|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between July 23, 2002 and Feb 3, 2004.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.
sammy's comments re areas the article is thin on...
AIDS then spread to the rest of the world, killing tens of millions of people, particularly in Southeast Asia and Africa. I feel like a total asshole because I have nothing else to say about this. im a Typical american i guess. SOMEONE HELP OUT.
thanks manny someones got to keep me on the ball.;
This is starting to be a good article. Thanks everyone! --Dmerrill
In the interest of NPOV I changed this:
- "Publicity campaigns were started to attempt to counter the hysterical homophobia inherent in the American psyche, and replace it with actual medical knowledge that would save lives."
- "Publicity campaigns were started in attempts to counter the often vitriolic and homophobic perception of AIDS as a "gay plague" and replace it with actual medical knowledge that would save lives."
Mswake 11:55 Jul 23, 2002 (PDT)
Should some reference to AIDS in fiction be also included? -Adrian
- Certainly. AxelBoldt
re: the comment that SIV (Simian immunodeficiency virus) is "virtually the same" as HIV. SIV is not lethal in its host. That's a substantial difference between the strains. One of the scientific questions about HIV is the relative increase in lethality of the virus vis a vis related strains in primates. David M
- Partially correct. SIV has a high degree of variability in lethality to its host, depending on the host. I added some information in a section called "Immunity" at the bottom. Regardless, though, the virii are quite similar, and are very close relatives. Now, beyond this, we'd need to get into a discussion about the different strains (there have been several branching-off points).... Rei
I believe it is best to separate out the conspiracy theories and the scientists that have a generally unlike, but alternative view of a cause. AIDS is the only place I have seen where an alternative view can be considered denial and other possibly hateful words. I moved the alternative theory sentense out of the denialism section. Lets keep it that way.
Jus t a couple of questions - in the text it states that people have got HIV (and thus AIDS) from oral sex - is there any evidence for this; I was under the impression this was something of an urban myth, but I may be talking nonsence. Secondly, AIDS is ofter defined as standing for Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome - Is this wrong, or an alternative meaning or something else all together. If it is relevant, it should be in the article. - User:tompagenet
- I have never heard of the acronym AIDS being interpreted as Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome, but I have heard of the generic term autoimmune disorder. But IANAI. - Montréalais
- Do a search on google for "Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome" including the quotes and quite a few sites show up Tompagenet 22:22 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)
The discription states that AIDS is a disease. Its not. It's a "syndrome". There is a virus called HIV. This virus weakens the human immune system. Then you get diseases like pneumonia and others. There is a well defined set of deseases which define AIDS. But you cannot get AIDS itself. You can only be HIV positive. jms 22:55 May 09, 2003
It should be noted that the deaths counts for AIDS are not actually measured, but instead a sample of about 5000 women with newborn children is extrapolated to the whole continent. The calculation programs runs at WHO, and no outsider has yet seen this program or the changes that happened to it since the beginning of the epidemic. So don't see death counts for Africa as "absolutely real". Anonymouy, 03:09 May 18, 2003
One of the big problems is that AIDS is legacy term. The "S" in "AIDS" stands for "syndrome" and now that the condition is know to be a disease caused by a virus it is no longer a true syndrome. The correct replacement term would be HIV disease but the term AIDS is written into so many laws and regulations concerning disability, benefits, etc. that we are stuck with it. kstailey Fri Oct 17 15:53:07 UTC 2003
A note on my removal of the "denialism" paragraph. First of all, I noticed in earlier versions that "denialsm" and "alternative theories" were separated into two sections. This somewhat ameliorates the misconception of equating the conspiracy theories with dissidents, but still doesn't go far enough. For one thing, the TERM "denialist" or "denialism" is used in the medical (if HIV research can be called "medical") literature to refer to the dissidents and the dissident movement, i.e. those who don't find that HIV causes AIDS. Whereas in the "denialist" paragraph, the term "denialism" is equated with conspiracy theories. Moreover, the mention of South Africa is especially wrong, because South Africa is more associated with the dissident movement than "conspiracy theories", they don't "believe AIDS doesn't exist", they have questioned HIV. This mixing of the two is confusing and misleading, this is why I removed it.
If you want to put in a section on conspiracy theories, fine. But
- 1. Make it a separate section from "alternative theories", i.e. dissidents.
