|WikiProject Medicine / Medical genetics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Is anyone actively watching or maintaining this article?.
Whilst it is a good effort and I in no way mean to be critical of the previous contributors, there are some pretty fundamental (but very common) errors in it – such as:
- 1 in 100 people are long-term nonprogessors – not only do the citations not support that statement; but conventional wisdom puts the number far higher that that (even allowing for the fact that the number of long-term nonprogressors in any chosen cohort will, the longer you choose to observe the cohort, decrease dramatically).
- elite controllers are a subset of this group – not only do the citations not support that statement; but elite controllers are defined purely on their continued ability to control viral replication (measured by viral load) for at least one year after infection, whereas long-term nonprogressors are defined purely on their ability to maintain immune function (measured by CD4 cell count > 500 cells/mm3) over an extended period of time (7,8,10, 12 years or more - depending on which research you are reading). Whilst there may be intersects between the two groups, one is not a subset of the other and both can exist independently of the other.
- It fails to mention well-understood basics like: young age combined with a naturally high CD4+ count, at the time of infection, are the lead characteristics in many long-term nonprogressors .. and that given long enough, they too will cease to be long-term nonprogressors - because nonprogression is actually a misnomer and should more correctly be labelled slower (than expected) progression.
- as I read the article, statements like “it is currently not known why long-term nonprogressors and elite controllers do not progress to AIDS“ wrongly gives the impression that long-term nonprogressors and elite controllers never develop AIDS, which is certainly isn't true – most will, given long enough without treatment.
- given that elite controllers are mentioned, viral (or viremic) controllers (of which elite controllers are a subset) should probably be mentioned too.
If no-one wants to take on the task of correcting this in a rewrite, I will try to come up with a major revision over the course of the next week or two – so here is your chance to raise any objections.
Also, elite controllers currently redirects to this article; but if elite controllers aren't a subset of long-term nonprogressors, should they be dealt with by the same article? I am not saying that they shouldn't; but if they are, it probably shouldn't be in an article with a leader that reads 'long-term nonprogressors'. Any suggestions what would could be more appropriate?
- if anyone is interested, my sandbox has some very rough ideas that I threw together last night. They are a long way off being even a structured draft, but they give an idea of the sort of direction I would foresee. Comments and ideas are welcome.
- would anyone like to volunteer as a knowledgeable set of second (or more) set of eyes to comment on my drafts when I am close to the final product?
Another question and I could be wrong. But in the article it says that long-term nonprogressors have sometimes lived 30 years without showing any symptoms. This seems a little curious to me seeing that HIV was discovered less than 30 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)