Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:HIV‎ | AIDS
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 →

Contents

How did it jump from apes/monkeys to humans?

Blood transfer? Or do I even want to know?

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talkcontribs).

Apparently you do want to know. Take a look at AIDS origin. MastCell Talk 20:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Higher risk among homosexual men?

I would appreciate it if someone could shed some light on this issue. Is it true that AIDS or HIV spreads more easily among homosexual men than homosexual women? If so, why is that? 213.115.62.100 08:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand, it's because homosexual men are more likeley to participate in anal sex, which could possbily lead to bleeding. Since HIV is bloodborne disease, it travels easily through open wounds. Phuzion 17:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Prevention

I just read in the Week that circumsicion helps prevent AIDS, is this true? I so, should it be added? 70.226.157.30 03:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Wiki neophyte and poor speller


The article talks about transmission through mucus membranes. I thought there was some evidence that there was transmission through dendritic cells, even without the presence of mucus. Is this correct?

Also, I wonder about sweat during sex. I have heard that sweat contains the virus. If one has sores on one's skin and if one is in prolonged sweaty contact with the skin of another, even if there is no contact through mucus membranes or dendritic cells, couldn't there be transmission?

Also, why isn't there more discussion here of whether sex is really voluntary behavior? It seems to me that for many people having sex is no more voluntary behavior than eating. It might be possible to stop it for a while, but not forever. It seems to me that asking sexually active people to protect each other from infection is like asking the fox to guard the hen house.



does anyone else think that AIDS isnt transmited throuch pregnancy. the blood dosent mix in the placenta and no cells cross the barrier. the only transmision from mother to child is in child birth, breast feeding or sharing needles etc. could someone please edit this as it is really bugging me. thanks

AIDS has been proven to transfer from mother to child. Case closed.

Origins Debate Stifled

I am naive in the various AIDS debates, though I have known some victims of the disease. However, having just watched the famous 2004 CBC documentary on Edward Hooper theories, the OPV AIDS hypothesis I found it very convincing and disturbing. I came to wikipedia for some reassurance and background, however, I was very dissappointed in the relevant party of this main AIDS article. The origins section and alternatives are very shallow. They do not even link to other wikipedia articles treating the subject in more depth. Alternative_theories_about_the_origin_of_AIDS, Category:AIDS_origin_hypotheses, AIDS_reappraisal, OPV_AIDS_hypothesis should at least be mentioned. I find this section really takes a side in the debate and departs from NPOV.

Well, they are mentioned in there actually, to my dismay. To me AIDS reappraisal and its ilk represent a POV Fork (WP:POVFORK) in which a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others. They also are bad article ideas, as per (WP:BAI) because a new article is made to supplement an already existing one which you think is not putting your point across forcefully enough.
I also don't see any of the 'alternate' AIDS theory articles giving lipservice to AIDS texts' as prominently as it to them, so take your pound of flesh and be happy. JoeSmack Talk 08:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think they're POV forks. The AIDS article describes the consensus understanding of the disease, as it should, and refers briefly to various controversies. AIDS reappraisal is not really an alternate viewpoint on that article; it's a description of a scientific/political/ideological debate that, even for those who think it's entirely regrettable, has gotten a lot of attention and had undeniable effects. Most of the material there would be totally out of place in the main article. It still needs a lot of work but I think it does what it should: convey to a reader what those people are talking about, and the historical context in which the argument arose. Similarly, the OPV article is not a POV fork because it conveys a lot of detail on this notable (by definition, since it was very widely publicized) theory - detail that would, again, be out of place in the main article but is certainly of at least historical importance. You don't call a sub-article a POV fork just because the people it describes are at odds with the subject of the main article; otherwise we'd have to choose between having, say, Civil rights movement and COINTELPRO. ←Hob 02:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Perticularly the quote: "Subsequently, this hypothesis has been refuted by examination of these original polio vaccine stocks and establishing that they do not contain material of chimpanzee origin.[114]" is out of context, it should be on the OPV page where it can be disputed or verified. There is dispute of this finding, the most obvious being the logical impossibility of finding a sample to test that was also used.

Anyway, I don't have the background to authoritatively change this, my reference is a TV show, albeit a good one. So I'm going to simply link these other wikipedia articles - even on a functional argument basis, the main AIDS trunk should lead to these branches. I'm not going to delete the offending quotation, because maybe it should be restated or by someone with a good reference to cite.154.20.109.121 06:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If anything the OPV hypothesis has been given much too much prominence in this article. It's very much a fringe theory that's been rejected by mainstream science. Lots of evidence contradicts it. Trezatium 21:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Trezatium - now that you did such a nice job expanding and referencing that passage about OPV, I think it is too much! :) I mean, I think that kind of detail really belongs in the OPV hypothesis article. The AIDS article would be fine with a brief summary of what that debate was about; the fact that the consensus is now against it; and a "see" link to let the reader know that there is more detail available elsewhere. (I think an inline note like "See OPV AIDS hypothesis." would be best - adding a "See also" section at the bottom of the article, for something that at this point is not a very central issue, would be overkill.) ←Hob 01:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I only expanded the section by adding the final sentence plus two references. I entirely agree that most of the OPV material should be cut. Trezatium 09:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I've made the cuts. Trezatium 11:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

QUICK CLARIFICATION

What is the person has received a BJ with a Condom on? Can he still get AIDS? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

considering that condoms significantly reduce the chance of HIV infection, and that the normal receptive rate WITHOUT a condom for oral is 1 in 10,000, your making chances VERY VERY slim (but like most science, improbable doesn't mean impossible). JoeSmack Talk 06:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the person has received a Hand Job without a condom. Can he still get AIDS or HIV infection? Please let me know ASAP.

It's not impossible, but it's even more unlikely than the above case unless the person giving the hand job had open, bleeding wounds on their skin. --Robert Merkel

Primate meat consumsption

Hi, I think I saw a documentary on AIDS (maybe frontline?) that claimed that the dominant theory of AIDS transfer to humans was through consumption of primate meat. Can anyone confirm this? Can someone add the primate consumption theory to the article. I think I saw it on Frontline or another cable documetary. --Gogosean 01:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ew, who would eat PRIMATE meat? Just asking, but is it a delicacy some where?

Primates are a common form of bushmeat in parts of Africa. It's quite easy to imagine someone cutting themselves during slaughter or butchery and thus getting the virus into their bloodstream. I've added a bit to the article to acknowledge this hypothesis. Trezatium 20:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Who is this recurring and disruptive anon? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 07:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Congo Numbers

The death toll every single day in Congo is somewhere between the death tolls of Hurricane Katrina and the September 11, 2001 attacks This would be 2752x365=1,085,145 a year, maybe the figure for whole africa

and the weekly death toll is about the same as the death toll of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake that makes 186,983x52=9,723,116 a year, an absolutely ridiculous figure even considering only the number of the dead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.101.126.212 (talkcontribs).

This information, if sourced, could be very useful for the AIDS in Africa article! :) JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 16:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The number of AIDS deaths in sub-Saharan Africa is around two million per year, as correctly stated in the AIDS in Africa article. AIDS deaths in the Democratic Republic of the Congo amount to around 90,000 per year. I've no idea what 62.101.126.212 is referring to. Trezatium 19:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Two parts of the article that I would like to comment on

Hi.

I really like this article, it's great. I read not even half of it but I came across two parts of the text that I would like to comment on:

  • "The risk of HIV transmission from exposure to saliva is considerably smaller than the risk from exposure to semen; contrary to popular belief, one would have to swallow gallons of saliva from a carrier to run a significant risk of becoming infected." - Im not sure what "popular belief" is, but most people I personally know know that you can not get aids (easily) through saliva... how do you define "popular belief" in this particular article?
  • "During a sexual act, only male or female condoms can reduce the chances of infection with HIV and other STDs and the chances of becoming pregnant." - I don't see what the use is of mentioning that only male or female condoms can reduce the chances of becoming pregnant, not to mention that this is, as far as I know, not even true... (not "only" condoms; see Birth_control). if this sentence isn't supposed to mean that, shouldn't it be re-phrased?

--bb 21:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably "During a sexual act, only male or female condoms can simultaneously reduce both the chance of infection with HIV and other STDs and the chance of becoming pregnant." would be clearer. - Nunh-huh 22:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article has been severely vandalized, and I'm not sure how to revert it. On the history page, it shows that the current page should be a correct one, but it isn't. Could someone fix it?

Can you point out where the vandalism is, I can't spot any! Ollie 00:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
PS. don't forget to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~
By the way, an easy way to revert is to find the last good version in the history and edit that version. Then just save it straight away, returning the current page to the state it was in before. Ollie 00:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Try reloading the page it my be that vadalism and was found & corrected earilar, but you need to reload the page, to see the latest version.Merc25 05:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources

from the main page: "in fact TCM have been proven to be able to cure AIDS totally."

Surely statements like this should have a source - or else isn't it weasel words or something?

i've removed this sentence, i believe it is vandalism that just slipped by. JoeSmack Talk 20:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Socio-Cultural/Economic factors

As with most dominant discussions of HIV/AIDS, very little is said on this page about the socio-cultural and economic causes of the spread of HIV (that is, that it spreads primarily due to poverty and the low social status of women). Discussing the HIV/AIDS pandemic as though it is sheerly a health issue delimits the range of solutions to those focusing on health (and therefore driven by the "Northern" or developed health and research system. Poor people in Africa are creating great solutions (many based around home-based care and the empowerment of women) to HIV/AIDS at the community level, but it is very difficult for them to access funding for them.

I'm hoping to write a short section on these issues when I have a little time in the coming weeks. If anyone has a suggestion about where on the page it might go, please suggest away.

Thanks Shannonbah 02:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps in the sections that cover those points already. --Bob 05:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
it spreads primarily due to poverty and the low social status of women
No, it spreads exclusively through bodily fluids. You don't have to equalize the socioeconomic status of the globe to save those at risk to AIDS, you need to educate them. How POV is it to suggest that a human being is unable to make rational decisions simply because he/she is impoverished? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 07:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
What I will actually try to get across is that people (particularly women) who live in desperately poor circumstances are far less likely to be able to make rational decisions; she may not have such choices available to her. If a poor woman is completely dependent upon her husband for her (and her children's) livelihood and social status, it is extremely difficult if not impossible for her to be able to negotiate safe sex or condom use, no matter how well she may know the facts about HIV/AIDS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shannonbah (talkcontribs) 21:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
Take a look at your logic please. If someone literally doesn't have any choice to make, then clearly there isn't even room for a rational decision to be made. That doesn't mean you can say, "[poor people] are far less likely to be able to make rational decisions." --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That is aleady covered elsewhere in the article --Bob 23:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternative treatment

The following edit deleted a sentence about vitamin C; I reverted and restored the sentence. The deleting edit was: " 06:00, 6 December 2006 Grcampbell (Talk | contribs) (we don't need to add every alternative medicine that has been tested. We don't even list every type of ART used! Revert reversion.)"

I agree that we don't need to add every alternative medicine that has been tested. If, however, someone wishes to do so, I see no harm in it; if it takes up too much space it can be moved to a separate page. Ideally, information about the results of the tests would also be provided. Similarly for conventional treatments.

However, that explanation does not justify deleting the sentence about vitamin C, since this sentence was very far from listing the large number of alternative treatments that have no doubt been tried. The sentence was giving one example of an alternative treatment (very high doses of vitamin C) -- one which has been found in preliminary clinical trials to suppress the symptoms of AIDS and markedly reduce the tendency for secondary infections. Any treatment which does this deserves mention, in my opinion.