- 2. Don't use the word "denialist" or "denialism" in either section. The reason not to use it in dissident section is its POV and prejudicial; the reason not to use it in conspiracy theory section is that you're using a word almost universally used to refer to dissidents among the AIDS community.
- 3. Don't equate South Africa, in particular, Thabo Mbeki, with entertaining "conspiracy theories". He is more associated with dissidents, not conspiracy theorists.
If you can't do these things, i.e. if you can't be factually accurate and correct, if you can't use POV and prejudicial language, and if you can't separate conspiracy theories from dissident theories, then don't write about these things; if you do, I'll come back and remove and/or edit it. Thanks. User:184.108.40.206
- The threat to sit on the article rather than rewrite it in a way all sides can agree is neutral is not-very-wiki. The fact that you do not like the word opponents have applied does not mean we will not report that the word is used. Certainly conspiracy and dissident theories don't have much in common, and if you equate all African theory with the former I can see why you didn't much like the section. We probably don't need the African reference if you think it confuses. Cheesemonkey
- Okay, you can mention that some people use the word "denialist", but if you are going to report that, at least report THAT correctly. The term "denialist" is used by some people to refer to dissidents, and this was not accurately reported; the implication was made that "denialist" referred to any conspiracy theorist, and this is what bothered me most. Also, even if you wish to report that the word "denialist" is used, I still think it should be avoided as a term used by the encyclopedia itself, for reasons given at AIDS reappraisal. As for not rewriting anything...what I removed was so confused and misleading, I wasn't sure what was intended to be said, so how can I replace it? What was it actually supposed to be reporting on? I don't know. If things that are written are confused and misleading enough so that it's not even clear what they are trying to say, then I don't see what's wrong with removing it without replacing it. Besides, as a dissident, I don't really feel it's my place to offer text, since almost anything and everything in this article I find untrue or misleading. I don't want to try to get this article to NPOV, because to me the HIV viewpoint is so POV that it's not worth it -- fine, your guys' viewpoint is so prevalent now that you can write your own article on it, I just don't want to intrude. UNLESS I find something very untrue or misleading about dissidents in general. And that's what I found. I'm not going to try to write a replacement text about dissidents in an orthodox article, because the AIDS (orthodox) article is ALREADY POV TO ME, i.e. my NPOV is not considered so here. So I won't try.
Should we maybe add something about the early immunological history? (definition as GRID; initial prevalence among gay men, IV drug users, and hemophiliacs; etc.) -- Jim Redmond 20:19, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
164, do you have any evidence for your theory that immunity does not exist? Welcome to the project BTW. -- Pakaran 04:12, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Wow... that's quite a new theory... --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 04:51, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I don't see this as vandalism, so I'm putting it here for want of a better place. A logged-out user changed the article substantially to indicate that immunity to AIDS is a myth - I linked it to Wikipedia:Accuracy Dispute for now, but I'm tempted to just revert. I know nothing about medicine though. -- Pakaran 05:10, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Revert it. It's only one group's opinion, nowhere near a consensus. RickK 05:50, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I don't see anything objectionable in the changes. Have I overlooked something? It's correct to talk about relative susceptibility rather than an absolute immunity. -- Someone else 06:21, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I'm no expert on AIDS, but the anonymous contributer seems pretty much correct IIRC. HIV is not SIV, the FIV stuff I hadn't heard about. But the contributor didn't say immmunity was a myth, he said that studies showing babies being spontaneously uninfected were flawed. As far as I know, only a small number of Northern European-descended persons are immune, thanks to having been selected in the Black Death (which virus entered the cells in the same way AIDS does). orthogonal 06:37, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- You're referring to people with variant (delta 32 CCR5) cytokine receptors, and it would still be better to talk about them having a lower susceptibility to HIV infection rather than an immunity to HIV infection. I think our anonymous friend can be given an all-clear. -- Someone else 07:01, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, I am, but clearly, not as clearly as you are. orthogonal 08:40, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Something selected for delta 32 CCR5 about 700 years ago, but it's not known for sure whether or not it was the Black Death. Smallpox has been suggested as well. And even if it was the Plaque, it seems coincidence (survivors just happened to have higher rate of that mutation but it wasn't the reason for their survival). Plaque is a bacterial infection anyway, it doesn't enter cells like HIV or any other virus. -- Juhaz 07:00, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
Could we get rid of the reference to "Natural selection" re AIDS in Africa? Whilst probably true, it seems to me a somewhat distasteful comment which doesn't actually achieve much.
