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.

Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death among women, claiming more lives each year than all cancers combined. Yet, it continues to be misunderstood, underdiagnosed, and often dismissed as a “male” health problem. In Ohio and across the US, women are now using a striking visual message to confront this reality head-on, by quite literally dressing for the cause.

February, observed as American Heart Month, marks a renewed push to educate communities about heart disease, especially among women. Health advocates stress that while the spotlight is brightest this month, the risks and responsibilities extend far beyond the calendar.

“It’s our Super Bowl,” said Lauren Thomas, development director for the American Heart Association of North Central West Virginia and Ohio Valley. “It’s about awareness. Heart health is not a one-month conversation. It has to be a year-round priority where people actively put their hearts first.”

Why Red Has Become a Warning Sign

Across Ohio, women are wearing red, a color long associated with love but also with danger. The message is deliberate. Red symbolizes the urgency of cardiovascular disease, a condition responsible for one in every three deaths among women.

“When we wear red, we start conversations that many people avoid,” said Melissa Pratt, a heart disease survivor, reported WBBJ News. “One in three women die from cardiovascular disease. Wearing red encourages women to get checked, understand their risks, and take their health seriously.”

From landmarks lit in red to workplaces, neighborhoods, and social media feeds filled with crimson outfits, the visual campaign is meant to disrupt complacency. It asks a confronting question. If heart disease is killing women at this scale, why is it still not treated like a crisis?

Ohio Valley And Downtown Jackson Women Taking the Lead

Coinciding with American Heart Month, the Ohio Valley Women of Impact campaign launches this Friday. Six local women, Crissy Clutter, Jan Pattishall-Krupinski, Lacy Ferguson, Shelbie Smith, Jennifer Hall-Fawson, and Laurie Conway, are leading fundraising and awareness efforts aimed at improving women’s heart health.

Their work focuses on education, early detection, and supporting research that better understands how heart disease presents differently in women. Symptoms in women can be subtle, ranging from fatigue and nausea to jaw or back pain, which often delays diagnosis and treatment.

Turning Awareness Into Action

To mark the start of the month, the American Heart Association hosted a National Wear Red Day breakfast on Friday morning at the LIFT Wellness Center in Jackson Walk Plaza. The event brought together survivors, advocates, and health professionals to reinforce a simple but powerful message. Awareness must lead to action.

Health experts continue to urge women to prioritize regular checkups, manage blood pressure, cholesterol, and stress, and recognize early warning signs. Lifestyle changes, timely screenings, and informed conversations can significantly reduce risk.

Dressed In Death, Fighting For Life

The women of Ohio are not wearing red for fashion. They are wearing it as a warning, a remembrance, and a call to action. In dressing themselves in the color of urgency, they are confronting a disease that has taken too many lives quietly. This February, their message is clear. Heart disease is not inevitable, but ignoring it can be deadly.

If your roots trace back to the Indian subcontinent, your risk of developing type 2 diabetes is significantly higher than that of Europeans. Research shows that Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis are up to six times more likely to develop the condition, often at a younger age and at lower body weights. For years, carbohydrate-heavy diets were blamed. But growing scientific evidence points to a far deeper and darker cause: repeated famines during British colonial rule that may have altered metabolic resilience across generations.

Can Hunger Change Human Biology?

The idea that starvation can leave a genetic imprint may sound extreme, but science supports it. Prolonged nutrient deprivation can permanently affect how the body stores fat, processes glucose, and responds to food abundance later in life. Even a single famine can raise the risk of metabolic disorders such as diabetes in future generations.

This understanding forms the basis of the “thrifty genotype hypothesis,” a concept widely discussed in evolutionary biology.

The Thrifty Genotype Hypothesis Explained

The thrifty genotype hypothesis suggests that populations exposed to repeated famines develop genetic traits that help conserve energy. These traits are lifesaving during scarcity but become harmful in times of plenty, increasing the risk of obesity and diabetes.

Economic historian Mike Davis documents that India experienced 31 major famines during 190 years of British rule between 1757 and 1947, roughly one every six years. By contrast, only 17 famines occurred in the previous 2,000 years. Davis estimates that 29 million people died in the Victorian era alone. Economic anthropologist Jason Hickel places the death toll from colonial policies between 1880 and 1920 at around 100 million.

Scientific Evidence Linking Famines to Diabetes

A study published in Frontiers in Public Health titled The Elevated Susceptibility to Diabetes in India: An Evolutionary Perspective argues that these famines reshaped metabolic traits. The researchers note that Indians tend to have a higher fat-to-lean mass ratio, lower average birth weight, and reduced ability to clear glucose. This combination increases metabolic stress and lowers resilience, explaining earlier onset of diabetes compared to Europeans.