The section on alternative treatments is already much shorter than the section on conventional treatments and is at the end of a section and without a separate heading, where it is likely to attract less attention. Rather than shortening the alternative treatments section, a more balanced article could be achieved by lengthening the alternative treatments section and placing it where it is more likely to be seen (with a separate heading, or a topic sentence menioning it at the beginning of the treatment section, for example). --Coppertwig 13:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My feeling on this is that section on alternative treatments is long enough. Allowing a gazillion different ones would be disproportionate to the amount of suggested clinical treatment out there suggested: a vast majority being HAARTs. In addition to all this, the "High doses of vitamin C have been used, for example, to treat AIDS, with good preliminary clinical results." is cited from a 1984 source; i'm guessing the 'preliminary clinical results' were preliminary because no one really reproduced it. It is probably why doctors don't give a Vit C. horsepill with all the other HAARTs pills when someone comes to them for treatment. JoeSmack Talk 15:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with JoeSmack, therefore I again deleted the vitamin C reference. Preliminary results in 1984... yes, 22 years later I would hope that we would have gotten past preliminary results. Moreover, examples of alternative treatments are already given, try reading the article. Furthermore, we do not need to lengthen the quackery aspect of AIDS treatments, especially in an article of this length. --Bob 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the sentence about vitamin C for the following reasons:
  • Wikipedia articles are required to show a neutral point of view according to Wikipedia policy. Deleting part of the alternative therapies section when it is already much shorter and less prominent than the conventional treatments section contravenes this policy.
  • The vitamin C sentence is the most important sentence in the alternative treatment paragraph. Much of the alternative treatment paragraph actually has an anti-alternative treatment slant. If the paragraph is too long, perhaps some other part of the paragraph could be deleted. If there is too long a list of alternative treatments, perhaps alternative treatments that don't have citations showing promising results could be deleted -- though the alternative treatment paragraph is already much shorter than the conventional treatment section.
  • Yes, I agree: I would hope that after 22 years, someone would have carried out a reasonably large randomized controlled trial of bowel-tolerance-intake vitamin C as an AIDS treatment. (Placebo control may not be possible for bowel-tolerance-intake levels, but randomized control is possible.) If someone can find a reference to such a study, it would improve this article. I encourage people to look for one. I It would be a sad state of affairs if no such study has been conducted after the encouraging results in the Cathcart study and the success of very-high-dose vitamin C with other viruses; although I hear it's almost impossible to get funding for such studies, and that any researcher interested enough in vitamin C to conduct a study using bowel tolerance intake levels is likely to have strong ethical concerns about placing anyone in the non-vitamin-C group when life-threatening illness is involved. If there has been a reasonably large randomized-controlled study of bowel-tolerance-intake vitamin C for AIDS which did not show any benefit, please mention it here and it may be a good reason for deleting the vitamin C sentence. Speculating that such a study might exist is not a reason to delete the vitamin C sentence.
  • Being 22 years old does not invalidate the results of a study. However, I'm adding a reference to a more recent study (although it is a study of much lower doses of vitamin C). --Coppertwig 11:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm running out the door, but here's my take. I don't see this 'anti-alternative-treatment bias' that you keep on claiming. The section is proportional to the amount of suggested treatment in the real world (a majority being HAARTs). For similar reason's the reappraisal section is smaller than a majority of the article. I think deletion was a good call because the burden of proof lies on the editor and not the reader - doubly so for such a stringent scientific article. Using the word 'quackery' in the edit summary is hardly enough to call the bias-police. Also, especially in a case like this, it is a better idea to post the new source here instead of the article and dealing with a second revert and raised temperatures of editors. Like I said, I'm running out the door, but by first glance it is the same fellow doing in 1998 more of what he did in 1984 (note: we knew like nothing in 1984 about HIV/AIDS compared to what we know now). I'm thinking hes the only Vit C. fan out there in pertinence to HIV - any other scientists with peer reviewed journals who've supplied similar findings? JoeSmack Talk 14:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Why the emphasis on vit C? why not other nutrients/vitamins/minerals such as D or E? or selenium amongst others? I will modify the text so that the penchant for vit C is not glaringly obvious. --Bob 18:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I see that Coppertwig has cited the WP:NPOV policy as grounds for expanding the alternative treatments section. I think this is a misapplication of NPOV - specifically, the stipulation to avoid "Undue Weight". To quote, "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all... We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view". The idea that megadose Vitamin C can prevent, treat, or cure AIDS is the view of a small minority and has very little supporting evidence. To present it (or other unproven alternative therapies) on an equal, or near-equal, footing with treatments that have a massive amount of peer-reviewed literature behind them would be the NPOV violation. I think the current edit by Bob is appropriate. MastCell 19:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for mentioning bias on the part of editors. I retract the statements about such bias and have deleted them from the discussion above. (I hope such deletion doesn't contravene any guideline.) This is the place for discussing the development of an article which has a neutral point of view, not the place for discussing any characteristics of editors. I’ll try to be a little more collaborative.
Perhaps we can come up with a section we all agree on (or at least can all tolerate). I suggest the following criteria as a compromise (reserving the right to change my mind later) :
  • The section on alternative therapies (last paragraph of "treatment" section) to be very nearly the same length as in the version of 05:18, 5 December 2006 Antandrus (just before I added a sentence about vitamin C).
  • The section will not contain any statement that any editor objects to on the grounds that the statement is false or highly misleading.
  • The section will mention several alternative therapies, including the ones for which there is the most evidence that they may have benefit; possibly also some of the most popular ones.
  • The section will provide several links or footnotes leading the reader interested in alternative therapies to further information on the topic.
What do you think? Are there other criteria that need to be included?
Other comments : The Mills (2005) reference says that up to 68% of participants in a nationwide USA survey admitted to using some form of complementary or alternative therapy. 68% can hardly be called a "tiny minority".
Also: I would like to delete or change the last sentence "None of these treatments have been proven in controlled trials to have any effect in treating HIV or AIDS.[97]" because it is false or at least highly misleading: it implies that there are no controlled trials showing benefit from alternative therapies, when in fact there are such controlled trials showing benefit; and it implies that it is talking about all alternative therapies, when the Mills (2005) article referenced in the footnote specifically excluded examination of "trials of antioxidant and vitamin therapy", and for the therapies it did examine, did find some evidence of benefit for some of the therapies. --Coppertwig 02:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Vitamin and mineral statements have been included above the alternative treatment section in a manner that is more than adequate for the amount of research and data that has been put forward about these. there is also a reference to a review article should anyone want more info on this topic. This should close any further debate on the issue. As the vitamin section is no longer within the scope of alternative treatment, the mills article should stand. Also, as the statement regarding the Mills article states that they do not have any effect in treating HIV and AIDS, which is still true, then that statement should also stand. Quality of life and treatment of HIV are two different things. --Bob 03:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear to me whether you're commenting on the list of criteria I suggested. If you wish to suggest different criteria, or if you wish to suggest an alternative means of resolving this dispute other than using a list of criteria, please state that clearly.
Since no one has (as far as I understand) objected to the list of criteria, I'm planning to write a paragraph which in my opinion satisfies the criteria, and present it here for review.
Since one of the complaints is the length of the article, one thing that may help (partially) resolve this dispute is putting some material about alternative treatment for AIDS on other pages, with links from this page. Does anyone here object to the idea of me putting material on that topic on other pages (already existing pages and/or page to be created)? If you object, please state clearly that you object, what exactly you object to, and what is the grounds for the objection. Of course, such other pages would be subject to all the usualy Wikipedian editing etc.
In reply to Bob: I disagree; in my opinion the amount of information given about vitamins and minerals does not adequately provide information about the amount of research and data that exists about them. A reference to a review article, which is not easily and quickly obtainable over the Internet, is not adequate in my view. Several links to other Wikipedia pages with extensive additional information on the topic would be good, in my opinion. Debate on this issue is not closed: I am still not happy with the article as it stands. I don't understand what you mean by "the vitamin section is no longer within the scope of alternative treatment." I recognize that there is a very brief mention of vitamins just above the paragraph about alternative treatments and I think this can also be considered to be within the scope of this discussion. (i.e. I suggest we discuss the nutritional and alternative sections together here. If you prefer to discuss them separately perhaps you could start a separate section for one of them on this talk page, though I'm not sure they can easily be logically separated.) It's fine with me to retain a footnote to the Mills article; in fact, I may insist on it; however, it should not be accompanied by statements I consider to be false. It is not true that CAM have no effect in treating HIV and AIDS. For example, from the Mills article, p. 396, re Antoni, 2002 and stress management: "Men receiving stress management had significantly higher immune marker levels after six to 12 months follow-up."--Coppertwig 02:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd be concerned that starting a new article on alternative treatments would be a POV fork - a strongly discouraged method of dispute resolution. What might be a very good idea is spinning off a sub-article on "Treatment of HIV/AIDS", which could be linked from this page. The treatment of AIDS, which is a complex topic, could be dealt with in more depth there. There could of course be a section on "alternative" treatments, but it would likely be significantly smaller/less detailed than the sections on proven treatments, based on the undue weight policy. MastCell 18:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Making a separate page "Treatment of HIV/AIDS" as you suggest sounds like a good idea to me. It would have several advantages. (1) It would leave room for the conventional treatment section to be expanded as well as the alternative treatment section. (2) Currently, the HIV page and the AIDS page each have material on treatment. It seems a good idea to combine this material onto a single page, leaving a short summary on each page with a link to the treatment subarticle; this would avoid having pretty well the same subject covered on two different pages. (3) It would shorten the AIDS article, which is rather long.
Is there a template or something that can be put up to indicate that splitting off a subarticle is being discussed? What do other people think of this idea? --Coppertwig 02:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I object to any criteria that wishes to lengthen the article. However, the current length passed FA not that long ago.
There are many topics that are not discussed in detail in this article, ones far better researched than vitamin and nutritional supplements. These include the role of CD8 cells and exposure times in relation to long term progression, the role of Tat in disease progression, the role of IL-4 and IL-7 in increasing viral load and quickening the progression to death. The effects of coinfection with CMV and combination antiretrovirals and ganciclovir, the effect of host genetic mutations such as CCR2-1-2518-G allele or polymorphisms of the CX3CR1 gene amongst many others. Regarding treatment, there is a plethora of research on HAART that isn't mentioned in this article, including mitochondrial disease, because this article is a summary of the important points regarding AIDS. Create your subarticle with your fetish for vitamin C within it and link to it from this article from the more than adequate attention this article gives it. The Mills article states suggest that stress management may prove.... I have to emphasise to you that it doesn't say that it def. does, one very small, poorly managed study doesn't make it so. The article also goes on to state Despite the widespread use of CAM by people living with HIV/AIDS, the effectiveness of these therapies has not been established. Vis a vis CAM's popularity, the paucity of clinical trials and their low methodological quality are concerning.. Now if you wish to argue that large scale clinical trials have been carried out and that CAM's are equivalent to or even close to treatment with HAART, and their effectiveness has been proven through tried and tested methods then your edits will be reversed quickly like edits inferring that HIV doesn't cause AIDS are reversed. I will refer you to WP:NPOV --Bob 04:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'll create another heading on this talk page "Proposed creation of page 'Treatment of HIV/AIDS'", and also put a note on the HIV page directing people to discuss the proposal to create such a page here. --Coppertwig 23:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. MastCell 00:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a suggested edit which I hope may solve both the dispute about the deletion of the vitamin C sentence and the dispute about the proposed deletion/modification of the sentence currently attached to the Mills footnote.

The suggestion:

Begin a new paragraph just before "Daily multivitamin supplements...", i.e. split the last two sentences off the second-last paragraph of the Treatment section. Combine these with the following paragraph and rewrite that paragraph so that the last paragraph of the Treatment section will read as follows:

Draft alternative treatment paragraph


Daily multivitamin supplements have been found to reduce HIV disease progression among men and women. This could become an important low-cost intervention provided during early HIV disease to prolong the time before antiretroviral therapy is required.[1] Various forms of alternative medicine have also been used to treat symptoms or alter the course of the disease.[2] Examples of alternative medicine that people have used in an effort to improve their symptoms, disease progression or quality of life include massage, stress management, acupuncture;[2], boxwood[3], and bowel-tolerance-dose vitamin C [4] [5]. [6] When used with conventional treatment, many now refer to these as "complementary" approaches. There is a concerning shortage of studies to establish the effectiveness of complementary and alternative treatments for HIV/AIDS. [7]


Reasons in support of this suggestion:

  • This suggestion addresses two ongoing disputes and hopefully may be a compromise solution to both of them.
  • This paragraph is factual and supported by citations.
  • It provides links and footnotes allowing the reader interested in alternative therapies to easily find more reading material on the subject.
  • It is shorter than the original. Some editors had expressed the opinion that the alternative therapy section was "too long".
  • Unless someone finds some statement in it to be misleading, it satisfies the list of criteria above; the current version does not.
  • It increases the prominence of the result about vitamin supplementation by moving this information to the beginning of a paragraph. At least one editor seems to have missed seeing this interesting information on earlier reading of the article.
  • It removes vague, misleading and uncited (as far as I see) material about the changing definition of alternative therapy. The current paragraph give the misleading impression that alternative therapies are no longer used much. The phrase "community-based" doesn't seem to mean much: surely every AIDS patient is in some sort of community?
  • The proposed paragraph mentions four or five alternative therapies for which there is some evidence of effectiveness. The Mills paper lists studies showing statistically significant support for stress management, massage and boxwood, while the Cathcart and Hickey references provide evidence in favour of bowel-tolerance-dose vitamin C. (Does the Saltmarsh reference provide evidence in support of acupuncture for AIDS?) In contrast, the current version of the article mentions "flower remedies" for which I haven't seen evidence of effectiveness.
  • The current paragraph has no mention of vitamin C nor any link to further information on it. Mentioning vitamin C is important for the following reasons:
    • People with AIDS are typically able to consume 40 to 100 grams of vitamin C, according to Cathcart (1984), without the diarrhoea-like symptoms that a normal healthy person experiences on ingesting about 2 to 6 grams of the vitamin. This suggests that the body of a person with AIDS is able to consume and utilise these amounts of vitamin C.
    • For a number of other illnesses during which people are able to ingest larger than normal amounts of vitamin C without the usual side effects, there is some evidence that ingesting these amounts leads to reduction of symptoms of the sickness and improvement in health.
    • There is evidence from anecdotal reports from two different authors that large doses of vitamin C lead to clinical improvement in AIDS patients.
    • Vitamin C is known to be used in a number of ways by the immune system -- for example, chemotaxis, production of interferon and production of hydrogen peroxide for killing pathogens.
    • When animals who produce their own vitamin C (most mammals, for example) get sick, they produce increased amounts of vitamin C comparable to the bowel-tolerance-dose in humans.
    • Vitamin C is of low cost and low toxicity, therefore a simple cost-benefit analysis suggests that if there is a reasonable likelihood that it may be beneficial, it is worth using.
  • The last sentence of the Treatment section is currently in dispute. The last sentence of this proposed edit is a version of that sentence which more closely reflects the actual citation: for example, the quote given above from the citation in support of the current sentence does not use the word "proven" but does use the words "concerning" and "established". The vocabulary and overall message of this new proposed sentence are closer to the original meaning of the citation.

If anyone objects to anything about this proposed edit, please discuss it here, and please propose alternative edits which address the above concerns, which satsify the list of criteria (which I proposed earlier and which no one has objected to), and which you believe are likely to be accepted by all involved. --Coppertwig 16:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Too many weasel words, is vague, and gives a false air that these are effective treatments. Why mention just five? Why not more, why not less? Why bother listing at all? Give references from this decade please, a study in 1984 is hardly reliable as a guideline for today. Also, it presents suspect results that are, as yet, unvalidated by other studies carried out by other people/cohorts. Why the absolute requirement to mention vit C? I really don't understand the obsession with vit C. Other vitamins have shown better results in better studies. Humans are not other animals. Your reasons are speculative at best. The current version gives an historic basis for the terminology used, your version ignores this completely. The current version states clearly that quack approaches have become less common, your version ignores this. Current version is factual and researched and gives more information than yours. Perhaps integrate some of the forms of quack medicine that you have listed, but the rest, no. It is too focused on unresearched orthomolecular medicine. --Bob 03:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


Hickey's books states that cases of full-blown AIDS have gone into remission with large doses of vitamin C. You say that other vitamins have produced even better results; I'd like to read more about that -- could you tell me where to find information on it?

Hickey's book is, for lack of a better phrase, BS. Show me a large scale clinical trial that has been properly peer reviewed in a good medical journal, then I will accept what he states. Such as PMID 17242315 for selenium. --Bob 07:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the interesting information about selenium. I suggest that this information be included in the Treatment section of the article. The single word "selenium", with a footnote to this reference, would provide significant useful information very concisely.--Coppertwig
Thanks for adding the selenium footnote to the article. I suggest also editing this sentence: Daily multivitamin supplements have been found to reduce HIV disease progression among men and women, inserting , or selenium, after supplements. What do you think? --Coppertwig 22:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As I suggested above, please suggest an alternative version of the paragraph that you think satisfies the objections I raise to the current one. --Coppertwig


The evidence suggests that vitamin C, in amounts comparable to the amounts produced by mammals when they are sick, i.e. bowel-tolerance levels or tens of grams, is likely a very effective treatment for AIDS. Results do not become less valid with the mere passage of time, but only when other experiments add more information. If you know of more recent experiments with bowel-tolerance-dose vitamin C for AIDS, please mention them.

Again, show me a large scale clinical trial that has been properly peer reviewed in a good medical journal, then I will accept what he states. Anyone can get stuff published in crappy journals like Medical Hypotheses. Doesn't mean that it is medically relevant. --Bob 07:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Where is the large scale clinical trial showing benefit from flower remedies? Where is the large scale clinical trial showing benefit from acupuncture? --Coppertwig 16:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The article does not state that these have benefits... --Bob 18:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
So it's OK to mention treatments in the article, without stating that they have benefits, even if there are no randomized controlled trials for them? --Coppertwig 22:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Bob, what do you think of changing just the last sentence? You quoted the Mills paper as saying:

Despite the widespread use of CAM by people living with HIV/AIDS, the effectiveness of these therapies has not been established. Vis a vis CAM's popularity, the paucity of clinical trials and their low methodological quality are concerning.

Currently, our article states:

None of these treatments have been proven in controlled trials to have any effect in treating HIV or AIDS.

I suggest that a more accurate, less misleading (and possibly grammatically more correct) representation of the information given in the citation is the last sentence of the draft paragraph, i.e.:

There is a concerning shortage of studies to establish the effectiveness of complementary and alternative treatments for HIV/AIDS.

The word "paucity" could be used instead of "shortage" to be even closer to the wording of the original, though I prefer "shortage" as likely understood by a wider audience. Changing this sentence in this way would address the concern I raised about the current version of this sentence being false or at least highly misleading. When I read the Mills paper, I was surprised, because the sentence giving it as a citation seemed to me to be saying that there was no statistically significant evidence in support of alternative therapies for AIDS, yet this paper lists a number of studies showing such evidence.

No, it doesn't. It states that there have been no properly controlled trials that state that show any effect of quack science in treating HIV/AIDS. Again, show me one properly controlled clinical study that Mills cites that backs up your claims. That is all I have time for now. --Bob 07:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Please point out to me where the words "properly" and "quack" appear in the Mills paper; I can't seem to find them. --Coppertwig 16:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
That is my word for CAM;s but my point is still valid. --Bob 18:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
More to the point: the words "not proven" don't seem to appear anywhere in the Mills article. When you said "No" above, it appears to me that you were disagreeing with the last bit of my comment. If you oppose the changing of the last sentence of the treatment section as I propose above, please state that clearly and give reasons. --Coppertwig 22:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen evidence that the use of alternative therapies is diminishing; in fact, Mills refers to it as "widespread".

Please specify which words you consider to be weasel words in this draft paragraph, and I will try to address that concern in another edit. What needs to be made less vague?

Look at WP:Weasel --Bob 18:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please specify what it is about this draft paragraph that seems to you to give a false air that these are effective treatments. How about changing "... have been used to treat symptoms and modify the course of the disease..." to "... have been used for the purpose of treating symptoms and modifying the course of the disease..."?