--Trainspotter 17:29, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Actually I'm going to be bold in editing it out. But if someone else really wants to reinstate it then I won't remove it again.
--Trainspotter 17:34, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hmm. It does seem distasteful. However, perhaps there may be a place in this or another article for comparisons with other pandemics such as the Black Death, which the African AIDS disaster seems to be approaching in scale? I seem to recall reading that resistance to the Black Death developed by evolutionary selection amongst Europeans. (Those without resistance died, those few with, survived). -- The Anome 17:41, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Without stating what common trait is being selected against in those who die or what common trait is being selected for in those who survive, we cannot state that natural selection is at play here. There simply is not enough data to make that leap (see the "immunity" section). Also note that the mere fact that selection is occurring should not be considered 'distasteful' -- death by malaria already selects sickle-cell disease carriers (one copy of the gene) in parts of Africa since some of the hemoglobin in a carrier's red blood cells collapse when malaria parasites inflect those cells (and when enough hemoglobin in a red blood cell collapses, the cell itself collapses and kills the parasites). IIRC the Great Plague in Europe also selected for something. --mav 18:05, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I have attempted an overhaul of the AIDS page, including adding new information, rearranging and adding new sections to improve flow, and removing certain references (eg: to PWAs as "victims").
- The facts in the previous version were disputed. Can we have another look?
- More information is needed on the History and Early Years of the Epidemic section, eg:
- development of AIDS in other countries (eg: France and the UK)
- discovery of first cases and public/health community/media reaction
- development of political AIDS groups such as ACT UP
- More info is needed in the Early Theories of Origin and Transmission section, such as
- more info on the polio vaccine theory
- more info on other theories of origin
- links to more stories about people like Ryan White?
- something about that Reverend Phelps guy?
- Current Theories of Origin and Transmission section:
- Something more about current theories of origin?
- more about blood transfusions
- HIV and AIDS section
- Can anyone give more info on helper cells, diagnosis criteria, etc?
- something more about Description of Symptoms?
- any more AIDS defining illnesses? Do these need descriptions?
- The Current Treamtents and Vaccines section needs some work
- the Current Status section needs work. There's a lot of info on rates of conversion world-wide out there. Anyone?
- the section on Immunity seems out of place. Perhaps parts of it could be redistributed among other sections? There are some interesting things being worked on re: immunity currently, and I recently read an article about this in... I can't remember where, but it focused on African prostitutes some of whom have been working for 20 more more years and have remained negative despite the high rates of HIV in their areas.
- need to add related topics and external links.
Exploding Boy 04:35, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
No Scientific Proof That HIV Is The Probable Cause Of AIDS
If this web site is going to be meaningful - then it needs to be careful what it posts as fact. There is not one scientific paper published in a scholarly scientific journal with peer review that shows that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. Notice - not even the probable cause. But you wouldn't know that reading the AIDS page, here. Any skeptics here can kindly post the spe4cific reference to the scientific paper published in a scholarly scientific journal with peer review that shows that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.
- Hi, could you sign your posts? (add four tildas (~) with no spaces at the end).
- As to your remarks, feel free to add a sentence to the effect that the cause of AIDS is disupted to the article itself, with a link to the appropriate page (which I can't find at the moment). Exploding Boy 09:00, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, I just had another look at the article. There's a section (see below) that addresses these issues already.
A few scientists continue to question the connection between HIV and AIDS, the very existence of HIV, or of an independent AIDS disease. The validity of current testing methods is also questioned. Dissident scientists report that they are usually not invited to attend AIDS conferences and are not granted research funding. Prominent members of this group are virus researcher Peter Duesberg and Nobel Prize laureate Kary Mullis. Their opponents often characterize their position as "AIDS denialism" and believe their public proselytization for their various theories is destructive to the adoption of appropriate preventive and therapeutic measures.
See AIDS reappraisal.
Exploding Boy 09:13, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
Changes to Article
Please add in more definition. The article is turning out good. Did correctional grammar. I clarified up some areas. The beginning has boxes I don't know why its stretching horizontally like that..I'm still new to wikipedia, can someone fix those boxes for me?