Actions

Talk

First diagnose::Adult-onset immunodeficiency syndrome

::concepts

Wakari::august    Fentener::article    Disease::about    Started::descent    Context::study    Think::articles

First diagnose In a first version of the article, it was mentioned from concordant press sources that diagnoses were made since 2004. Is there an agreeable way to restore this information? Wakari07 (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason I removed that was simply because the grammar was awkward. If you can find a good place for it, feel free to re-add it. Linkminer 22:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Wakari07 (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I think putting it in the middle of the sentence like that is also awkward. As far as I can tell, the 2004 date is when they started realizing that it is a distinct illness. It has probably existed for longer than that, and it has only now had its first paper published. With this first paper comes some common terminology, a preliminary idea of what might cause it, etc. Linkminer 22:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Is there maybe an other way to describe the evolution of the identification between 2004 and 2012? Wakari07 (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I added something that I think is adequate. My re-reading of some of the articles seems to suggest to me that they are actually pretty sure that it appeared in 2004. Linkminer (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't state definitely that cases "started appearing", rather something like "started being diagnosed" to show that it can have existed before we were able/driven to notice it. Wakari07 (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Adult-onset immunodeficiency syndrome sections
Intro   Name of the article    Factual accuracy    why is this a military stub?    Crap    First diagnose    Genotype    Primary or not immunodeficiency    An \"elevated\" or a \"more frequent\" IFN-\u03b3 production in patients?    Concept cloud   

First diagnose
PREVIOUS: IntroNEXT: Name of the article
<<>>