Anything that states that a CAM has a benefit with little or no proper clinical research backing this POV is quackery and should be avoided. Wikipedia is not here to promote pseudoscience as properly researched science, but to present the facts neutrally and with no bias. --Bob 18:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The draft paragraph above does not state that any CAM has a benefit. --Coppertwig 22:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Re vitamin C: I've given a list of reasons above for mentioning it. I would prefer to say more about it but am compromising by cutting it down to a single noun phrase with a link and footnotes. Humans apparently use vitamin C for all of the same purposes as other mammals and there is no evidence that the optimal amount for humans is any less (scaled by body weight) than that for all other mammals.

The reason I listed five treatments is that those are the ones for which some evidence of effectiveness has been presented here (except perhaps acupuncture, which can therefore be deleted). This is in conformity to the list of criteria established earlier in this discussion. The current version also lists a number of treatments. Such a list constitutes information, the provision of which is the purpose of an encyclopedia.

I fail to see how a single noun clause can constitute a "focus" on orthomolecular medicine. --Coppertwig 14:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the paragraph above, more than sufficiently. --Bob 18:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not sufficient. It leaves out some interesting information without even giving links to it. --Coppertwig 22:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I propose to change the last sentence of the Treatment section as described above, to conform to the information given in the citation. --Coppertwig 12:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In a spirit of focusing on article content, I'm deleting some of my comments above. I hope this deletion doesn't violate any Wikipedian policy or guideline and that someone will point it out to me if it does. --Coppertwig 01:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've taken your suggestion, Bob, and re-read the Wikipedia policy on weasel words. Based on that reading here is a second draft paragraph -- what do you think of it?

Daily multivitamin supplements and selenium have each been found to reduce HIV disease progression among men and women. This could become an important low-cost intervention provided during early HIV disease to prolong the time before antiretroviral therapy is required.[1][8] Various forms of alternative medicine have also been used to treat symptoms or alter the course of the disease.[2] These include, among others, massage, stress management, boxwood[3], and bowel-tolerance-dose vitamin C [4] [5]. [6] When used with conventional treatment, many now refer to these as "complementary" approaches. There is a concerning shortage of studies to establish the effectiveness of complementary and alternative treatments for HIV/AIDS. [7]


Modified the data set to include some of your extra things (the boxwood thing has never been published, so has not been peer-reviewed anywhereappears in Phytomedicine, not listed in Pubmed). I don't believe we need mention vit C as it is more than aptly covered in the paragraph above, and is better placed there anyway. --Bob 23:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, Daily multivitamin and mineral supplements and selenium have each been found to reduce HIV disease progression among men and women. This could become an important low-cost intervention provided during early HIV disease to prolong the time before antiretroviral therapy is required. is better placed above, where I put it before being reverted. --Bob 00:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Mills article has been published, and presumably peer-reviewed, and says of boxwood: "Low-dose SPV-30 group was significantly superior to placebo for preventing therapeutic failure. Viral load reduced in active group." This is more than sufficient, even without the other study, to place boxwood ahead of acupuncture or flower remedies in terms of the amount of evidence that's been presented here for it, as far as I've seen; and anyway, merely to list a treatment as an alternative treatment, without stating that it provides benefit, doesn't require randomized controlled studies. Once a treatment has been established with top-quality evidence one hopes that it becomes a widely-used conventional treatment and no longer has to be referred to as "alternative".
May I take your italicized sentence above as implying that you're OK with a mention of selenium in the article? How about: "Daily multivitamin/mineral supplements, or selenium alone, have each been found to ..."

no, you may not. however, as I wrote it in the article would be what I would be ok with. --Bob 02:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The previous paragraph doesn't even mention vitamin C, let alone mention the alternative treatment which involves amounts of vitamin C comparable to the equivalent of what a typical sick mammal produces, not does it give links to additional reading material on the subject, so it is certainly not sufficient. Preferably the article would mention the promising preliminary clinical results of bowel-tolerance-dose vitamin C therapy; the draft paragraph is a compromise with a mere brief mention and links, and no statement about the benefits of the treatment.
What is your reason for saying that the multivitamin sentences are better placed above? --Coppertwig 01:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The previous paragraph mentions multivitamins with an appropriate reference. The references you propose are BS studies that have not been proven. We should not be linking to BS studies within a treatment section, but to reviews of these studies if we are to link to anything at all. In my opinion, and it seems to be a consensus in this article for a while now, we only link to studies that have been proven in proper clinical trials. You may have observed the removal of many so-called miracle cures from this article over the past year, the latest Iranian herbal remedy as a recent example. Finally, my reasoning for placing them above is that, in some cases, they have proved promising in proper clinical trials and read better there as well, instead of after a bit about PCP and toxoplasmosis --Bob 02:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Simply referring to something as "BS" is just labelling; it isn't a valid argument and doesn't convince anyone of anything.
I think we've established above that alternative treatments can be mentioned even if there isn't a large-scale clinical trial of the type that would tend to reclassify the treatment from alternative to mainstream.
I'm not sure that we can resolve the issue of the positioning of the multivitamin sentences before resolving the issue of the content of the final paragraph.
Re selenium: OK, I wasn't sure, that's why I asked. Nevertheless, I propose mentioning "selenium" in the article. If you oppose this, please explain why. And I do appreciate your finding the selenium article and putting the footnote into the article.
I also see no reason not to mention boxwood; we now have two published studies with statistically significant results about it, (Durant published in Phytomedicine and Pharo published in Int Conf AIDS) compared to zero presented here for acupuncture or flower remedies.
It seems to me that no one opposes changing the last sentence of the last paragraph to the version in the draft paragraph. It seems to me that Bob's "no" above is referring to something else, not to the proposal to change that last sentence. I asked for clarification of this above and Bob has edited here since then without disagreeing with that interpretation. --Coppertwig 00:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this is where I'm supposed to chime in (ive been trying to follow a bit, it isn't easy, heh). If the last sentence you want it to become is 'There is a concerning shortage of studies to establish the effectiveness of complementary and alternative treatments for HIV/AIDS. [7]', then I'd say no. It think it sounds POV, eg who is concerned, this Mills fellow? Is that definitive/objective? JoeSmack Talk 07:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Coppertwig, my no was referring to your version of the last sentence. I didn't bother replying to your continued assumptions as I thought it was more than obvious, but hey probably not. I agree with JoeSmack and reaffirm the validity of None of these treatments have been proven in controlled trials to have any effect in treating HIV or AIDS.. Some papers state that there is an effect, but these are not properly controlled and do not hold widespread support. The current statement upholds the current medical opinion. I object to the changing of the last sentence. Clear enough now? On another note, I now see why you wish to include vitamin studies within this paragraph, as the uninformed reader may believe that there is a link between all the alternative treatments... Yet another reason to keep them apart in the position where I put them before being reverted. --Bob 07:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Some interesting studies

Lab studies: vitamin C inhibits HIV

"Prolonged exposure of virus (37 degrees C for 4 days) in the presence of ascorbate (100-150 micrograms/ml) resulted in the drop by a factor of 3-14 in RT activity as compared to a reduction by a factor of 25-172 in extracellular RT released from chronically infected cells. These results indicate that ascorbate mediates an anti-HIV effect by diminishing viral protein production in infected cells and RT stability in extracellular virions." Harakeh S, Jariwalla R, Pauling L (1990). "Suppression of human immunodeficiency virus replication by ascorbate in chronically and acutely infected cells". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 87 (18): 7245–9. PMID 1698293. 

"Ca-ascorbate reduced extracellular HIV reverse transcriptase (RT) activity by about the same magnitude as the equivalent dose of AA [ascorbic acid]. Long-term experiments showed that continuous presence of ascorbate was necessary for HIV suppression. ... These results further support the potent antiviral activity of ascorbate and suggest its therapeutic value in controlling HIV infection in combination with thiols. "[9]

Clinical studies: micronutrients and AIDS

"RESULTS: Development of deficiency of vitamin A or vitamin B12 was associated with a decline in CD4 cell count (P = 0.0255 and 0.0377, respectively), while normalization of vitamin A, vitamin B12 and zinc was associated with higher CD4 cell counts (P = 0.0492, 0.0061 and 0.0112, respectively). These findings were largely unaffected by zidovudine use. For vitamin B12, low baseline status significantly predicted accelerated HIV-1 disease progression determined by CD4 cell count (P = 0.041) and the AIDS index (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that micronutrient deficiencies are associated with HIV-1 disease progression and raise the possibility that normalization might increase symptom-free survival." [10]

"The death rate was lower in the micronutrients arm with the mortality hazard ratios [95% confidence interval (CI)] of 0.53 (0.22-1.25; P = 0.1) overall and 0.37 (0.13-1.06; P = 0.052) and 0.26 (0.07-0.97; P = 0.03) among those with CD4 cell counts < 200 x 10(6)/l and < 100 x 10(6)/l respectively. There was no impact on CD4 cell count or plasma viral load. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple micronutrient supplementation may enhance the survival of HIV-infected individuals with CD4 cell counts < 200 x 10(6)/l. ..." [11]


Adequately reviewed in the paper currently cited along with the statement multivitamin. And just a side issue, what happens in a culture dish is far from what happens in vivo in many cases. --Bob 07:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your comment further above: The studies do not merely state that the treatments are effective; they present statistically significant results from controlled trials supporting the treatments. The existence of "methodological weaknesses" does not transform a number of controlled trials into zero controlled trials, and the Mills et al. article doesn't claim that it does.
Suppose we assume that "current medical opinion" is expressed in this quote from Mills et al.: Despite the widespread use of CAM by people living with HIV/AIDS, the effectiveness of these therapies has not been established. Vis a vis CAM's popularity, the paucity of clinical trials and their low methodological quality are concerning. This is not what the last sentence of the treatment section currently says. There is a difference between "not proven" and "not been established". To use the terminology "proven" when this terminology is not being used in the reference is to violate WP:NOR. There is a still more important difference between "a paucity" and "None".
In reply to JoeSmack: I'm glad to see that you've been watching this discussion. More collaborators can lead to a more polished result in the end. Re the proposed last sentence: Perhaps you are concerned about the word "concerning"?  :-) I think it fits the pattern from Wikipedia policy quoted below. What do you think of these variations? (each to have the Mills et al. footnote)
  • There is a shortage of studies to establish the effectiveness of complementary and alternative treatments for HIV/AIDS.
  • There is a paucity of studies to establish the effectiveness of complementary and alternative treatments for HIV/AIDS.
  • Experts have expressed concern over the shortage of studies to establish the effectiveness of complementary and alternative treatments for HIV/AIDS.
  • Writers of a review article on complementary and alternative therapies have expressed concern over the shortage of studies to establish the effectiveness of such treatments for HIV/AIDS.
  • Researchers at medical and naturopathic institutions in Canada and the UK have expressed concern over the shortage of studies to establish the effectiveness of complementary and alternative treatments for HIV/AIDS.
  • Despite the widespread use of CAM by people living with HIV/AIDS, the effectiveness of these therapies has not been established. Vis a vis CAM's popularity, the paucity of clinical trials and their low methodological quality are concerning.
The first two eliminate the word "concerning" completely (although this word does appear in the RS). The next three, with the footnote, seem to me to follow the pattern allowed by WP:Weasel, e.g. It is acceptable to use some of these phrases, if they are accompanied by a citation that supports the claim, for example: "Research has shown that Rabies can be cured by acupuncture (Wong et al, 1996)".
The last one is simply a direct quote from Mills et al. Surely the quote is an accurate representation of itself! However, if the acronym "CAM" is used, it either needs to be expanded in the article (within square brackets if necessary) or a link to a definition. --Coppertwig 01:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the problem with all these variations is they all assert there should be more studies. Who is asserting this? Mills. Is Mills the end all be all on how many studies should be made before the world should stop being concerned? All those variations are POV for this reason as we're not all Mills and I don't think he should be telling me not to feel comfy until we get more studies to his liking. I think a perfect NPOV way of phrasing it would be
  • To date there are a small number of studies to establish the effectiveness of complementary and alternative treatments for HIV/AIDS.
This phrase doesn't assert how concerned anyone is, and lets people know there isn't a ton of studies out yet. It is neutral; I don't see how it could be construed as taking a side anywhere. It could be effective, it could not be, it just hasn't been established yet to date. JoeSmack Talk 02:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S. 'Paucity' and 'shortage' both imply insufficiency, again the same problem with 'concern'. JoeSmack Talk 02:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Your points are well made, and I support changing the last sentence of the Treatment section to this sentence you propose, keeping the Mills et al. footnote associated with it. I would also support this variation inserting "some":
  • To date there are a small number of studies to establish the effectiveness of some complementary and alternative treatments for HIV/AIDS.
--Coppertwig 03:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Er, to me that just feels like it is weakening the strength of the prose, in a similar way 'maybe' or 'could' would do the same. JoeSmack Talk 03:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, I'm fine with your version. --Coppertwig 03:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone oppose changing the last sentence of the treatment section to the sentence JoeSmack suggests above?
Does anyone oppose adding boxwood to the list of alternative treatments now that we have two published studies supporting it? --Coppertwig 22:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do. If we are to change it, and I suppose that Coppertwig won't stop until we do (not a personal attack, just an observation), why don't we change it to the exact wording of the Mills et al article? ie. Despite the widespread use of complementary and alternative medicine by people living with HIV/AIDS, the effectiveness of these therapies has not been established. This way we do not cherrypick the parts that we wish to include to support a specific POV, but something which has been peer removed, nor do we twist the words to mean something that they don't mean. I cannot see any valid objection to this. It states the facts as is.

On the subject of boxwood, I would be under the impression that boxwood therapy, published in the well renowned journal of phytomedicine and reviewed in another, as herbal and flower remedies. Place the reference there to the great journal of phytomedicine or whatever it was. --Bob 01:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re boxwood: I understand that "great" is meant sarcastically, but I assume you're serious about including a reference re boxwood. How about like this:
...herbal and flower remedies such as boxwood[3][12]...
--Coppertwig 16:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I did the above edit. See also proposed edit in "Treatment section", below. --Coppertwig 01:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


Something I do believe that needs to be added to this section is the fact that one such vitamin/mineral regimen, KPAX: http://www.k-pax.us ,has been approved by and can now be paid for by NY State ADAP: http://www.k-pax.us/downloads/ADAP_doc_info.pdf . Not sure how to "state this" without it sounding like some kind of endorsement, but it does lend more weight to the whole "Alternative Therapies" debate especially those involving vitamins/minerals. —ZacWolf 13:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dr Robert C Gallo?

Why has there not been any focus on the supposed discoverer of the virus , Dr Robert C Gallo. In 1975 he was working on Leukemia in context of retroviruses. And he holds 79 medical patents relating to Aids medical treatment. Conflict of interest? Also where is the issue over the Reagan administration in the early 80's who actively helped to create the term "Aids" They also helped Gallo with his patents. A LOT of material needs to be added here.--Redblossom 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Any positive, or rather, non-negative information regarding the Reagan administration will be labeled "POV" and removed. That's just the way it works around here. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there's plenty of focus on Gallo - it can be found at Robert Gallo. If you have some previously published, reliably sourced, verifiable information you'd like to add about Gallo, that would be the place. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about Reagan - there's a section on AIDS in Reagan Administration. MastCell 18:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that a good way to address the concern raised above would be to briefly fit in the names "Gallo" and "Reagan" somewhere on the AIDS page and make them links to those other pages. Wikipedia pages benefit from links to pages of related information. --Coppertwig 01:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, here's a way to do it: In the box of links at the bottom of the page, a link to Reagan administration#Response to AIDS can be added in the History section. I don't see how a such a link could reasonably be considered to be POV. No link to Gallo or Montagnier seems to me to be needed, since there is a link in the Origin section to the main article AIDS origin, which has links to the pages for both these scientists. --Coppertwig 03:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

GRID repetitively mentioned 3 times

The fact that AIDS was originally referred to as GRID and the reason the name was subsequently changed is mentioned 3 times in the article; that's approximately 2 times more than necessary. If subsequent mention is needed it can be expressed as a short phrase such as "Originally dubbed GRID, ..." below, rather restated as a sentence. If possible two of the three similar stories can be simply edited away. Here I'm simply trying to reduce repetition; expanding one of the three versions with more detail can also be OK.

