term healthcare costs. Detecting cancer at Stage 1 rather than Stage 4 could save nearly 25 billion dollars annually in treatment expenses, far outweighing the cost of offering more people access to scans.

We often reach for pills to soothe a headache, ease congestion, or help us drift off to sleep. Yet one experienced pharmacist believes that several everyday medicines tucked inside our bathroom cabinets may be causing more problems than they solve. Deborah Grayson, who has spent 13 years in pharmacy practice, has shared a firm warning about seven widely used treatments she personally avoids. Her concerns range from overpowering drowsiness that leaves people feeling disconnected to medications that can create a dependence over time.

Medicines That May Trigger Serious Side Effects

Below are the seven products she is cautious about, along with the alternatives she suggests.

1. Codeine

Codeine, sometimes sold in low doses mixed with paracetamol, is a strong opioid pain reliever. Deborah believes the danger of becoming reliant on it overshadows the intended relief.

She explained to the Daily Mail that opioid medicines convert to morphine inside the body and act on pain pathways to reduce discomfort, often bringing a warm, pleasant sensation that some describe as a mild “buzz.”

Her preferred approach for mild to moderate pain is sticking to paracetamol or ibuprofen. If those options fall short, she advises speaking with a doctor instead of moving to opioids.

2. Statins

Statins are prescribed to millions to help manage cholesterol levels, though debate continues about how effective they truly are for certain groups. Deborah said they should be used only when necessary, as people without clear risk may gain little benefit.

She noted that women may see even fewer protective effects, which raises concerns about whether many are being offered these drugs without enough consideration. Muscle aches, tiredness and possible liver irritation are recognised risks. She recommends having a detailed discussion with a healthcare professional to review whether another option may be more suitable.

3. Anti-depressants

Prescriptions for antidepressants in the UK have risen sharply. While these medicines are essential for many, Deborah believes that their long-term side effects and withdrawal symptoms can outweigh the positives for others.

She pointed out that access to cognitive behavioural therapy remains limited in an already strained health system, even though therapy may offer more lasting support for some patients. She added that antidepressants can cause nausea, headaches and sleep problems, and with long-term use may raise the risk of weight gain, diabetes and stomach bleeding.

Some people also develop sexual side effects, while withdrawal may bring dizziness, nausea, sharp shock-like sensations in the head, intense anxiety, irritability and disturbed sleep.

4. Gabapentin and Pregabalin

These medicines are often prescribed for nerve pain or fibromyalgia, yet Deborah feels that their side effects are not always fully explained.

She said they can lead to heavy drowsiness, poor balance, difficulty with concentration and memory issues over time, along with weight gain. Many people find the initial effects so overwhelming that they stop before any improvement is noticed, which may take several weeks.

Both medicines are controlled because of the possibility of addiction, and some users may develop both physical and psychological dependence.

5. Steroid Creams

Steroid creams are frequently used to manage eczema, psoriasis and other skin flare-ups. They are helpful in short bursts, although Deborah worries that many people continue using them far longer than advised because routine follow-up is often lacking.

Extended use may thin the skin and trigger painful reactions or infections. This creates a pattern where the discomfort returns, leading patients to reach again for the same cream, keeping them stuck in a cycle.

6. PPIs

Proton pump inhibitors, such as omeprazole or lansoprazole, are among the most common treatments for heartburn and acid reflux.

Deborah views these as a quick solution that can cause long-term harm if people rely on them for too long. She explained that stomach acid is necessary for breaking down food and absorbing nutrients, and PPIs interfere with this process. This can leave the stomach struggling to digest properly and may contribute to nutrient shortages.

She encourages people to consider dietary adjustments and stress management instead of long-term dependence on PPIs.

7. Laxatives

Many people turn to laxatives for constipation, and with so many available without a prescription, it is easy to depend on them more than intended. While they work well for short-term relief, consistent use may cause the bowel to slow down.

Deborah warned that many people eventually struggle to go to the toilet without help from these products. Short-term effects can include cramps, diarrhea, nausea, bloating, and trapped wind.

For ongoing constipation, she suggests increasing fibre intake or using options that draw more water into the bowel, such as Fybogel (ispaghula husk) or Macrogol sachets.

A recent study suggests that a person’s blood group could play a role in whether they are more likely to develop severe liver conditions. Although most of us link blood type only with transfusions or donor matching, scientists now believe it may also offer clues about long-term liver health.

Higher Liver Disease Risk Linked to This Blood Group

A new study published in the journal Frontiers reports that individuals with blood group A have an increased chance of autoimmune liver disorders. In these conditions, the body’s own immune system mistakenly harms liver tissue, which can lead to ongoing damage and, in some cases, life-threatening liver failure.

The researchers also found that people with blood group B may have a slightly lower likelihood of certain liver-related concerns compared with those who have type A.

Why Your Blood Group Could Influence Liver Health?

Scientists have long examined how inherited blood groups relate to different illnesses. Some earlier findings noted that individuals with non-O blood types (A, B, or AB) tend to show higher activity of certain clotting factors and other changes in the body.

These differences may affect blood flow in the liver. For example, past studies found slightly increased levels of a clotting protein called von Willebrand factor in people with advanced liver disease who had non-O blood types, although it does not appear to be a major driver of risk.

Liver Conditions Connected to Certain Blood Groups

The latest research focused on autoimmune liver diseases such as:

• Autoimmune hepatitis, in which the immune system attacks liver cells.
• Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), where the bile ducts inside the liver slowly break down.

Among these, autoimmune hepatitis showed a stronger link with blood group A. Blood group B appeared to carry a somewhat lower chance of PBC when compared with type A.

What Past Research Shows About Liver Cancer

Several earlier studies explored the relationship between blood group and liver cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma or HCC). Older data and a large meta-analysis found that people with type O blood were under-represented among those with liver cancer, suggesting that type O may be tied to a lower risk overall.

Why Knowing Your Blood Type Helps

Understanding your blood group can offer insight into potential health risks, though it does not mean you will certainly develop liver disease if you are type A or B. It remains only one part of a larger picture.

This may be especially important if you have blood type A or B and a family history of liver conditions. Routine health checks, liver screenings, and discussions with your doctor can help you watch for any early signs.

For now, it is clear that blood type is more than a simple classification, as it may hold useful information about future liver health.

Autoimmune liver disorders are uncommon, yet they can become serious when they are not spotted in time. A better grasp of the genetic and immune-related factors behind them can guide stronger prevention and treatment efforts. The authors of the study note that more research involving larger and more varied groups of people is needed to confirm these findings and to explain how different ABO blood types may influence the development of autoimmune liver problems.