Talk:HIV/AIDS: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
[[User:Sci guy|Sci guy]] 02:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
[[User:Sci guy|Sci guy]] 02:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
||
== Fred2005's neutrality == |
|||
Fred2005 added this tidbit to the article: "In The United states and Europe, AIDS remains confined to the orignal risk groups of men who have sex with men, and [[recreational drug use|intravenous drug]] users" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AIDS&diff=15024672&oldid=15024610]. Anyone who has glanced at reputable HIV/AIDS statistics recently [http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/2003SurveillanceReport/table17.htm] knows this to be dangerously false. This edit calls Fred2005's neutrality into question, along with his capability to add accurate information to the article. His edits need to be scrutinized line by line in order to prevent this nonsense from entering the article. Repeatedly adding misinformation should be dealt with strictly. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 06:38, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:Thank you for citing a reference. This has enabled me to update the United States cumulative totals to 2003. Of course, you are correct. Only 75 percent of the AIDS cases in the US are in Fred2005's orignal risk groups. I considered editing Fred2005 to "largely confined, but I am not entirely happy with his "orignal risk groups", so I have used the decription from your reference "male-to-male sexual contact or injection drug use". [[User:Sci guy|Sci guy]] 14:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:The challenge is that the figures for United States, Canada, and Europe all include recent arrivals from Africa in their ''heterosexual'' group. You will recall that the original HIV isolate from 1983 was from an African living in Paris. [[User:Sci guy|Sci guy]] 15:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::I find it highly POV that incidents of male-to-male sexual contact are lumped together into one large statistic of 75%. This would be more neutrally presented if the two groups, otherwise unrelated, would be presented seperately. Similarly, perhaps the information would be more neutrally presented in it's own section breaking down the statistics in more detail, rather than the off-handish way it is presented in the introduction of this section.[[User:Axon|Axon]] 17:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::Maybe. But this is how the stats are reported. Male-to-male sexual contact 45% Injection drug use 24% Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 6%. Remember these stats are based on self reported activity. Also is we look at men the figures jump to Male-to-male sexual contact 55% Injection drug use 21% Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 8% - a total of 84%. An accurate NPOV reporting of this stat would be: "85 percent of men diagnosed with AIDS in the United States, claimed to have acquired AIDS by male-to-male sexual contact or injection drug use" This stat is based on the self reported behavior of these men - not by any independent analysis. |
|||
:::::Please sign your posts, anon. It is irrelevant how stats are reported elsewhere. The more NPOV reporting of this would be to summarise all the statistics on AIDS and not focus on one or two unrelated groups. [[User:Axon|Axon]] 14:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Aids and homosexuality == |
|||
I think its important to talk about this, because atleast in the united states, there is a link in peoples minds, and there is a statistical link that it happens fairly often. Any takers?--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 19:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:There's no MEDICAL link, so I don't see your point, unless statistics is enough for you, in that case there's also a statistical link between the number of people with IQs below 100 and the number of conservative christians in this country, |
|||
:coincidence??<br>-any takers?--[[User:172.152.58.17|172.152.58.17]] 19:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::Its important because this isn't a medical textbook, its an encylcopedia, and not putting the information in here leaves people trying to decide if [[Fred Phelps]] knows what he's talking about without a resource that leads them quickly to evidence to the contrary.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 19:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::As I stated above, I think a summary of all the statistics put in laymens terms in it's own section of this document that publishes all the relevant data without singling out a particular minority for special notice would be the most balanced and neutral way of presenting this information and would still allow people to decide if Fred Phelps knows what he is talking about, without actually pandering to anyone's prejudices. [[User:Axon|Axon]] 14:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
In the United States, 75% or reported AIDS cases were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact or injection drug use. These are the two original risk groups identified in 1983, before HIV blood screening was available. This is very different from Africa. I consider "male-to-male sexual contact or injection drug use" to be a NPOV description of behaviour [[User:Sci guy|Sci guy]] 03:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:Sci-guy, that statistic is completly out of context. Reading through the talk history I can see that it came out of a legitimate attempt to neutralize an inserted statistic, but it equivocates malemale and drug users!--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 13:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Fred2005's nonsense == |
|||
This article is getting torn up by Fred's edits. He is replacing well-written paragraphs with dire warnings about the dangers of HIV treatment and claims of controversy about early treatment. Of course we should mention the most current guidelines for starting treatment, but in a neutral manner (and without removing information on the benefits of HAART). [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 16:33, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:I believe Fred2005 has broken the 3RR rule[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AIDS&diff=15172975&oldid=15170268][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AIDS&diff=15174753&oldid=15174568][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AIDS&diff=15175385&oldid=15175257][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AIDS&diff=0&oldid=15175837] with his last edit. [[User:Axon|Axon]] 16:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== News reports == |
== News reports == |
||
Revision as of 13:14, 15 June 2005
Because of their length, these current discussions are now sub topics
- Talk:AIDS/NPOV dispute - discussion of NPOV in this article (This page over 40 kilobytes)
- Talk:AIDS/merge - discussion of merging this article with AIDS reappraisal
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.