Under "CDC classification system for HIV infection":

Under "Origin of HIV" it says:

  • Originally dubbed GRID, or Gay-Related Immune Deficiency, health authorities soon realized that nearly half of the people identified with the syndrome were not homosexual men. In 1982, the CDC introduced the term AIDS to describe the newly recognized syndrome.

Under "HIV and AIDS misconceptions" it says:

  • When scientists first recognized the syndrome in 1981 initially they termed it Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome, a possible source for the misconception holding that AIDS infects only homosexual men; scientists soon renamed the disease in recognition of transmission other than by male-male intercourse.

Any objections to my editing two of these down? Should I present the proposed edits here first? If someone else wants to go ahead and do it that's OK with me, too. --Coppertwig 03:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

DONE. User Grcampbell (Bob) deleted the redundant information in the misconceptions section, (thanks, Bob), and I cut down the other two sections, trying to retain one copy of any significant information; I moved the mention of the year 1982 into the CDC section. --Coppertwig 01:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Biblical Belief

I know that it's not a widely accepted belief but a small group of people, namely white South Africans have taken to the belief that God sent it and maybe this theory should be included? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.27.56.178 (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

No, it shouldn't. --Bob 01:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
To answer the original poster, no, that does not belong in this article in any way, shape or form.
However, there is a rather diverse set of theological beliefs regarding HIV/AIDS. Perhaps a seperate article with a detailing of how theologians of the major world religions have grappled with the issue would be of some interest. 209.59.33.221 19:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is already another page that contains the less reputable theories related to the origin of AIDS--Thomascartwright 17:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are correct, but the theological communities' response to HIV was not confined to 'less reputable theories.' Indeed, it added a new depth to the discussion about human life and worth, the faith community’s responsibility to those living with HIV, and the Christian concept of Interfice errorem, diligere errantem. Though the idea communicated by original posters is distasteful (to say the least), there was a very wide spectrum of theological responses to the disease. I still think a seperate article detailing the variety of theological responses would be of some interest. 68.116.112.11 22:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed creation of page 'Treatment of HIV/AIDS'"

This proposal came out of the "Alternative treatment" discussion above. The proposal is to create a new page "Treatment of HIV/AIDS", and move the content of the "Treatment" section of this (AIDS) page onto it, and also move and merge the content of the "Treatment" section of the HIV page onto it. On the AIDS page and on the HIV page, a short (few paragraphs) summary will remain along with a link to the new page. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Advantages of creating the new page:

  • Fixing the current content fork where the similar topic of HIV or AIDS treatment is covered on two separate pages.
  • More room to expand the material on conventional treatments.
  • More room to expand the material on alternative treatments.
  • Partially or completely resolving the ongoing dispute under "Alternative treatments" above, because one of the root causes of the dispute is whether there is enough room to include certain material on alternative treatments.

I'll also put a note on the HIV talk page, directing discussion here. Comments? --Coppertwig 05:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


  • Oppose deleting the contents of the treatment. Copy and expand elsewhere but do not delete any of the contents. --Bob 07:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional support: I think creating a new page is worthwhile because the topic is complex/detailed and it will improve readability for both articles. The material in the current AIDS article on treatment could be summarized, with more in-depth info on the new page. However, even on a new page we need to observe WP:NPOV and undue weight - in other words, a new page wouldn't be a license to expand the alternative treatment section out of proportion to its relevance. MastCell 18:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional support: I support the proposal I described above assuming it includes a message in italics at the beginning of the section such as "For main article see ..." with a link to the in-depth article. I oppose any duplication of the sentence "None of these treatments have been proven in controlled trials to have any effect in treating HIV or AIDS.[97]" which I would like to delete or change and which is under discussion above under "Alternative treatments". If duplication, rather than moving or summarizing, is to occur, I would like to see more about Wikipedia policy or guidelines as it applies to the situation of having sections of two articles covering almost exactly the same topic or a section of one article covering the same topic as another whole article. I've found Wikipedia policies or guidelines covering closely related situations but they don't seem to me to bear on this exact situation. By the way, I apologize if I've misused the term "content forking"; I simply intended to use it to mean the existence of more than one article covering the same topic, and on reading further into Wikipedia policy I see that it may usually mean something a bit different I didn't intend, and I apologize for any misunderstanding that may have occurred as a result. --Coppertwig 02:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
If you remove a valid, referenced point that conforms to the WP:NPOV it will be seen as vandalism and POV pushing. The Mills article is a valid source from International Journal of STD & AIDS and describes the current knowledge on alternative treatments as presented in that paragraph (alluded to as [97] above). Unless we wish to cherry pick data to conform to a specific POV advocating alternative treatments, we must follow the evidence and present a neutral and factual article, anything less would be wrong and in violation or wikipedia policies. The article, in its current state, does this fine. --Bob 08:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
In both the dispute about the deletion of the vitamin C sentence and the dispute about the deletion of the Mills sentence, what we need to do is discuss the issues here and try to reach a compromise, i.e. a version of the article everyone can live with. --Coppertwig 21:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: No, we should provide accurate, referenced information that does not conform to a certain POV but follows the facts. The article as it stands now does this just fine. --Bob 23:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Meanwhile, while this issue is in the process of being decided, how about this: putting "See also HIV Treatment" in italics at the very top of the Treatment section. (I'll also put the corresponding suggestion on the HIV talk page.) --Coppertwig 00:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Now that the last sentence of the Treatment section has been changed (the sentence with the Mills et al. footnote), one barrier to forming a separate Treatment page has been removed. As far as I can see, the only issue remaining is whether to keep the Treatment section at its current length while also making a new, longer Treatment page, or to shorten the Treatment section into a "summary". I've searched around in Wikipedia policy and haven't found anything definitive about this. I'm hesitant about having a lot of similar information on separate pages; I think Wikipedia policy tends to frown on that. In this case there's also the HIV page treatment section which is another page with similar information. If anyone can find clarification in Wikipedia policy about this situation I would appreciate it. There's some releveant information at Wikipedia:Summary style, for example. --Coppertwig 16:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I would say POV Fork is a guideline to be wary of. I'd put an oppose up there for myself; creating a new article to expand on viewpoints because they aren't flying here isn't good. JoeSmack Talk 13:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Being recently diagnosed myself and trying to wade through the HUGE amount of information that is available on the Internet (coupled with the fact that much of that information is outdated), I think it's important to not only "show the facts" but it's also of critical importance to learn about ALL the various treatment options that are both "Currently Available", and also those that are being "Explored". I'm not only referring to "Alternative treatments" but also to the various "Drug and Vaccine Trials" that are occurring. At the very least a reference link to "http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/" or one of the other Trials repositories should be added. I've got to tell you that it is my opinion that the very first sentence "There is currently no vaccine or cure for HIV or AIDS." is not only heartless, I believe it's just an extreme oversimplification of the issue. I understand the "Encyclopedic" nature of Wikipedia, but we simply can not deny that there is an emotional "impact" of the information presented here. There is also the fact that "Treatment" is undergoing a rate of updates that would be considered radical compared to the treatment of other diseases, so "centralizing" all of that information in a single entry would be much better than maintaining similar information in two places. —ZacWolf 13:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

AIDS Cure

Over the course of about 2 years I have heard reports that the cure for completely eliminating AIDS has been found. Paul Harvy News was the first I heard of this. Then I also read from BBC a article about the cure however it was deleted shortly after. CNN has never had a article to my knowlege of such a issue. My friends say it might be a Hush Hush thing that the US governmet is doing. However I have to know. Can anyone besides me and my friends and a couple of people from around my town, verify that the cure has been found??

thanks Maverick423 21:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There IS a cure for AIDS - it was patented in the US in 1997. Why does the article make no mention of this?? Surely this is something that we should know?! The cure is called "Method of curing AIDS with tetrasilver tetroxide molecular crystal devices" and was patented by Marvin S. Antelman. Go to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Database (http://patft.uspto.gov/) and search for Patent Number 5676977 - there are the details. The claims made in the patent have not been investigated by any mainstream scientific body, but the treatment was tried by Boyd Graves, a lawyer and AIDS activist (http://www.boydgraves.com) who says he has proof that AIDS was a result of the US Government's "Special Virus Cancer Program" and is trying to take the Government to court - he now claims he is sympton free and physically fine.

201.247.123.183 15:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

80% of patent applications are for devices that violate the laws of physics. Having a patent on something DOES NOT mean it works. The fact that one crackpot claims he cured himself doesn't mean it actually happened. Raul654 15:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Sorry to say, no, there's no such thing. - Nunh-huh 23:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. You shouldn't believe anything you hear on Paul Harvey!!! Most of it's distorted beyond recognition.
To be honest, 4 times a year another 'miracle cure'/vaccine is found for HIV. Lots and lots of money is spent on research behind them, and so when they think they are onto something they smear it all over the press world. Years later nothing no research has progressed, tests have failed, and everybody is back to square one. I don't mean to be cynical, but I've stopped even reading that kind of stuff until it has gotten through a significant amount of trials. JoeSmack Talk 23:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Note this information which was deleted from the article by another user:
Bowel-tolerance doses of vitamin C have been used, for example, to treat AIDS, with good preliminary clinical results. [13] A much lower dose of vitamin C has been shown in a placebo-controlled trial to reduce viral load. [14]
    • ^ a b Fawzi W, Msamanga G, Spiegelman D, Hunter DJ (2005). "Studies of vitamins and minerals and HIV transmission and disease progression". J. Nutrition 135 (4): 938–944. PubMed. 
    • ^ a b c Saltmarsh, S. (2005). "Voodoo or valid? Alternative therapies benefit those living with HIV". Positively Aware 3 (16): 46. PubMed. 
    • ^ a b c Pharo, A. et al. (1996). "Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of SPV-30 (boxwood extract) in patients with HIV disease.". Int Conf AIDS (Jul 7-12): 11:19. abstract no. Mo.B.180. 
    • ^ a b Cathcart, Robert F. (1984). """". Medical Hypotheses 14 (4): 423–433. 
    • ^ a b Cathcart, Robert F. (1990). ""Letter to the Editor"". The Lancet (335): 235. 
    • ^ a b Hickey, Steve (2004). Ascorbate: The Science of Vitamin C. p. 184. ISBN 1-4116-0724-4. 
    • ^ a b Mills, E., Wu, P. and Ernst, E. (2005). "Complementary therapies for the treatment of HIV: in search of the evidence.". Int. J. STD AIDS. 16 (6): 395–403. PubMed. 
    • ^ Hurwitz BE, Klaus JR, Llabre MM, Gonzalez A, Lawrence PJ, Maher KJ, Greeson JM, Baum MK, Shor-Posner G, Skyler JS, Schneiderman N. (2007). "Suppression of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 viral load with selenium supplementation: a randomized controlled trial". Arch Intern Med. 167 (2): 148–155. PubMed. 
    • ^ Jariwalla R, Harakeh S. "Antiviral and immunomodulatory activities of ascorbic acid". Subcell Biochem 25: 213–31. PMID 8821976. 
    • ^ Baum M, Shor-Posner G, Lu Y, Rosner B, Sauberlich H, Fletcher M, Szapocznik J, Eisdorfer C, Buring J, Hennekens C (1995). "Micronutrients and HIV-1 disease progression". AIDS 9 (9): 1051–6. PMID 8527077. 
    • ^ Jiamton S, Pepin J, Suttent R, Filteau S, Mahakkanukrauh B, Hanshaoworakul W, Chaisilwattana P, Suthipinittharm P, Shetty P, Jaffar S (2003). "A randomized trial of the impact of multiple micronutrient supplementation on mortality among HIV-infected individuals living in Bangkok". AIDS 17 (17): 2461–9. PMID 14600517. 
    • ^ Durant, J. et al. (1998). "Efficacy and safety of Buxussempervirens L. preparations (SPV-30) in HIV infected asymptomatic patients: a multi-centre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.". Phytomedicine (5): 1–10. 
    • ^ Cathcart, R., 1984. Vitamin C in the Treatment of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
    • ^ cite journal | author=Allard, JP. et al. | title=Effects of vitamin E and C supplementation on oxidative stress and viral load in HIV-infected subjects | journal=AIDS | year=1998 | pages=1653-1659 |volume=12 |issue=13
    In spite of low cost, low toxicity and promising preliminary results from the use of high-dose vitamin C in the treatment of AIDS, apparently no randomized controlled studies have been done on this treatment. People with AIDS are able to take very large amounts of vitamin C (on the order of 100 grams a day) without getting the diarrhoea-like effects healthy people would get if they consumed that amount of vitamin C by mouth -- a sign that their body is using the vitamin. --Coppertwig 03:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

    A couple of issues; the first reference/point ("used to treat AIDS with good preliminary clinical results") is an entirely anecdotal paper from Medical Hypotheses from 1984 (3 strikes?). Second, vitamin C wasn't "shown to reduce viral load" in Allard's paper; there was a trend toward lower viral load (p=0.1) which did not reach the standard criteria for statistical significance. You may as well note that the vitamin C group had more infections than the placebo group (9 vs. 7) - also a "trend" which did not reach statistical significance. I'm not sure of the source for the final claim (that people with AIDS can tolerate higher doses of vitamin C). I understand no large-scale clinical trials of high-dose vitamin C have been done, but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs; it's more a place to report on the studies that have been done. I do think something about the 2004 multivitamin study (PMID 15229304) should be included under treatment, both because of its relevance and because its findings are so often misrepresented. MastCell 05:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

    We should not push a certain POV on wikipedia, we should also follow evidence from respectable sources and we should also cease to cherrypick data. On another note, (PMID 15229304) is already referenced in the article: Daily multivitamin supplements have been found to reduce HIV disease progression among men and women. This could become an important low-cost intervention provided during early HIV disease to prolong the time before antiretroviral therapy is required. This is more than sufficient reference to vitamins as a treatment for AIDS. --Bob 08:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    Cool... I had missed that in my brief run-through. Thanks for pointing it out. MastCell 17:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

    Wow i didnt know there were so many versions of this. hopfully we get the cure soon. well like i said i heard on the radio that the source of the cure was found on the secretions of a toad in south africa or something like that. I guess that was a little to good to be true. In anyways Thanks much for all the feed back! and feel free to continue i like hearing the diffrent points of views and researches.Maverick423 18:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

    Re Allard's paper: There was a statistical significance level of 0.1 given, presumably for the comparison with controls, which is not quite statistically significant according to the usual criteria; however, there was also a 95% confidence interval given with both endpoints negative, indicating, if I understand correctly, a statistically significant decrease in viral load with vitamin C treatment, comparing after-treatment to the same patients before-treatment. --Coppertwig 09:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

    No talk of poor medical practice as a cause of infection in Africa and China?

