> like a lot of autoimmune diseases.

I worked for some years in a lab testing for auto-immune conditions - we called it that - a condition. I suppose other labs might have labelled it otherwise.

Would you call cancer a disease? I wouldn't.

But I suppose this is just arguing over semantics.

It is semantics but then words matter if you're the one affected - having the doctor say you have a condition would be better than having a disease.

I guess it depends on your definition of disease, which is technically broad in the literal sense of an abnormal negative medical condition. A condition in itself can be positive or negative and also has an implied connotation that it's just the current state.

Seem to be hitting that original argument about labeling things that are on a spectrum, where a condition could becalled a disease once it reaches a cetain state. Disease does imply a level of sickness and incapacitation, and maybe a permanent state?

Alternatively we could classify and reclassify disorders but the general public gets left way behind.

EDIT: There's also the notion that a disease is something you catch, which given our understanding of viruses and bacteria in triggering various diseases and conditions (and potentially some cancers) maybe excludes genetic and environmentally caused conditions?

I would ascribe the exact opposite feelings to the permanency of condition vs disease. Disease feels like something you get, you fight off, and you get better. A condition feels like something that you deal with and plan your life around.

Yeah, your right. I added in that disease is historically thought of something that you catch (and hopefully get over). Conditions can also be categorised as chronic which would be that permanent state of you have it, deal with it.