Previous discussions:
Talk:AIDS/archive 1; Talk:AIDS/archive 2; Talk:AIDS/archive 3; Talk:AIDS/archive 4
Treatment Guidelines 2005
A Pocket Guide to Adult HIV/AIDS Treatment January 2005 edition
| Clinical Category | CD4+ Count | Viral Load | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Symptomatic (AIDS or severe symptoms) | Any value | Any value | Treat |
| Asymptomatic, AIDS | CD4+ < 200/mm3 | Any value | Treat |
| Asymptomatic | CD4+ > 200/mm3 but < 350/mm3 | Any value | Offer treatment, but controversial † |
| Asymptomatic | CD4+ > 350/mm3 | > 100,000 c/mL | Consider therapy or observe † (Data inconclusive for either alternative) |
| Asymptomatic | CD4+ > 350/mm3 | < 100,000 c/ml | Defer therapy and observe |
* There are special considerations for pregnant women; consult Pregnancy Tables 1-3.
† Patient readiness, probability of adherence, and prognosis based on CD4 count and HIV load need to be considered.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) issues guidelines to help doctors treat people with HIV in the United States. Treatment of Asymptomatic HIV infection when CD4+ > 200/mm3 is now described as controversial.
Current recommendation is that antiretroviral drugs are for people diagnosed with AIDS - either by low CD4 or one of the AIDS defining conditions.
We need to edit the article to either remove statements that are controversial or say that they are now controversial
Sci guy 02:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
News reports
Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). Sci guy 03:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Verifiability
Fact checking is time consuming, economically costly, and not particularly rewarding. It is unfair to make later editors dig for sources, particularly when the initial content is questionable. Those who write articles likely to be deemed in need of fact checking, for whatever reason, should expect to assist by providing references, ideally when the article is first written. Because of this, it's important to make it easy to verify the accuracy and neutrality of your content. Citing your sources is an important part of this, but not the only factor. Another good rule of thumb is to be specific (and avoid weasel words). For example:
- A human rights spokesman said that the incident was part of a wider pattern of violence in the region
This is difficult to verify, because it's hard to know where to start. Many spokespeople may have commented about the incident on many dates and on many occasions, and it's unreasonable to expect someone to check all these statements looking for the one that matches. A better phrasing would be:
- Eliza Twisk, of Amnesty International, described the situation in an interview with Channel 4 news on July 8 2000, saying that "This is all part of a growing trend in Europe of violent protest and equally violent response". [1]
This is easy to verify: one could contact Eliza Twisk, or Channel 4, or Amnesty International. As the exact quote is given, rather than a paraphrase, this can be fed into various search engines. Finally, a URL of a transcript is given.
quoted from Wikipedia:Verifiability Sci guy 04:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Raul provided a source. What is your point? Rhobite 05:04, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
- It is generally considered that the best Wikipedia articles should consult and cite the best and most reliable references available for the subject. Those may include books or peer reviewed journal articles. quoted from Wikipedia:How to write a great article Sci guy 12:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
NPOV dispute
This conversation has apparently been branched off to Talk:AIDS/NPOV dispute. I thought it ought to be mentioned here because the NPOV flag remains on the article and people need to know where the discussion is ongoing. Whig 06:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)