    "...use of dirty needles by public health services was the main cause of transmission in the study period, with sexual transmission accounting for just 30% of infections." [1]

    It is also known that that poor medical practice accounts for many infections in the underdeveloped parts in China too. [2]

    I know the UN has rejected many of these reports in Africa.[3] But I still think its important that this discrepancy gets some discussion, and if it has already then I am sorry for missing it. But this is something that needs to be addressed if it has any truth to it. --JonM 14:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    There's some information on the topic under "Transmission", "Exposure to Bodily Fluids" with a citation to the WHO report. If there's more you'd like to add, you could propose it here or just be bold and add it (don't take it personally if it gets edited or removed, though - this tends to be a closely watched article). MastCell 16:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    AIDS urban myth

    I heard that if one drinks two liters of someone's HIV-positive saliva they might get infected, is that possible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bob diablo (talkcontribs) 02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

    No, drinking 2 liters of someone else's saliva isn't possible. MastCell 04:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    I would think it would be a matter of probabilities: that the probability of getting infected from two litres of saliva would be approximately double the probability of getting infected from one litre of saliva, and thousands of times the probability of getting infected from a drop of saliva. Presumably all rather small probabilities. --Coppertwig 02:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

    What about a drop of saliva on a open wound would that infect? Maverick423 15:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

    I would guess that would have more chance of infection than drinking a drop of saliva, but less than getting a drop of blood on an open wound. I think any open wounds in the mouth or digestive tract greatly increase the risk from swallowing such fluids. --Coppertwig 02:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

    The problem as far as oral infection is not with saliva, but with semen, vaginal discharges, milk or blood coming into contact with a torn mucous membrane due to tooth injury, gum abbrassion, retracting gums and things like that. Get two people with poor gum health to kiss deeply for an extended period, and there is real risk of infection. 88.152.19.206 23:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

    Oh, I see -- it's not so much the saliva, as traces of blood in the saliva from bleeding gums. Another reason to consume plenty of vitamin C. --Coppertwig 11:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, high doses of vitamin C cause diarrhea, one of the things that leads to HIV wasting and AIDS. Great idea... --Bob 01:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

    Malfunction of footnote display

    The footnotes are not displaying correctly. In the last paragraph of the Treatment section are two references to an article with author Saltmarsh and title "Voodo or Valid?", but this article does not display in the list of references. I've tried with two different browsers. It appears as footnote 93, but footnote 93 display as a different article. Perhaps there is no superscript for footnote 94. --Coppertwig 03:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

    OK, I've figured out what the problem is. Two different references are named "Saltmarsh". I'll fix it. I also checked through the other references and found a couple of redundant ones, which I'll likely re-check and abbreviate later today. --Coppertwig 18:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    I've repaired the Saltmarsh reference and abbreviated a few identical references. Near the end of the Stigma section, attached to the phrase "even sex between two uninfected men.", I found a footnote containing two citations, the second of which was not displaying. I repaired it to display as two separate footnotes; I'm guessing either both, or just the second footnote was intended to be cited here. The second source seems to me to definitely support the statement, while the first may also be relevant. --Coppertwig 19:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

    IMOD

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMOD Could this be a possible cure? I just stumbled upon 2 minutes ago. If so, then the treatment paragraph should be changed. Or atleast give this IMOD as a possible cure. --63.170.80.2 21:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC) It hasn't been properly tested.

    Many scientists and their dogs are coming up with cures, yet these are not properly scrutinised and/or tested. Until we are sure that it helps, we shouldn't add it in. --Bob 22:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

    Please avoid making changes to sections that are under discussion.

    At "Draft alternative treatment paragraph" above, I suggest moving the two sentences about vitamin supplements from the end of one paragraph to the beginning of the next paragraph. The positioning of these two sentences is under discussion, along with the rest of the draft paragraph, and this issue is not yet resolved. Please do not move these sentences to any other position, or make any other changes to the section under discussion (last paragraph of Treatment section plus last two sentences of second-last paragraph) until consensus has been reached.

    Please discuss on the Talk page. As Joe Smack said above, "...it is a better idea to post the new source here instead of the article and dealing with a second revert and raised temperatures of editors.". --Coppertwig 00:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

    The section you have flagged was not originally part of the discussion, yet you have included it now. There is no real discussion taking place here. A discussion would involve people talking about it. The only thing I see here is an insistence of the inclusion of a POV. Namely vitamin C research which has not been clinically proven. I have tried discussing this with you, yet you are apparently unable to see the facts of the matter as published in the article written by Mills et al and others. Furthermore you only revert the parts that are not in agreement with your POV. If you wish to have a discussion take the matter to the wikiproject medicine and ask them to review your facts and theories and ask the other doctors who contribute to articles whether or not biased, unproven research deserves a place within this heavily read article. I, for one, do not wish to see this article degenerate into the piece of trash that it was just over a year ago. A lot of hard work was carried out by many contributors to get this article to FA status. Insistence on the inclusion of quackery will only lead to it being delisted. Is this what we want? --Bob 00:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

    I apologize if I accidentally misplaced a ref tag or something while reverting and I thank you for discussing here rather than carrying on an edit war.

    And thank you, Bob, for catching and fixing that extra ref tag.

    Although the positioning of the last two sentences of the second-last paragraph of the treatment section was not part of the discussion at the beginning of the "Alternative treatment" discussion, it has been part of the discussion there since January 28, when I proposed moving these sentences to the beginning of a paragraph for the purpose of increasing their prominence. --Coppertwig 00:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

    Iran's cure claim

    This part belongs in the article, and I put "claims" exactly because it has not yet been shown or proven...Azerbaijani 00:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

    I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest we wait for some kind of scientific evidence before putting the "herbal cure for AIDS" in the article. MastCell 03:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    You mean American scientific "evidence," don't you? Just like American "news," or American "diplomacy"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.26.101.71 (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
    No. I mean scientific evidence. Iran's state news agency is not a source of scientific evidence. I'm impressed at how many assumptions you can draw from a brief statement, though. MastCell 02:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    The comment was self-evident trolling, an impression the contribution history of the "contributor" proves. However, since it's been restored, I'd add that the Iranian press release itself is pretty amusing reading, as it gives a rate of progression for those treated without comparing it with historical rates or a control group. And that rate is no better than historical "non-treatment" groups. - Nunh-huh 03:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    By the way, that anonymous user was not me. :)Azerbaijani 06:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

    people,

    It's not a "cure". That's a mistranslation, and/or misquote. It's more of a treatment. For those of you who can read the original reports, see here as an example: [4]. The Minsiter even says it is meant as a "supplementary treatment to fight AIDS by boosting the immune system against the virus".[5]. The treatment is being registered by the EU, according to the ministry.[6]. It is in the stages of marketing for treating Iran's AIDS victims.[7] So it's pointless to discuss the authenticity of the treatment while it is already in use in a country of 75 million.--Zereshk 19:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

    You have to understand that when we hear somewhat vague claims like "uses nanotechnology" and "has no side effects", the red flags go up. I think the reason IMOD hasn't been included is the lack of scientific data. If we could get a scientific paper, published somewhere in a peer-reviewed journal, that supported these claims, I'd be a lot more comfortable with it. IRNA is not a scientific source, and WP:RS cautions (used to caution?) us, "Avoid citing the popular press on scientific matters". MastCell 19:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    Well then why not at least say "it is claimed to have no side effects"? The section already says "None of these treatments have been proven in controlled trials to have any effect in treating HIV or AIDS". So why raise a red flag here, and not for the others mentioned? The person who has made these claims is not some joe blow. He's authored 2 text books in medicine, published several peer reviewed papers in int'l journals, and is the Minister of Health of Iran. And having "nanotechnology" and "biotechnology" in these sentences isn't a far fetched thing to object to either. These areas have high priorities in Iranian R&D.[8][9] Iran even ranks its laboratories in nanotechnology research.[10]
    Suffice to say, when the entire paragraph is deleted (instead of being modified to address these issues), it only makes it seem that some people are advocating the idea that scientific progress is an enterprise exclusive to the west, and that western approval is required for any recognition. And that's not good. Because we're not here for politics, are we?--Zereshk 21:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    It seems relevant information to me. We can state that Iran has announced a treatment. This statement is apparently true and does not in itself claim that the treatment is effective. I think the article being linked to is interesting. I think the word "nanotechnology" should not be used here; I don't see it in the article. The article says it's an herbal remedy, which is makes much more sense. Zereshk makes a good point that other alternative treatments are mentioned in spite of a lack of solid scientific evidence backing them. That's almost the definition of alternative treatments. There are good reasons for mentioning alternative treatments even if there is no solid scientific evidence that they work. In this case, there is some evidence that it works: it says they've tried it on 200 people. Please see also the discussion "Alternative treatments" above. --Coppertwig 02:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    No, there aren't good reasons for mentioning things where there is no solid scientific evidence that they work. We gotta be all about the facts here, and there isn't room for anything else (you see the length of this article?! sheesh!). Iran may have an herbal remedy, but until it is scientifically supported and has peer reviewed studies behind it, it should not be in this article. Do you know how many things, people, governments, whatever, have 'claimed' something worked against AIDS? If we included them all (and we'd have to, cause if X gets it why not Y), then this article would be a million miles long! JoeSmack Talk 03:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    If there was "solid scientific evidence that it works", it wouldnt need to be listed in the alternative section of this article (which is why we have the alternative section anyway). It would instead win a nobel prize and would have several exclusive articles. Regardless, IMOD is being used to treat AIDS victims in Iran, whether or not you people believe it to work or not. That by itself should merit some mention at least.--Zereshk 05:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    Well we need solid scientific evidence, i dont know any compelling reasons why this article should stray from it. It doesn't matter if it is being used in Iran; we can't have a section that lists every country's various treatments and attempts at treatments. JoeSmack Talk 06:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    How often does the health ministry of a country make an announcement like this? If not often, it's notable and I think it's important to put a link to the article about it. If often, I think we should summarize, e.g. "In the year 2006, for example, 5 governments announced advances in treatments" (or whatever the actual number is) with links to similar articles about the announcements. This would provide the reader with context for evaluating the importance of any similar announcements.
    I tried to find the official website of the health ministry of Iran. I think I found it, [11] but the English version wouldn't load. I can see the Persian, but I can't understand it. Would someone who can read Persian please check whether the website makes an announcement like the one described in the article, and provide a specific web page address pointing to the announcement?
    We do not need solid scientific evidence to prove that the government of Iran has made an annoucement relevant to AIDS. We do not need solid scientific evidence that a treatment works before listing it as an alternative treatment. Because of often severe side effects and deaths from drugs, drugs are normally subjected to stringent criteria before being used. There is no need for this article to apply that same stringency to the mere mentioning of alternative treatments. --Coppertwig 11:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, we do need solid scientific evidence to prove the government is using it. I could make up what Canada is using for their treatment right now, and if I didn't have the evidence to back it up it wouldn't have any weight. And yes, you do need solid scientific evidence it works. Did you know sleeping 10,000 coconuts cures AIDS? No? Well, I don't have the backing for it, so it shouldn't go in the article until it can be verified by a reliable source. Alternative treatments do require the same stringency. Talk:AIDS#Alternative treatment is this long precisely because of this. JoeSmack Talk 16:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    "Yes, we do need solid scientific evidence to prove the government is using it". That sentence doesnt even make sense. Solid scientific evidence that the govt is using it??--Zereshk 00:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    You dont think there are studies behind a government using a treatment? JoeSmack Talk 03:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    "Studies behind a govt"?!--Zereshk 17:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    Iran's government chose to use this as a treatment. I'm guessing they didn't choose it randomly, there were probably scientific studies that were conducted beforehand to support Iran's choice. Lets examine those studies. JoeSmack Talk 19:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    Let’s just take a short reality check here.
    FACT: Iranian news claims that IMOD is in the final stages of the licensing process in the EU (http://www.payvand.com/news/07/feb/1113.html).
    FACT: It hasn’t as yet even been submitted to the European Medicines Evaluation Agency for approval by either the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) or Committee on Herbal Medicinal Products (HMPC) (please do feel free to check at http://www.emea.eu.int/ .. the only references to “imod” you find are in an entirely different context in Danish and Norwegian language documents, where imod simply means “against”’).
    It hasn’t even undergone the testing required for it to be so much as considered for approval .. and even if it had, that approval would still be at least a year off (because it doesn’t as yet have the advantage of the US approvals that would shortcut the normal approval process.
    Even a drug that is already licenced in the US and doesn’t contain any components that aren’t already licenced for exactly the same use and in exactly the doses in the EU, would still take at least six months to gain approval. (e.g. Atripla, which is simply a single dose formulation of the already popular sustiva and truvada and is still awaiting EU marketing approval).
    Given that demonstrably untrue claims are being made about IMOD, would it not be prudent to first see how the rest of the claims for the drug stand up to scrutiny?
    Orpingtonian 21:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

    (Unindent) Yes. MastCell 21:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

    By the way, here is a Wikinews article on the subject, from last September: wikinews:Iranian scientists claim to have found new treatment for AIDS --Coppertwig 02:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

    AIDS VACCINE

    well guys lets keep our fingers crossed that this experiment works this time.Maverick423 18:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

    (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6342575.stm

    Also since this is recent information should we add this to the article or something?? Maverick423 18:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

    Billions of dollars have been spent on cure/vaccine research, and nothing has worked to date. Every couple of months a new BBC/NY Times/SF Chron article comes out about the latest thing, and thats the last you hear of it. See earlier talk page discussions, here and archived, about this reoccurring phenomenon. Flash in the pan stuff isn't notable, and if we did include it we'd have a list of 10 pages of stuff. JoeSmack Talk 18:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


    Darn then i guess we have to wait 4 years before we can acctually write about this then eh and thats assuming it works. Maverick423 18:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

    I don't know -- maybe you could write about it at Wikinews if you want. --Coppertwig 03:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, I think it's relevant here, too. I think readers would be interested to see a link to the article about the test of the vaccine. It could be in a section with a name such as "current research". --Coppertwig 11:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    I don't agree. Wikipedia isn't here to interest people, it is here to be an encyclopedia (WP:5P). A section called 'current research' would date the article, never be up to date, and be a smorgasbord of flash-in-the-pan claims, treatments and cures. JoeSmack Talk 16:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

    well i can try i have never written an article on news before like that =) ill try then Maverick423 14:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

    http://aidsmap.com/en/docs/E3532777-3437-436E-8CD6-58C26BE9A49C.asp Orpingtonian 21:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

    NPOV problem

    The introduction says that "AIDS... is caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)". But towards the end of the article there is a reference to "Alternative Hypotheses" where it is made clear that this is still debated among a (very small) number of scientists. This makes it look like Wikipedia is taking sides in this debate. I suggest either the "Alternative Hypotheses" section is removed entirely or else the introduction is amended to say something along the lines of...

    "AIDS... is widely believed to be caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)."

