Talk:Management of HIV/AIDS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject AIDS
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject AIDS, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to AIDS, HIV, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
 
WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

It's 2013[edit]

There are more viruses treated with drugs (rather than innoculation) today than HIV. There should be a separate Antiviral article (as noted above 2 years ago). 76.180.168.166 (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Would an article on Antiviral drug satisfy this need? -- Scray (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry just noticed retro, still there are other retroviruses besides HIV, and therapies for them. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
We do have an article on Hepatitis_b#Treatment, too. If you see an opportunity to create a new page, remember: this is the encyclopedia everyone can edit! You can be bold and create WP:Your first article (lots of good advice there). If you get stuck, we have a WP:New contributors' help page. You also might ask yourself WP:Why create an account? -- Scray (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Limiting activity to editorial comment on this. Have had a (single) named account for 7 years. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
If you have an account and know how to create an article, then I have no idea what you're driving at - please be more direct in asking, or just be bold. -- Scray (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

New treatment guidelines[edit]

A recent edit was malformed and did not use a particularly good reference source, but the information was accurate: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/new_hiv_recommendations_20130630/en/ I dare say a news release from the World Health Organization, linked from their own page, meets the criteria for WP:MEDRS.

I'm not sure how to work this in, as the "current guidelines" section is pretty lengthy. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree: this should be added. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Stem cell therapy[edit]

Why does this article not cover stem cell therapy? 16:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Bone marrow transplantation is not a general HIV/AIDS management strategy. While there have been several prominent cases of individuals with HIV and cancer who have undergone apparent "functional cures" following this approach, the risks are too high for use in the general HIV+ population. Perhaps something to this effect could be said here, but it seems to me that it's covered adequately elsewhere. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

References, archiving[edit]

I have formatted all the references uniformly (last name, first 2 initials no periods, full name of journal, wl to journal, publisher, author, dates full numeric except month year dates, display authors 4). I have tried to provide links for the full text of articles whenever possible.

Of note there are several references that have received important updates (guidelines, side effects, etc) these updates are important and should be included in the article. I placed remarked out comments in article. I provided archive links to the material cited. The article should reflect the dates of the material used preferably using the template "As of". I removed one statement "current guidelines" when the guidelines cited were out of date.

I formatted the further reading section content and provided free links for full text. Are these articles the most useful and appropriate for further reading on the subject of the article? I think not.

I have set up archiving for this talk page for posts over 90 days. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Describing "antiretroviral"[edit]

I came to this page searching for the term "antiretroviral" which led to "antiretroviral drug". While the term is used often, it's never explicitly defined. Sure, you can make it out to be "effective against retroviri", but that should be explicit. 201.190.31.213 (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)