A Nation That Shrunk Over Time

Colonial-era famines also affected physical growth. Studies show that average Indian height declined by about 1.8 cm per century during British rule. Historian accounts describe ancient Indians as tall and robust, with even Greek chroniclers noting their stature during Alexander’s invasion. By the 1960s, however, Indians were about 15 cm shorter than their Mesolithic ancestors.

Read: How Colonialism Continues To Bear An Impact On The South Asian Health Crisis

While the British did not cause early declines, widespread impoverishment under colonial rule sharply accelerated the trend. Only in the past 50 years has average height begun to recover.

Famines Were Policy Failures, Not Nature

Mike Davis argues that colonial famines were driven not by food shortages but by policy. Grain continued to be exported even as millions starved. During the 1876 famine, Viceroy Robert Bulwer-Lytton refused to halt exports, and relief work was deliberately discouraged. Davis describes these deaths as the result of state policy, not natural disaster.

Medical journal The Lancet estimated that 19 million Indians died during famines in the 1890s alone.

Breaking the Diabetes Cycle

India now faces the consequences. According to the Indian Council of Medical Research, over 101 million Indians live with diabetes today. Experts argue that prevention must begin early, with reduced sugar intake, low-glycaemic diets, healthier fats, and compulsory physical activity in schools. Education about famine-linked intergenerational health risks could also help younger generations make informed choices.

India has avoided famine since Independence in 1947. The next challenge is ensuring that history’s biological scars do not continue to shape its future.

As India steps into 2026, two familiar yet unsettling names have returned to the public health conversation. Nipah virus cases reported from West Bengal and fresh bird flu detections among crows in Bihar have raised questions about how dangerous these infections really are for humans. While both diseases originate in animals and can cross over to people, their risks, spread patterns and fatality levels are very different.

Two zoonotic threats, very different risks

Nipah virus and avian influenza are both zoonotic, meaning they jump from animals to humans. Beyond that similarity, the comparison largely ends. Nipah is rare but extremely lethal when it infects humans. Bird flu, on the other hand, spreads widely among birds and poultry, but only occasionally infects people.

Health experts note that understanding this distinction is crucial. Nipah alarms public health systems because even a small cluster of cases can lead to severe illness and death. Bird flu triggers large scale surveillance mainly due to its impact on poultry and the economy, with human cases remaining uncommon.

Read: Bird Flu In India: How Safe Is It To Eat Chicken And Eggs?

Nipah virus and why it worries health officials

The Nipah virus was first identified in Malaysia in the late 1990s and has since caused multiple outbreaks in South and Southeast Asia. Fruit bats are its natural carriers, and humans can get infected through contaminated food, contact with infected animals or close contact with an infected person.

Symptoms often begin like a common viral illness, with fever, headache and cough. In many patients, the disease progresses rapidly. Within days, some develop encephalitis, seizures, confusion and coma. Respiratory distress is also common in severe cases.

According to the World Health Organization, Nipah’s fatality rate ranges between 40 and 75 percent, depending on the outbreak and access to timely medical care. There is no approved vaccine or specific antiviral treatment. Doctors rely on intensive supportive care, which makes early detection and isolation critical.

In January 2026, West Bengal reported multiple Nipah cases, prompting contact tracing and monitoring of nearly 200 people. Most tested negative, and the WHO assessed the risk of wider spread as low. Still, the high death rate keeps Nipah firmly on India’s list of priority pathogens.

Bird flu and its limited human impact

Bird flu, or avian influenza, is caused by influenza A viruses that primarily infect birds. Strains such as H5N1 and H9N2 have been detected repeatedly in India among poultry and wild birds. Bihar’s Darbhanga district recently reported thousands of bird deaths, triggering containment measures.

Humans usually get infected through close contact with sick or dead birds or contaminated environments. When infection does occur, symptoms can resemble seasonal flu at first, but severe cases may progress to pneumonia or acute respiratory distress.

Some bird flu strains have shown high fatality rates among confirmed human cases, sometimes close to 50 percent. However, experts stress that these numbers come from very small case counts. Sustained human to human transmission remains rare, which limits large outbreaks in people.

Read: Nipah Virus Outbreak In India: Myanmar Airport Tightens Health Screenings

Which virus is deadlier for humans?

In terms of individual risk, Nipah virus is considered deadlier for humans. Its consistently high fatality rate, lack of treatment options and potential to cause severe brain inflammation make it especially dangerous, even when case numbers are low.

Bird flu poses a broader threat to animal health and livelihoods, but its direct impact on human life has so far been limited. Public health officials continue to monitor both closely, knowing that vigilance, early reporting and strong surveillance are the best tools to prevent either virus from spiralling into a larger crisis.