    The Alternative Hypotheses have either been debunked or they have not. The introduction as it stands seems to say that they have been. And if they have been debunked then why include them in the article at all? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hne123 (talkcontribs) 16:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

    correct me if im wrong but i think aids is caused from HIV. HIV is the immune diffciancy and AIDS is the advanced state of the diffciancy. Maverick423 18:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

    Please re-read my entry. I am referring to the minority of scientists who question the link between HIV and AIDS. They are either disproved or nthey are not. Hne123 08:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

    I agree with Hne123 that there is a problem here. A Wikipedia article should not contradict itself and should not take sides. Although putting "is widely believed" near the top of the article would solve this, to me it sounds too weak in this case. How widespread is the minority view? Rather than "is widely believed", near the top of the article it might sound better to put something like "has been determined by medical science to be..." Can the Alternative Hypothesis section be written to mean "Some people believe X, but they are wrong"? The Myths section is like that. However, for the Alternative Hypotheses section, that seems a bit too POV to me. Maybe just renaming the heading of the Alternative Hypotheses section might help. What about the hypothesis that, although HIV is one factor causing AIDS, the presence of HIV alone is not enough to cause AIDS? I'm surprised this more reasonable hypothesis isn't mentioned, when the more extreme one is. In summary, I agree that there's a problem here but I don't know how to fix it. --Coppertwig 11:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

    There is no REAL problem here. This is the best we can do with the POV pushers of the extreme minority view. --Bob 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

    How can you say there is no real problem here when you are indirectly acknowledging that the "POV pushers" of the majority view have the only voice in the introduction? I worry about your use of the term "POV pushers" as in my mind this looks like you may not be a neutral observor in this debate.Hne123 08:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    The 'majority view' is scientific consensus. We're not going to lie in the intro to satisfy an alternative hypothesis that is for the most part bumpkis, nor is 'undue weight' a valid NPOV arguement, nor should weasel words like 'it is widely believed' be anywhere in this article. This has been argued again and again, nothing more than the test of time has shown that the specific wording, AIDS is caused by HIV, is the best way to phrase it. Dive through the talk page archives to see previous discussions. JoeSmack Talk 13:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    I think Hne123 has a common misunderstanding about WP:NPOV. The actual policy mandates that we don't give undue weight to fringe theories. The view that HIV doesn't cause AIDS is that of a small fringe/minority, and is primarily a political rather than scientific movement at present. Given that, its mention at all, and the article dedicated to it, probably represent undue weight, but there you go. The idea of "cofactors" as an "alternative" hypothesis is too vague - the course of every infectious disease is modified by host cofactors, but here it seems to be some kind of code implying that HIV is harmless. There is evidence on the progression of HIV in drug users, those with Hep B or C, etc, and perhaps this warrants a sentence or two. MastCell 17:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, you are correct, I misunderstood WP:NPOV. "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject" So I suppose you could argue that encyclopedias are not impartial but are simply records of the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain. Accordingly, I back down and accept that the introduction as it stands is correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hne123 (talkcontribs) 11:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

    Oral Ingestion and Breastmilk

    ok guys i have a question here

    as we recall on a earlier conversation about saliva and infection. 2 liters of saliva isnt enough to get infected if ingested orally. in the same note it is more probable to get infected through a wound. meaning the mouth and digestive system might be stronger to the threat of aids. however breastmilk when ingested can give a child the virus. what is the diffrence between these if they are both ingested orally? yes i read the article but i cant seem to find it anywere Maverick423 18:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

    The difference is more in the child than the breastmilk as i understand it. If you were to down 2 litters of breastmilk now you'd probably be fine. However, in the first 6 months or so of a baby's life, it gets a strong dose of natural antibiotics through the mother's breastmilk. The baby uses this essentially to keep it from getting lots of diseases before its immune system is up to its own snuff. If this breastmilk has a HIV virons and the baby is still quite young, it makes for some pretty infectious chances. JoeSmack Talk 18:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

    oh i see great info =) Maverick423 18:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

    During the first few months of life a baby consumes dozens of litres of breast milk. In addition to having undeveloped immune systems, babies also have immature digestive tracts which are more vulnerable to infection. The risk of transmission is highest among babies who are fed other foods or liquids as well as breast milk, probably because these other substances irritate the digestive tract, or contain other microbes that facilitate transmission. Also I believe that the concentration of HIV in saliva is lower than in breast milk, though I don't know of any specific figures. Trezatium 22:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

    Aids research money

    Dose anyone know if aids research money raised by charity or given out by governments ever goes to drug companies or dose it all go to researchers in university's. If some of the money dose go to a drug company dose that change the company's patent on new drugs? Maybe this is a question for an IP lawyer but any answers or links are appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.219.159.72 (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC).


    survival time after diagnosis of AIDS

    How long do you survive with retroviral drugs after the diagnosis of aids is made? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.243.90 (talkcontribs).

    - 5 years?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.241.183 (talkcontribs).

    the most i heard of a person surviving is 8 years. cant confirm this though sorry Maverick423 19:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

    I've added one estimate to the article. Trezatium 20:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    In fact most studies have concluded that life expectancy for people on HAART is around 20-30 years after infection - that is at least 10 years longer than without treatment (e.g. [12], [13], [14]). I'm not sure why the study I cited in my edit ([15]) gives such a lower estimate. This may be due to different definitions, different methods or different source data. Any suggestions? Trezatium 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

    It can depend on a number of factors, age, weight, host and viral genetics, regime prescribed, adherence etc etc etc. Taking an average is difficult when talking about survival after treatment starts. Even more so than estimating life expectancy without HAART. --Bob 02:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

    I've added another reference and widened the estimated range of survival benefit. Trezatium 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

    Do you think that future treatments will allow people to live a normal lifespan?

    How long is a piece of string? --Bob 02:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

    A recent Danish study [Lohse N et al. Survival of persons with and without HIV infection in Denmark, 1995-2005. Annals of Internal Medicine:146: 87-95, 2007.] has suggested that in settings where there is easy and FREE access to care and HIV medication (commenced at 250 cells/mm3), a young adult diagnosed with HIV - but without HCV - has an estimated median survival rate of MORE than 35 years (getting better with every year that passes) and that, whilst this is still 10 years short of general life expectancy, death is now unlikely to be directly related to HIV. In the United Kingdom, most people newly diagnosed with HIV are told to expect a near normal lifespan, similar to that of anyone now in remission from the likes of cancer (if they are sensible) Orpingtonian 11:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

    Indeed - I referenced the Lohse article in my comment above. By all means add it to the article if you think it worthwhile. Trezatium 12:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

    Early AIDS Cases

    Re: footnotes 122 and 123, just a quibble but important to those of us pursuing history and origins.

    The presence of AIDS in in a blood sample from an adult male in Kinshasa, Zaire (then Leopoldville, Belgian Congo)in 1959 has not been independently confirmed. The virus was found using some of the early testing methods, which produced false positives due to the so-called "sticky sera" problem. Also, there are strong suggestions that the individual may have had G6PD deficiency, as well as possibly suffering from malarial-induced anemia.

    See:

    Williams, G. Stretton, T.B. Leonard, J.C. "AIDS in 1959?"Lancet1983: 1136 (link at http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/aids-coverups/David_Ho_Paper_Nature_Rebuttal.html

    Balter, Michael. "Virus from 1959 Sample Marks Early years of HIV".Science. 1998: 279:801.

    The other famous case from 1959-60, that of the "Manchester sailor," was of course refuted by Dr David Ho in 1993. See "How scientists discovered false evidence on the world's "first AIDS victim,"" Steve Connor, Science Correspondent, The Independent (INDT), London, March 24, 1995 (link at: http://www.aegis.com/news/misc/1995/IN950301.html)


    As for the first AIDS case in the US, researchers at Tulane in 1988 were able to isolate antibodies to a virus closely resembling AIDS from autopsy specimens preserved since 1969. The victim, a teenaged black male from the Midwest, had died after a 16-month illness bearing many similarities to modern AIDS. The timing of the patient's illness and death (his illness dated to 1968, though the actual date of infection could not be determined), his apparent lack of risk factors associated with the current epidemic, and small differences in histology suggest that his case cannot be considered as among the progenitors of the present epidemic (his doctors believed that he had sexual behavior risk factors, but could not confirm their suspicions through interviews with the patient and his family). However, this case does serve to refute origin theories suggesting the virus emerged "suddenly" or "all at once" in the late 1970s/early 1980s.

    See: R. F. Garry, M. H. Witte, A. A. Gottlieb, M. Elvin-Lewis, M. S. Gottlieb, C. L. Witte, S. S. Alexander, W. R. Cole and W. L. Drake Jr Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA 70112; JAMA, October 14, 1988, vol. 260, p. 2085 (link at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/260/14/2085)

    stacie dotsonStaciedotson 08:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

    AIDS

    I seen that someone recommended this for deletion and I agree, it's too jumbled up or too long. I wish the article had a rumors section so we can see some of the myths and evolution. Also, if it was out since 1981, why wasn't there any songs about it and why did it not get mention till the 1990s although The Blob had condoms for random reasons.74.195.3.199 17:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


    CDC classification system for HIV infection

    Whilst the CDC classification would appear to be correct as stated, the accompanying text does actually use some unfortunate wording that gives a somewhat incorrect impression of the real state of affairs in the devloped world.


    1: Most “devloped countries” do NOT use the CDC classification. Almost all developed countries used the WHO disease staging system.


    2: In most “developed countries”, AIDS is ONLY diagnosed with the onset of AIDS defining illnesses (Stage II on the WHO staging system).


    3: In most “developed countries”, a CD4 cell count below 200 cells/mm3 does NOT trigger an automatic AIDS diagnosis.


    4: In most "developed countries", the AIDS diagnosis does NOT stand when AIDS-defining illnesses have been cured.


    Most “developed countries” regard the CDC classifications as arcane and prejudicial .. and very far from setting a gold standard.

    I would like to suggest that this section of the article be modified to remove this false impression. Orpingtonian 11:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

    Actually, most developed countries use either the 1993 CDC definition or the 1993 European definition, which is identical to the 1993 CDC definition except that it excludes CD4 criteria (see here). A table of definitions used in countries in 1997 can be found here. Note that this table is ten years old. I would guess that more countries have moved towards using either the 1993 CDC or the 1993 European definition since then.
    I think that the article is correct except when it says that, "The majority of new AIDS cases in developed countries use either this definition or the pre-1993 CDC definition." In fact the pre-1993 CDC definition is not exactly the same as the 1993 European definition. The latter includes three additional AIDS-defining conditions (pulmonary tuberculosis, recurrent pneumonia, and invasive cervical cancer) that were added to the CDC definition in 1993.
    Does Orpingtonian have a reference for that "arcane and prejudicial" statement? And do they have a reference to support their assertion that, "the AIDS diagnosis does NOT stand when AIDS-defining illnesses have been cured"? Trezatium 12:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

    Arcane and prejudical (and leading to stigmatisaion) are the exact reason why the European definition is there .. and why it is NOT identical to the CDC definition anywhere where it refers to CD4 cell counts (not just one singular place). I refer Trezatium to both UK guidelines and the European definitions as clear examples stating that the AIDS diagnosis does NOT stand when AIDS-defining illnesses have been cured.

    I am not asking for the "arcane and prejudical" statement to be included (it would serve no purpose) .. simply that the wording "The majority of new AIDS cases in developed countries use either this definition or the pre-1993 CDC definition." be changed, so as to remove the four wholly incorrect conclusions that would be drawn from it.

    Does anyone (not just Trezatium) have any credible reference to support the notion that an AIDS diagnosis still stands in most countries, even when the illness(es) that lead to the diagnosis have been cured? I very much doubt it. Orpingtonian 12:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

    I still don't understand why you think that including CD4 criteria is arcane and prejudicial, but since this debate doesn't directly relate to the article perhaps we should drop it. I stated that the 1993 European definition "is identical to the 1993 CDC definition except that it excludes CD4 criteria". Do you think there is anything wrong with this statement?
    All AIDS case definitions exist for surveillance purposes. More sophisticated staging systems for HIV disease are used in clinical care and research. CDC surveillance reports include data on "people living with AIDS", which means living people who have at some point been diagnosed with AIDS, regardless of their current state of health. European surveillance reports tend not to include such data. Is this what you mean by AIDS diagnoses "not standing"? Trezatium 12:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    I've just noticed that the article section in question is misleadingly titled. It confuses the CDC "Revised Classification System for HIV Infection" (used in medical practice and research) with the "Expanded Surveillance Case Definition for AIDS" (used in surveillance). This definitely needs clearing up. Trezatium 13:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

    I think your suggested edit is perfectly fair; but I still think that “The AIDS diagnosis still stands even if, after treatment, the CD4+ T cell count rises to above 200 per µL of blood or other AIDS-defining illnesses are cured” needs to be clarified and moved futher up the paragraph, so that it comes before your suggested revision.

    The reason that European surveillance reports tend not to include such data is that it is no longer considered particularly relevant and that there is a concerted effort to avoid stigmatising people (most of whom, in the devloped world, will ever die of an AIDS defining illness) with a diagnosis that pleases reporting, but doesn’t reflect their curent state of health. As individuals (not numbers), people in Europe are only regarded as having AIDS if they are CURRENTLY suffering from an AIDS defining illness. Whilst HIV can't be cured; AIDS is certainly reversable in most people .. even in those who are diagnosed very late and well beyond the point at which the CDC classifications would label them as suffering from AIDS.

    You'll have to forgive the activist in me. Orpingtonian 13:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

    A statement that something in the article is "arcane and prejudicial" is certainly relevant to discussion of article content, and doesn't necessarily need a reference since it's a comment about how the article needs to be changed, not draft wording to be actually put into the article. (If we agree that something seems "arcane and prejudicial" to us Wikipedian editors we will probably want to delete it from the article or at least enclose it firmly in quotation marks.) However, in this case I think it does need an explanation: in what way do you see it as "arcane and prejudicial"? Oh, wait -- you didn't say you see it as arcane and prejudicial; you said most developed countries see it as arcane and prejudicial. In that case, maybe you do need to present a citation to convince us that they see it that way. --Coppertwig 13:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    A very good overview of AIDS definitions, staging systems and classification systems can be found here. It points out that the CDC classification system was in fact not intended to be a staging system, although it is often used as such. I think that you and I have been talking at cross purposes, mixing up the different systems and definitions. This was my fault and I should have spotted it sooner.
    I agree that the quoted sentence should be changed, and I agree with your statement about European surveillance reports. The differences between the US and Europe are mainly due to differences in systems of health care. As I'm sure you know, the distribution of US federal funding for HIV treatment and care is largely determined by the surveillance statistics, and is never sufficient to meet demand. In this context it is useful to distinguish between people who are still asymptomatic and those who have previously been diagnosed with AIDS, who are likely to need treatment. Generally in Europe, access to treatment is less of a problem, so the number of people "living with AIDS" has less relevance.
    There's absolutely no need to ask for forgiveness! I'm sure that everyone here will agree that it's great to have another keen and knowledgeable editor interested in the HIV and AIDS articles. Trezatium 13:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

    Classification section

    I suggest a rewrite of the "Diagnosis" section, mainly based on this article. Trezatium 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

    I think that such a move could have the potential to greatly improve the section. Orpingtonian 14:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

    I think that the rewritten Diagnosis section should do the following:

    1. Clearly explain the distinctions between AIDS surveillance case definitions, staging systems and classification systems.
    2. Describe the three current AIDS surveillance case definitions: 1993 CDC, 1993 European and 2006 WHO (last revised August 2006 - see here).
    3. Describe the main staging and classification systems: 1993 CDC, 2006 WHO (same reference) and possibly others.
    4. Briefly describe the history of revisions to the various AIDS surveillance case definitions, staging systems and classification systems since 1982, and why these revisions were made.

    Trezatium 22:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

    HIV TEST

    Where do you go about getting tested for HIV? and is there a home test kit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.240.144 (talkcontribs).

