I've been making some significant changes to this page. Mainly, creating a comprehensive list of primary immunodeficiencies,organized by the immune cell type they are related to. Some organizing principle seems necessary since the term "Immunodeficiency" covers such a wide variety of pathology.
I don't really see the point in having a whole separate page devoted to primary immunodeficiency, seems pedantic. It seems like having one page that's sort of a portal to the various types of primary and secondary immunodeficiencies makes more sense. Thoughts on this anyone? OsteopathicFreak 23:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Immunosuppression is basically the same as the "secondary" immunodeficiency on this page. I think a merge would be appropriate because it would result in a single, unified source of full information. Does anyone else have any thoughts?
I guess not. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm currently neutral here. Reasons towards a support include that both immunodeficiency and immunosuppression may refer to deliberately and non-deliberately caused ones (immunosuppression is a major pathogenic mechanism of AIDS), and the effects are basically the same. It's better to have one article that gives a clear picture, rather than the confusingly many articles on the subject as it is now (with Immunodeficiency, Immunosuppression, Immunosuppressant, Immunosuppressive drug...). On the other hand, immunosuppression appears to deal mainly with secondary immunodeficiency, with the latter only focusing on the negative aspects. I'll try to describe it in the articles. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to make a description regarding the relations between immunodeficiency and immunosuppression, and, as it is now, I don't think a merge is needed. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)