That was before the syndrome was found to appear, more than initially, in those who had varying sexualities and were of different sexes. Scientists proposed the name was changed to AIDS as they were concerned with the accuracy of the name.
Can you imagine that? Scientists being concerned with accuracy in naming things. Sheeeit. I notice too reading that piece the difference it makes to be a person who has a disease. Rather than being defined as a person who is the disease. There's a sense of objectivity created by that distance. Not to mention the difference it makes to study cold hard facts, rather than corralled within your rigid ideological suppositions.
The guesses about the source of AIDS; seminal fluid entering the blood stream, an effect of sexual stimulants seem almost quaint now as things have moved on. Science that moves zomg! It's refreshing like, erm contact with real science feels so different from relentless scientism.
Any condition linked in part to obesity–eg, cardiovascular disease, gallbladder disease–cholecystitis, cholelithiasis, gout, adverse lipid profile, ↑ post-operative complications–poor wound healing, insulin resistance, HTN, osteoarthritis, sleep apnea, abnormal GI transit, colorectal CA, strokes, PE, poor wound healing, atelectasis, hepatic steatosis/fibrosis, psychologic disorders.Conditions none of which occur only, or even nearly so in fat people has become dominant to the point where these actually human related conditions seem to occur only in fat people. Due to fatness. The element of wishful thinking is palpable (which is thrown back as an accusation fat 'denial'!) Fat people are people, who can have x problem is becoming more obscured by 'obesity' conflation as pathology which generates more pathology.
Nor are these things-in public at least-used to build up an overall picture of the variety of metabolic function, good and bad. Which could then be sought in other weight groups, who knows what we could learn from building up a full picture of metabolic function? Instead it's all bad, bad, bad.
Well only disease can be all bad like that.
Any condition *linked in part to fat people. All these conditions are linked to people aren't they? Can you imagine privileged gay men, scientists and doctors allowing them to get away with that? No chance!
Another peculiar thing about that is the message it gives about the importance of elevated risk.
If they'd rather put the stress on fat people, even as a buffer zone for others. Then there's a clear reminder that saving stress on people is usually more important than worrying or undermining them mentally. ie. Above all do no harm.
It adds to the sense that we are not only being attacked but there's a distinct desire to inflict actual psychological damage, to make match that with the unpleasantness of a life built around trying to become an anorexic. So not doing something harmful becomes as unpleasant as doing it.
Some would of course put that as incentivisation or motivation given something good draws through it's attractions. We know from experience that this has its own price for us all too.
* I'm sure there's something in hearing, balance brain circulation issues, but what? Who cares right? The point is, it baaaaaad and we can slap in on fat people, build up the scare [also associated with brain circulation issues] and put the fear up 'em. End of story.