    Ask your doctor. If you don't have one, go to your local urgent care center. MastCell 21:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    Also if you're in the US you can phone 1-800-CDC-INFO (1-800-232-4636) for advice and addresses, and if in you're the UK you can phone 0800 567 123. Please note that Wikipedia isn't really an appropriate place to ask for personal advice. Trezatium 22:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    And for Canada see this link. Trezatium 22:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    And if you are in the UK, then home test kits are currently illegal. You can only test where you can receive pre and post test counselling. Orpingtonian 23:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

    Previous post

    i posted this about a cure for aids derived from frogs that i heard on paul harvy *im sure some of you remember* anyways i was only able to find a very small refreance to it here http://www.howstuffworks.com/bye-bye-kermie.htm

    it is stated on the very bottom of the article i think on the 3rd to the last paragraph. if i can find more on it i think it might be worth noting on the article? user:maverick423

    An "anti-HIV effect" can be a lot of things that are a very long way short of a "cure". Simple pain killers and antibiotics can have an anti-HIV effect .. but all they do is mask progress of the disease and prevent certain AIDS defining conditions. Orpingtonian 23:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    I just found this: http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/reporter/index.html?ID=4254 (dated September 30, 2005) which seems to refer to developing a means of preventing HIV transmission, not a cure. I'll do some more digging, but I don't recall seeing any further developments on this. Personally I suspect that this story has a lot more to do with getting people interested in saving frogs than it does serious HIV-AIDS research. Orpingtonian 23:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    Realistically, if an effective new treatment for HIV/AIDS comes out, it will be very easy to find reliable sources describing it. Until then, if we have to dig like mad to find tidbits, it's not ready for prime time (nor for this article). MastCell 04:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    I disagree. If people won't fund studies about it or write about until after they're convinced it's an effective treatment, and if people also refuse to be convinced until after there are studies and reports, then there may well be effective treatments without easy-to-find reliable sources describing them. --Coppertwig 13:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    Eh, that sort of feels like a chicken before the egg perspective. I think MastCell is right; it is an Occam's Razor thing. JoeSmack Talk 13:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    I don’t think MastCell is suggesting any sort of suppression or lack of worth - merely that the fact that extract of frog may, or may not, have anti-HIV properties, and may have found its way into an experimental environment, isn’t really of any particular relevance to this article .. although it could perhaps be of interest in an article about frogs.
    When stories like these crop up, they are, more often than not, seeded to highlight the importance of protecting biodiversity .. not to report an important medical discovery.
    If a chemical compound has been identified in nature and subsequently used in medicine (nothing even remotely unusual in that), then it is highly unlikely that it will forever be flagged as ‘extract of frog’ (in preference to its chemical name) .. or that there will be an easily identifiable trail back to the original reports about frogs. The fact that it isn’t now identified as ‘extract of frog’ doesn’t mean it hasn’t (or wont) receive a mention.
    Anyway, I have had a quick look through the material that I have access to and I don’t see any obvious sign of the frog connection cropping up again. Orpingtonian 16:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

    My understanding of "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" is that Wikipedia shouldn't be on the breaking edge of untested, difficult-to-verify scientific claims. Hence, also, the WP:RS injunction to "Avoid citing the popular press on scientific matters." The same thing comes up at cancer - every time a tumor shrinks in a rat somewhere, there's talk of adding a long section to the cancer article about the new "cure". In general, it's best to wait until things are actually tested in humans and reported in the scientific literature. Science and research will go on regardless, and it will keep these articles from becoming a mishmash of unverified claims. MastCell 17:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

    Well put. JoeSmack Talk 20:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

    Oral sex

    can a man be infected by going down on a woman and lickin her outStrike-through text —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.97.7 (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC).


    VAGINA? no. Jackrobinson9517 09:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

    Treatment section

    Proposed edit to fourth and fifth paragraph of Treatment section:

    Daily multivitamin and mineral supplements have been found to reduce HIV disease progression among men and women. This could become an important low-cost intervention provided during early HIV disease to prolong the time before antiretroviral therapy is required.[1] Some individual nutrients have also been tried.[2] [3] Anti-retroviral drugs are expensive, and the majority of the world's infected individuals do not have access to medications and treatments for HIV and AIDS.[4] It has been postulated that only a vaccine can halt the pandemic because a vaccine would possibly cost less, thus being affordable for developing countries, and would not require daily treatments.[4] However, after over 20 years of research, HIV-1 remains a difficult target for a vaccine.[4]
    Research to improve current treatments includes decreasing side effects of current drugs, further simplifying drug regimens to improve adherence, and determining the best sequence of regimens to manage drug resistance. A number of studies have shown that measures to prevent opportunistic infections can be beneficial when treating patients with HIV infection or AIDS. Vaccination against hepatitis A and B is advised for patients who are not infected with these viruses and are at risk of becoming infected.[5] Patients with substantial immunosuppression are also advised to receive prophylactic therapy for Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (PCP), and many patients may benefit from prophylactic therapy for toxoplasmosis and Cryptococcus meningitis as well.[6]

    --Coppertwig 01:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


    Prognosis

    Surely there should be a prognosis section? Including expected lifetimes and effects of treatment? Thedreamdied 11:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

    Both these aspects are definitely already in the article, a prognosis section would just be a different way to organize information. Is there a compelling reason why it needs to be reorganized? JoeSmack Talk 12:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    I wouldn't say compelling - I just think it would be clearer and more accessible that way. Thedreamdied 22:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

    Question

    Why isn't this page semi-protected, it's highly vandalized, and it continues to be. If this is just a way of catching vandals or something, that's weird.
    Blindman shady 02:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

    Blatant bias

    Doesn't it bother anyone that this article acts as though there is no correlation between homosexual contact and AIDS? The facts about the rate of HIV among homosexuals can still be presented without passing any kind of judgment on homosexuals. Chicken Wing 22:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    The article already contains this sentence: "In many developed countries, there is an association between AIDS and homosexuality or bisexuality, and this association is correlated with higher levels of sexual prejudice such as anti-homosexual attitudes." You seem to feel the correlation exists worldwide, and it does not. Most cases of AIDS worldwide are contracted by heterosexual intercourse. - Nunh-huh 22:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    "You seem to feel the correlation exists worldwide..." You seem to be wrong. Fact remains, HIV is easier to transmit through homosexual intercourse and the population of HIV-infected individuals that are homosexual is disproportionate. There's no reason to respond to my comment by pointing out loopholes (i.e., I also said "homosexuals", when technically, the trend is only true among male homosexuals) in my comment. You can respond on the merits, or you can prove my point for me. Chicken Wing 23:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, I'm not interested in having a debate with you as to whether the article adequately reflects your biases. I've responded on the "merits" of your suggestion. Your assertion that "HIV is easier to transmit through homosexual intercourse" (presumably, "than heterosexual intercourse") is true if and only if you equate "homosexual intercourse" with "anal sex", an equation which is not exact. The risk of any sex act is determined by the nature of the sex act, and not by the sexuality of the persons performing it. We supply all the information needed to compare any two sexual acts. All the information you claim is lacking from the article is actually there.- Nunh-huh 00:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    "only if you equate "homosexual intercourse" with "anal sex"..." Again, a refusal to respond on the merits. Looking for the technicality for an out instead. Are homosexuals over-represented among AIDS patients in the United States? Is it easier to contract HIV from anal intercouse? Then there's also the fact that homosexuals, by the percentages, have more partners and less frequently use protection and engage in other dangerous sexual activities. I must have missed the bus to the world where the facts are biased. For example, pointing out that African-Americans commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes in America isn't biased. Someone genuinely concerned about ending violent crime within the African-American community might point this out. Yet somehow when we talk about homosexuals, everyone here seems to be reaching for the panic button (screaming "bias"). Chicken Wing 00:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    It's not a "technicality" that the risk of any sex act is determined by the act. This encyclopedia is not the place to grind your axe. - Nunh-huh 04:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    That's not my point, and if you don't understand that then please do not respond anymore as you're only wasting everyone's time. The sex act is what determines the risk, but I wasn't disputing that. The technicality was your insistance of quibbling about terminology. You still have yet to make an argument on the merits. You skipped everything I said about the facts and made one semantic argument. Chicken Wing 05:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Alright alright. Please, propose what the addition/deletion/change is exactly that you want to make here on the discussion page and we'll draw consensus on it. It's as simple as that. JoeSmack Talk 05:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Okay, I'll get on that tomorrow. So, don't think I'm putting it off. But, I've got other stuff to do, and then I'll get the sources lined out and try to write it as NPOV as possible. Chicken Wing 06:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, it's easier to contract HIV from anal intercourse - see the large table in the article, which contains relative risks of various routes (blood transfusion, needle-sharing, sexual practices, etc). I don't see a coverup or a "blatant bias" here. Mentioning that HIV disproportionately affects the homosexual community in the West isn't evidence of bias. However, focusing stridently on it may make people wonder. MastCell Talk 02:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    Just as not mentioning it at all makes people wonder. I'm not saying the article needs to say that HIV is divine retribution or that gays are inherently prone to HIV - not at all. But, statistically they participate in intercourse with more partners and without protection, and in the western world that has led to them being disproportionately represented among HIV patients. It's not like this is fringe information. It was the news just today.[16] The fact that it is wholly lacking in the article is suspect. Chicken Wing 02:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    The "not mentioning it at all" seems to be in your head. Exactly what part of "in many developed countries, there is an association between AIDS and homosexuality or bisexuality" do you find lacking? - Nunh-huh 06:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Chickenwing in the comment below raises an important point. It seems to me that this sentence is ambiguous: "In many developed countries, there is an association between AIDS and homosexuality or bisexuality, and this association is correlated with higher levels of sexual prejudice such as anti-homosexual attitudes." Does "association" mean a scientifically established statistical correlation, or does it mean that people tend to associate the two things in their minds? I think the wording should be changed to make this clearer, one way or the other. And then, if it doesn't mean scientific correlation, perhaps as Chickenwing suggests a sentence about that needs to be added somewhere -- probably not in the Stigma section. Listing the risk of anal intercourse in the chart is also useful, but it's not the same thing: it depends also on how often the average homosexual engages in such an act. (Hard to figure out where to put my comment) --Coppertwig 16:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Right, that sentence that you're referring to doesn't mention that there is actually a statistical correlation between homosexuals and HIV, it mentions that those who think that are anti-homosexual. While that might be true, it doesn't mention that the correlation actually exists. Furthermore, the sentence right after the one you mentioned is highly inflammatory and dubious. I'm not saying it's wrong, but a source for it sure wouldn't hurt. Chicken Wing 06:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)



    This is the paragraph I propose:

    Homosexuality and AIDS

    In developed countries AIDS is most prevalent among homosexual and bisexual males who have sexual intercourse with other males.1 In the United States men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 56.8 percent of new HIV infections in 2003.2 In fact, infection rates have stabilized in the West among the general population while in the gay population rates have increased.3 The reasons for this are that homosexual and bisexual men as a whole have more sex partners, have more unprotected sex, and because engaging in receptive anal intercourse carries a higher risk than other forms of penetrative sex.4 Despite over two decades of sex education targeted to the gay community, the incidence of HIV is still going up.5 In inner-city Sydney, Australia along with other major Western cities, AIDS statistics among homosexual males are “comparable to an AIDS-ravaged African nation.”6 Critics charge that political correctness has led to the association of MSM and HIV being downplayed.7

    • 1. Kristie Kellahan, “Positively Alarming”, Sunday Telegraph (April 8, 2007), 10
    • 2. HIV/AIDS Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, http://hab.hrsa.gov/history/fact2005/men_with_men_and_hivaids.htm (accessed on May 3, 2007).
    • 3. Ben Chu, “What do we really know about AIDS?”, Independent (UK) (December 1, 2006), 68.
    • 4. BBC News “HIV men ‘having unsafe gay sex’” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6609023.stm (accessed on May 3, 3007).
    • 5. Margaret Wente, “A few down-home truths about HIV/AIDS in Canada,” Globe and Mail (August 15, 2006), A17.
    • 6. John Heard, “Gays are too proud to confront AIDS, still the real killer”, Australian (December 1, 2006), 12.
    • 7. James Chin, “The risks in hiding the HIV/AIDS truth”, Business Day (March 12, 2007), 9.

    It's not perfect, but it's a start. It can be expanded and have more sources added to it if need be. The article itself is so long that it would take me a while to go through and find all the things that are perhaps a little dubious, but it's a task that probably needs to be done. Chicken Wing 06:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    My initial comment on this (im about to head off to work) is that while the US Dept of Health/Human Serv. is a good looking source, all these other newspaper aren't. Hell, the news gets HIV/AIDS stuff wrong all the time, sometimes seemingly on purpose for sensationalism. If you look at the current refs for this article they are all Journals/NIH/WHO/CDC stats, which are far more reliable and have the data behind them laid out to prove it - primary sources. And thats the bar we have to stand by because AIDS is a complicated issue. Can you cite the sources the various news sources use? We're trying to pull back the curtain here! :) JoeSmack Talk 12:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    Here are the issues I see with that paragraph:
    • Not all of the assertions are backed up by the references you cite (and I've only checked the online ones so far). The whole thing about gay/bisexual men having "more sex partners, more unprotected sex" (than heterosexual men, presumably) is nowhere substantiated in the reference you cite. The reference does repeatedly note, however, that many of the HIV-positive men having unprotected sex are doing so with HIV-positive partners, which you don't mention.
    • The reasons for the upswing in infection in the gay community are more complex that what you allude to, and have to do with changing attitudes, more testing, availability of effective treatments leading people to disregard the risks, etc. See the CDC page on HIV in MSM, and this subpage, for example.
    • The whole paragraph seems to exist to make a point: that AIDS is primarily a disease of MSM in the West (maybe partial agreement there), and that this is being covered up in the interest of "political correctness". I have to disagree pretty strongly with the second part; see the CDC pages I cited, or this study, for example, which make it clear that HIV/AIDS is still very much a "gay disease" in the popular imagination.
    • A relatively minor quibble: you're talking mostly about the incidence of HIV infection, not AIDS, so this may be more appropriate for the HIV article rather than this one. MastCell Talk 17:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    The news coming out each day only confirms what I've said here.[17] If this article is not the right place for this information, I doubt HIV is. The tone of that article is more specifically towards the scientific information about the virus. Perhaps the best place for this information would be the "men who have sex with men" article. Chicken Wing 11:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

    AIDs and Cancer

    I'm curently writing a book, and I'm anal about keeping all story elements accurate, and the question rose , if a person already has Cancer, then conatracts AIDs, will the AIDs cause the current Cancer to worsen at an accellerated rate? I've spent hours on multiple Wikipedia AIDs pages, and I've found much information about contracting AIDs, then Cancer, though none about the other way around. I would very much appreciate any information on this subject on that you have. - unsigned

    In brief, probably not for most cancers, but probably so for AIDS-related cancers such as cervical cancer. It's possible that some others may be accelerated, but this has not been convincingly demonstrated yet. See Cancer Surv. 1991;10:151-60. HIV infection and cancers other than non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Kaposi's sarcoma. Rabkin CS, Blattner WA.Viral Epidemiology Section, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 20892. "In populations with non-HIV immunodeficiency, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and soft tissue sarcoma, especially Kaposi's sarcoma, are the most prominent tumours, but Hodgkin's disease, gastric carcinoma, squamous cell skin cancer, malignant melanoma, hepatoma, myeloid leukaemia and/or colorectal carcinoma have been linked in various studies. Population based cancer registries and cohort studies of HIV infected persons have generally failed to detect HIV related increases in total cancer incidence or in specific tumours other than non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Kaposi's sarcoma; however, associations with anal carcinoma, hepatoma and Hodgkin's disease have been suggested by some studies. Although not indicating increased risk, HIV induced immunosuppression has been linked to an acceleration of cervical and anal neoplasia and to increased aggressiveness of Hodgkin's disease with a relative excess of the mixed cellularity type. Advances in treatment for HIV infection will delay progression to AIDS and may allow an altered natural history to emerge, including the occurrence of excesses of additional cancer types." PMID: 1821320; JAMA. 2001 Apr 4;285(13):1736-45. Association of cancer with AIDS-related immunosuppression in adults. Frisch M, Biggar RJ, Engels EA, Goedert JJ; AIDS-Cancer Match Registry Study Group. Danish Epidemiology Science Center, Statens Serum Institut, 5 Artillerivej, DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark. mfr@ssi.dk CONTEXT: Large-scale studies are needed to determine if cancers other than Kaposi sarcoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and cervical cancer occur in excess in persons with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). OBJECTIVES: To examine the general cancer pattern among adults with HIV/AIDS and to distinguish immunosuppression-associated cancers from other cancers that may occur in excess among persons with HIV/AIDS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND SUBJECTS: Analysis of linked population-based AIDS and cancer registry data from 11 geographically diverse areas in the United States, including 302 834 adults aged 15 to 69 years with HIV/AIDS. The period of study varied by registry between 1978 and 1996. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Relative risks (RRs) of cancers, calculated by dividing the number of observed cancer cases by the number expected based on contemporaneous population-based incidence rates. We defined cancers potentially influenced by immunosuppression by 3 criteria: (1) elevated overall RR in the period from 60 months before to 27 months after AIDS; (2) elevated RR in the 4- to 27-month post-AIDS period; and (3) increasing trend in RR from before to after AIDS onset. RESULTS: Expected excesses were observed for the AIDS-defining cancers, but non-AIDS-defining cancers also occurred in statistically significant excess (n = 4422; overall RR, 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7-2.8). Of individual cancers, only Hodgkin disease (n = 612; RR, 11.5; 95% CI, 10.6-12.5), particularly of the mixed cellularity (n = 217; RR, 18.3; 95% CI, 15.9-20.9) and lymphocytic depletion (n = 36; RR, 35.3; 95% CI, 24.7-48.8) subtypes; lung cancer (n = 808; RR, 4.5; 95% CI, 4.2-4.8); penile cancer (n = 14; RR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.1-6.5); soft tissue malignancies (n = 78; RR, 3.3; 95% CI, 2.6-4.1); lip cancer (n = 20; RR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.9-4.8); and testicular seminoma (n = 115; RR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.7-2.4) met all 3 criteria for potential association with immunosuppression. CONCLUSION: Although occurring in overall excess, most non-AIDS-defining cancers do not appear to be influenced by the advancing immunosuppression associated with HIV disease progression. Some cancers that met our criteria for potential association with immunosuppression may have occurred in excess in persons with HIV/AIDS because of heavy smoking (lung cancer), frequent exposure to human papillomavirus (penile cancer), or inaccurately recorded cases of Kaposi sarcoma (soft tissue malignancies) in these persons. However, Hodgkin disease, notably of the mixed cellularity and lymphocytic depletion subtypes, and possibly lip cancer and testicular seminoma may be genuinely influenced by immunosuppression. PMID: 11277828 - Nunh-huh 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

    Read the Wikipedia Aritcle on Michael Fumento.

