When doctors in the United States first discovered patients with an unknown disease affecting internal organs in 1981, they did not yet know that a virus caused it. Healthy young males suddenly began to develop illnesses that had previously been found in premature newborn infants and or due to the birth of sick children. Doctors determined that these young men’s reduced immunity was not congenital but was acquired in adulthood. That is why the disease was called AIDS – acquired immune deficiency syndrome – for the first few years after it was discovered. Only years later, it was discovered that AIDS was only a late stage of HIV infection when those infected with HIV develop serious, potentially fatal lesions.
In the 1980s, no one knew for sure that HIV could cause AIDS in 10 years or even 20 years after infection. To be sure of this, doctors had to observe patients with HIV infection for the whole 20 years. Therefore, some impatient scientists in the 1980s denied the role of HIV in the development of AIDS (Cisneros, 2021). As time has shown, their theories about the origin of AIDS were wrong. Since the beginning of the epidemic, scientists’ main goal has been to develop effective methods of preventing and treating HIV infection. However, despite the obviousness of the HIV problem, there are people who question its existence. The HIV denialism movement, which emerged almost immediately after the discovery of the disease and its identification as the cause of AIDS, actively promotes anti-scientific hypotheses about the absence of both the virus itself and the connection between HIV and AIDS.
Such misinformation can be detrimental both to the organization of prevention efforts in general and to the direct health of individuals who, given false reports, may refuse treatment. It is known that the South African government has used AIDS denialism to justify its inaction in the HIV response, which has resulted in South Africa now having the highest HIV prevalence in the world.
As a result of adhering to the position of denial, patients refuse to start the antiretroviral therapy they need, stop the treatment they are already on, do not undergo the necessary examinations. The HIV infection progresses, secondary diseases develop, which in most cases end in the patient’s death. In addition, people who adopt a position of denial ignore the need to comply with measures to prevent HIV transmission, which leads to the spread of the epidemic. During treatment, a health care practitioner may be guided by stereotypes and fail to take into account the individual course of a patient’s illness, thereby failing to provide appropriate therapy.
In the 1980s, HIV infection was commonly associated with injecting drug use and promiscuity. It was more convenient for the public to say that this infection was spread only among disadvantaged populations than to acknowledge the magnitude of the problem. Certainly, this prejudice could not help but affect how effective the measures to spread the disease have been. Family members of those infected told of ruined relationships with loved ones and acquaintances. Stigmatizing patients will only worsen their recovery process because it will be harder for them to report the illness and seek medical help (Stangl et al., 2019). Prejudice and fear of being infected with HIV in a hospital spread extremely close. The groups most at risk of getting sick are the hardest to reach for any form of prevention work, whether it be testing, treatment, or education. The stigmatization of certain populations is a serious barrier to seeking care in formal medical and other institutions (Puddifoot, 2019). Stereotypes against people with HIV hastens the progression of the disease and worsens its outcomes by making untimely medical attention available to those who are ill.
Regarding the situation of HIV patients in the 1980s, it is appropriate to analyze cognitive theory according to which stereotypes are cognitive schemes that simplify reality. It is easier for people to imagine those around them as representatives of some social circle than to think of them as unique individuals (Kassin et al., 2017). In the context of the scenario being analyzed, the meaning of the theory is that HIV patients are perceived as people who can be discriminated against because they are supposedly drug users. In addition, according to intergroup theory, intergroup contact can reduce prejudice because people will gain knowledge about the outgroup. In the context of the analyzed scenario, this may mean that people can get rid of stereotypes by getting closer to HIV-infected. Distorted perceptions, irrational beliefs about HIV infection, and infrequent testing lead to late diagnosis of the disease. This significantly worsens the clinical picture of HIV infection and increases mortality among HIV-positive people.
No one currently doubts that along with the purely medical aspects of the epidemiology and treatment of HIV infection, the development of effective programs to prevent the spread of the disease is a pressing issue. Social stereotypes and attitudes regarding one’s own behavior and the behavior of others related to sexuality and drug addiction have a great influence on attitudes toward this disease. Therefore, increasing public awareness of HIV infection and implementing timely and effective preventive measures in all population groups is necessary. This is all the more important given the rate of growth of the disease in many less developed countries.