    That above article contains a hyperlink to Mr Fumento's web page. There is a lot of pertinent imformation about aids on that website. I am currently attempting to get wikipedia to add that hyperlink to the main article. Please feel free to contact me and give me your oppinion on this matter. Randy Bugger 12:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

    All the info on that page is at least 10 years old. And you've been spamming it. JoeSmack Talk 13:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    Michael Fumento's website is not a reliable source on AIDS according to Wikipedia's guidelines, and is also an inappropriate external link, except in the actual Wikipedia article about Fumento. His views on AIDS are minoritarian, to say the least (see Wikipedia's policy on undue weight), and his reporting on biotechnology has been questioned in the past. MastCell Talk 15:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

    Is AIDS being over funded at at the expense of other equally worthy charities ? Michael Fumento seems to think so. Unfortunately I cannot include the hyperlink(s) in question in this DISCUSSION space without risking being BLOCKED from editing wikipedia. This will probably change in the days and weeks to come as cooler heads (including mine) begin to prevail. Randy Bugger 09:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

    Michael Fumento is not widely regarded as a leading authority on AIDS, so does not merit mention in this article. And I've never heard of Michael Fuentes. Please remember what Wikipedia is not. Trezatium 17:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

    I am a wikipedia neophyte. There is no question about that. I was however very concerned when I noticed that the main article didn't have much if anything to say about homosexuality and aids. Today I noticed that a user named "chicken wing" is proposing a change to the main article that would address these concerns. I also noticed that he is being taken seriously by at least 2 wikipedia pundits. It is my contention that if people such as "chicken wing" had easy access to the Michael Fumento page they would find the task of convincing the aforementioned pundits that there is in fact ample evidence to support the notion that their is a strong correlation between homosexuality and aids. Mr Fumento has been arguing that very argument for years. Perhaps the time has come to email Mr Fumento himself and ask him to reveal his sources.Randy Bugger 08:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

    I agree that the article omits to say that HIV is more prevalent among men who have sex with men (MSM) than among the general population in most developed countries, and I agree that it may well be a good idea to address this omission. However I disagree with some of the comments made by yourself and Chicken Wing.
    With regard to Chicken Wing's suggested paragraph, I concur with the comments of MastCell and JoeSmack above; as it stands, this paragraph is unsuitable for inclusion. With regard to your comments, I think there is no need to use Michael Fumento as a main reference, nor to contact him for more details. There is no dispute among AIDS experts that MSM comprise a group particularly vulnerable to HIV infection (for example see this chapter of the UNAIDS 2006 Report).
    I assume that the near identical comment on my user page was made by yourself while not logged in. In this comment you suggest that, "the Gay Community is often strongly at variance with any notion that might serve to undermined there agenda for more funding." I fail to see the logic of this statement. Are you suggesting that the "gay community" cynically downplays the fact that MSM are worse affected by HIV/AIDS than the general population? If so then I would have to disagree. And I don't understand what funding you are referring to. Trezatium 19:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    I think it's only fair to point out that the merits of the paragraph I proposed were largely unrefuted. It was merely the sources. There has also been no evidence provided to suggest that the sources I used were unreliable, simply that there is also no proof that they are, in fact, reliable. That being said, I don't have the time to find peer review sources for every single fact, and it's become clear that no one else is interested in discovering those facts. I'm glad some users at least took the paragraph seriously despite their biases, but Nunh-huh has been less helpful in this matter. I've tried to incorporate the material into the men who have sex with men article, where such information might be more appropriate. Chicken Wing 01:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    It's clear that gathering information into a paragraph to make it look like "we should blame AIDS on gays" is a bad, misinformative, and agenda-driven idea that promotes a parochial rather than a global view of the disease. If there are actually any facts that are not included in the article they should be added into the proper section (e.g. epidemiology) rather than taking that approach. But what those facts might be remains unspecified; the article already says that in developed countries, there is an association between AIDS and homosexuality or bisexuality. = Nunh-huh 19:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    I suggest that any additional information should be added to the "Sexual contact" section rather than "Epidemiology". This is because the latter section does not refer to any other highly vulnerable groups (injecting drug users, sex workers, prisoners, etc.). The addition of a sentence about MSM in the "Sexual contact" section could be analogous to the following statement in the "Exposure to infected body fluids" section: "Needle sharing is the cause of one third of all new HIV-infections and 50% of hepatitis C infections in North America, China, and Eastern Europe." The statement you refer to in your last sentence appears in the Stigma section; at present there are no similar statements in the rest of the article. Trezatium 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    Here's a couple of useful sentences from the UNAIDS web site: "Sex between men is thought to account for between 5 and 10% of global HIV infections, although the proportion of cases attributed to this mode of transmission varies considerably between countries. It is the predominant mode in much of the developed world." Perhaps this could be reworded or quoted verbatim and added to the "Sexual contact" section? Trezatium 20:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    Sounds fine to me. - Nunh-huh 20:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

    Receptive Anal Intercourse

    Perhaps the word Receptive Anal Intercourse should be used in place of any reference to Homosexuality in general. That would make the task of editing a whole lot simpler. Gays and the gay life style are not to blame. It isn't useful to blame anyone. Randy Bugger 10:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

    That kind of sounds like a non-NPOV idea. At this stage, it's a well established fact that MSM are in a high-risk category for HIV infection. 209.59.33.221 19:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

    Aids Funding Section/Chart

    Do do you think that a chart and or section on aids funding since its onset is a good idea. It is pertinent to the main article and I am surprised that one does not exist already. I think it should be done with discretion. It would also help negate any reasonable objection(s) from aids dissidents. Moses Weintraub 09:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

    I'm not sure how I feel about it, but throw it up here on the talk page and we'll discuss. :) JoeSmack Talk 15:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

    I may do that in time. I am presently looking for such a chart and may have to create one from scratch. I am fairly ignorant of WIKI copyright policy pursuant to charts and graphs. Moses Weintraub 07:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

    Demographics

    I don't see any kind of chart or summary of the demographic breakdown of the infected population, i.e., a breakdown of victims by ethnicity, by gender, by age, by sexual preference, by income, by education, etc. The "Estimated per act risk for acquisition of HIV by exposure route" table in the "Transmission and prevention" section displays quite well the infection risks for particular behaviors, but I'm looking for a categorization of people already infected based on multiple criteria. It may be that some of this info is in the article, but it is not presented as a section by itself. — Loadmaster 18:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

    Transmission via organ transplant

    It's possible, albiet very rare, for HIV to be transmitted by organ transplant. Since it is technically possible, perhaps it should be added to the list [18]. 68.116.112.32 23:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

    Links to sister wikiprojects

    Why are there (almost) no links to sister wikiprojects? Is this on purpose? --Eleassar my talk 14:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

    Which "sister wikiprojects" are you talking about? There seem to be about sixty links to the articles in versions of Wikipedia in other languages. - Nunh-huh 14:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

    What about Commons and Wiktionary? --Eleassar my talk 15:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

    What about them? Did you have a specific link in mind that you think is pertinent? - Nunh-huh 15:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    Starting from any Wikipedia article, click on "Main Page" at the upper left and then scroll down to the bottom to find links to some sister projects. Individual article pages don't have those links. If you want to discuss that, maybe the Wikipedia:Village Pump would be a better place. --Coppertwig 16:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

    I've added them now. --Eleassar my talk 16:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

    Ah, the "advertisements" for the "sister" projects. Let's look at them. The Wiktionary link should be eliminated, as the Wiktionary "AIDS" entry is irrelevant and adds nothing! Did you look at it before adding the link? It's actually rather embarrassing. You really want to send people looking about information on AIDS there, to find out only that "aids" is an anagram for "said" and is the "plural of aid"? You want to send people to Wikiquote, where there are four not-particularly-interesting quotes about AIDS, all unsourced? I think it would be more responsible to send people only to places which would supplement the information here in a meaningful way. - Nunh-huh 18:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

    I asked about these links and as there was no useful answer, I have added them. Wikipedia encourages links to sister projects and interlanguage links when possible (WP:SISTER#Guidelines). You are free to remove them. The Wikiquote entry is a shame indeed, the link to wiktionary has been fixed to point to the right place and the links to Wikinews and Commons that offer free news and free images (see also commons:category:AIDS) are quite useful. Much more useful than just one link to Wikinews that was there before. --Eleassar my talk 21:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

    Now that the links are in, I see what you mean. I think they're useful. The wiktionary one has been fixed to go to AIDS rather than "aids". The quotes in Wikiquote may be poor; but if this page encourages people to go there and look at them, some of those people may improve the Wikiquote quotes. --Coppertwig 21:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, the advertisements may drive traffic to the "sister" projects, and so might improve those pages to the point where linking to them is actually of benefit to our readers. But I think it's rather unseemly to take advantage of our readers in that way; our first duty should be to them and not to ancillary wikis. Sending someone to a "dictionary" that contains less information on the subject than the page they are reading, and no additional information (even in the "fixed" link) is giving them a link in bad faith. By having a link, we suggest there is information worth consulting there, and there simply isn't. - Nunh-huh 05:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    FightAIDS@Home Project?

    Is it possible to add a link to the Wiki article for FightAIDS@Home? I think it would be a valuable addition, provided it was in the proper place. 23:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    I don't think it would be directly relevant enough to mention it in the article. JoeSmack Talk 04:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    I agree, it should not be in the article. I was thinking in the 'HIV/AIDS related topics' box and/or an external link.68.113.47.102 21:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    We got plenty of clutter already. JoeSmack Talk 06:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    "Clutter" seems like a second issue. Is there a seperate article for AIDS research? Perhaps it would be better referenced there. 209.59.46.179 13:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    It appears with other articles of its category at Category:HIV/AIDS. I think that's adequate; it's not enough of a "core concept" as to require placement on the AIDS template. - Nunh-huh 13:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    That sounds like a plan. 68.113.47.102 15:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    I think links to the World Community Grid (the group doing Fight Aids @ Home) should be posted everywhere possible. The more people that take part in the project will result in an increase the pace of the search for new anti-aids drugs. There are still many computers out there that are left on all day and sit idle. That idle time could be put to good use in the search for new anti-aids drugs. World Community Grid does not get a whole lot of press coverage so it is up to all of us who know about it to tell those who do not know about it.

    Moved from article

    Moved from the article:

    Results published in PLoS ONE in June 2007 indicate that "the number of female commercial sex workers prostitutes as a percentage of the female adult population is robustly positively correlated with countrywide HIV/AIDS prevalence levels." The paper continues:
    "This paper provides strong evidence that when conducted properly, cross country regression data does not support the theory that male circumcision is the key to slowing the AIDS epidemic. Rather, it is the number of infected prostitutes in a country that is highly significant and robust in explaining HIV prevalence levels across countries."

    [7]

    This paper seems to be controversial, to say the least. From Nature, vol 447, 28 June 2007, pp1040-1. To quote one comment: "The paper is total drivel, it should have been picked up in the review process," claims Tim Farley, an official in the World Health Organization’s HIV-prevention team in Geneva. "And coming from PLoS One gives [the views in the press release] a public perception of validity. In public health there are severe dangers in such stuff getting through."

    It seemed best to simply remove it, as documenting arguments for and against one paper is somewhat tangential... Jakew 18:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

    It's worth noting, however, that it's been pointed out that circumcision in America certainly doesn't seem to have slowed the spread of HIV, that studies claiming that circumcision is an effective tool in fighting HIV infection elsewhere have been questioned, and that Jakew is something of a supporter of circumcision. Exploding Boy 18:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

    New way

    German scientists find a way to kill the virus inside infected cells: German newspapers and science write it:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5833/1912 212.95.99.39 09:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

    External Link Recommendation for HIV/AIDS Resources

    http://aids.gov/ Access to information on Federal HIV/AIDS prevention, testing, treatment, and research programs, policies, and resources.

    http://hivtest.org/ Find an HIV testing site near you.

    19:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    Another proposal

    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's Bloodborne Infectious Diseases Page where users can find info on needlestick and sharps injuries, universal precautions, research, regulations, legislation, etc. --Tisdalepardi 20:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    I suggest AIDSPortal. Covers research, case studies and policy information. Also has contact information for people and organisations running HIV programmes in developing countries and new resources that they share through the site. Useful resource for anyone interested in HIV and AIDS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aids information (talkcontribs) 14:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

    Loosing Battle

    BBC NEWS reported -

    World 'losing fight against Aids'

    Dr Fauci says there must be greater effort to boost prevention The world is losing the battle against HIV/Aids, US President George W Bush's top adviser on the virus has said. Dr Anthony Fauci told a conference in Sydney that progress had been made but more people were being infected with HIV than were being treated.

    --Florentino floro 05:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

    OK....is there something specific you wanted to add? 71.93.238.53 23:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

    AIDS

    How would one know that donated blood is contaminated of H I V if blood is donated with in safe period--Vijaypandey 14:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

    Please remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. JoeSmack Talk 21:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

    Alternative hypotheses section

    Skypher is right: these are weasel words: "These claims are considered baseless by the vast majority of the scientific community. The medical community argues that so-called "AIDS dissidents" selectively ignore evidence in favor of HIV's role in AIDS and irresponsibly pose a threat to public health by discouraging HIV testing and proven treatments.". I was surprised to find that the two footnotes attached to these sentences do not purport to establish a scientific consensus in favour of the HIV/AIDS theory. Rather, they contain quotes by people who do not believe that HIV causes AIDS. Relevant footnotes (at least) are required (or directing the reader to another section of the article perhaps for verification?) Or, if the required information is contained somewhere within the cited articles (I didn't read the whole things) then maybe the footnote needs to contain a quote. --Coppertwig 13:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you very much for finding those references, MastCell. Well done. I would just like to point out that references number 139 and 141 (the first and 3rd of 5 references listed) seem to be pointing to essentially the same article (Duesberg phenomenon) and should probably be combined into one (or further distinguished from each other somehow, if they are intended to mean different articles in the same group of articles in a periodical.) Thanks. --Coppertwig 17:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) I've gone ahead and beefed up the references, and restructured the paragraph a little. The most notable aspect of AIDS denialism is really the impact it's had politically in South Africa, so I mentioned that. It's a little bit like finding a reference clearly demonstrating scientific consensus that the moon landings were real, but things like the Durban Declaration are probably the best references. MastCell Talk 17:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


    Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).