Jump to content

Talk:HIV/AIDS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:HIV

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 63.167.159.217 (talk) at 01:42, 6 August 2006 (→Fast-developing strain found in Manhattan). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date Template:V0.5 Template:MCOTWprev

WikiProject iconSpoken Wikipedia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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:


Discrepancy

Under "symptoms and complications" we have the following: "Without antiretroviral therapy, death normally occurs within a year." Nevertheless, the adjacent graph shows that death in an "untreated HIV infection" occurs after about 11 years. Any ideas? Ivan Kassal, 31 May 2006

Quite simple, HIV infection and AIDS are two different things. One can be infected with HIV and not be diagnosed with AIDS. --Bob 00:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And yet and yet. The 'on the street' understanding is that HIV is AIDS and AIDS is HIV, and there has to be a clear and referred to statement with backcup that the two are not identical, --Dumarest 21:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to remind people that Magic Johnson was one of the first celebrities to be diagnosed with HIV infection (or was it AIDS?) in the mid-1980s ... that's twenty years ago ... and is still alive. --mwtzz

The ten-year span from HIV infection to development of AIDS applies in the absence of antiretroviral therapy. Johnson has been taking the medicine for years. His doctor is David Ho. See this recent news story for more details. Johnson was lucky; most of the celebrities who acquired HIV during the 80s are now dead, as this list testifies. Trezatium 14:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1783649,00.html for new information on AIDS origin.

Already mentioned in the article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half the world has AIDS? What?

This line asserts that roughly half the human population has AIDS...

"In 2005 alone, AIDS claimed between an estimated 2.8 and 3.6 billion, of which more than 570,000,000 were children"

Am I misunderstanding this? The source link is broken, but either way this looks way, way too high!

Just some vandalism that was more subtle than usual. It's fixed now. - Nunh-huh 03:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that line was a typo. From my understanding AIDS claims an estimated 2.8 and 3.6 million, not billion. The user probably was simply mistyping instead of giving misleading information or vandalism. jkgarrett

No, it was vandalism, as it previously stated million, and that user changed it to billion. --Bob 16:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

any reason we've been getting like a billion vandalisms in the last few days? i mean, look at the history.... JoeSmack Talk 17:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's featured and a prominent subject? InvictaHOG 18:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing happens with gay (which was getting vandalised about 20 times a day for a while recently), homosexual, anal sex, The Da Vinci Code.... I could go on. Vandals suck, but for some reason the current consensus seems to be to allow unregistered (and therefore more difficult to prevent from engaging in vandalism) users to edit any article. Exploding Boy 18:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody else seeing the kool-aid image where the lymphocyte image is supposed to be? I looked at the source, but couldn't figure out what is causing it... (edit: fixed it, just retyped the image text back in, some kind of hidden character voodoo going on or something)

Delta 32

Humans with the Delta 32 gene are immune to infection. Could someone add this to the article please?

No, they are not "immune": they are relatively resistant. The article already includes this information: "An example of this is people with the CCR5-Δ32 mutation; these people are resistant to infection with certain strains of HIV. " - Nunh-huh 07:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Condom promotion

The soapbox issie was removed and relevant information left in with a reference. This is an important issue to include as it is semi-related to the catholic stance on this issue. --Bob 15:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality and AIDS?

Is there any link between these two? It seems so. Skinnyweed 18:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link is that AIDS was originally publically conceived as a 'Gay related immune deficiency syndrome' or GRIDS. Once the fact that it could be spread by both vaginal/anal sex, as well as needles/blood transfusion, (and other methods, see article) came out in the 80s, it was renamed to just AIDS. While much of its start dwelled in gay populations, it is and always has been independent of homosexuality. A rather famous quote in the field: "HIV doesn't care about your sexual orientation". It doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, bi, trans, asexual, whatever... anyone can get HIV. JoeSmack Talk 04:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link is that approximately two thirds of all AIDS sufferers are gay males.--AmazingRacist 16:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AmazingRacist, that statement is very wrong indeed, and totally false. Thankyou for continuing to propagate utter falsehoods and misconceptions. --Bob 16:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[1] In the UK as of March 2006, 58% of AIDS sufferers have contracted it from sex between gay males. --AmazingRacist 16:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See here that worldwide, about 50% is a woman. Kim van der Linde at venus 16:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See here then, that in the USA, in the year 2000, figures from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 75.8% of US males who were infected with HIV contracted it via homosexual contact. I know that you don't like to see statistics showing a link between homosexuality and HIV/AIDS infections, so I'm guessing your not going to like the next bit.
Ethnicity has played a part in establishing the variations which you see globally in rates of infection. A significantly larger proportion of the population who are of 'African-American' or 'Asian/Other' in ethnicity will engage in bisexual relationships with heterosexual women, than will the section of the population which is of 'White' or 'Hispanic' ethnicity, causing the spread of the HIV virus from outwith the group which is naturally at the greatest risk, homosexual males (The dangerousness of anal sex follows from the thin epithelial tissue that forms the rectal wall) , to the population at large, within those ethnic groups. This is one of the reasons why you see a marked difference in the ratios of HIV infection for heterosexuals in African Nations than in what are known as 'Western' nations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheCatWhoChatOnTheMat (talk • contribs) .
Wikipedia is not US centered, but international. So, yes, your statement is right for the US, but incomplete for the world. And yes, ethnicity plays a role. Your point?Kim van der Linde at venus 11:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell, the points being made are : Yes there is a link between homosexuality and AIDS (or HIV), and that ethnicity plays a part in how AIDS (or HIV) spreads, or doesn't spread, throughout the general population, in different regions of the globe.
The article (the AIDS article) says : "In many developed countries, there is still a perceived association between AIDS and homosexuality or bisexuality". Well, in short, there is an association. If you live in a 'developed' country, you're much more likely have become infected with HIV (or AIDS) as a result of homosexual male anal intercourse than by any other means. It's not just perceived, it's correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheCatWhoChatOnTheMat (talk • contribs) .
Ithink there might be some clarification in order. I think the point that people wanted to make is that percieved view that AIDS is ONLY among homosexuals, not beyond that. Kim van der Linde at venus 12:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I just realised what that bit is saying in the article. It's saying that if you believe there to be a link between homosexuality and HIV (or AIDS), as I do, then you are more likely to hold prejuduced viewpoints and/or be stupid. Is this just made up on the spot? I can't believe that people are allowed to put such hateful and patently untrue text in here. I don't see a hyperlink anywhere in it which points to another document which would corroborate any of what the author is alleging, and to be honest, it actually sounds quite, well, prejudiced is the word which springs to mind. It's saying that anyone who doesn't hold the same viewpoint as the author is "less educated". Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this simply a denigration of anyone who dares to hold a viewpoint which is not in keeping with what the author deems to be acceptable? Why not just start burning books which you don't agree with, and get me to wear little yellow badges so that I stand out better?
Sorry, Kim van der Linde at venus, I'm not getting at you, I just looked at all of what I typed and it seems as if I'm getting angry with you, I'm not. I'm simply just astounded to have found deeply unprofessional statements of this nature in a supposedely encyclopeadic volume, and think that it reflects badly on the text of the article, and of this website. Maybe one day, people will learn to get along. There are already more than enough artificial barriers in the world between people. Attitudes like those displayed in this article simply seeks to drive an even bigger wedge between people of differing faiths and beliefs (or lack of). As Morrissey would say, I'm truly, truly disappointed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheCatWhoChatOnTheMat (talk • contribs) .
Well, there is actually a reference on this point. --Bob 15:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
how, exactly, does an asexual person go about contracting aids? --andrew 03:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article. By blood transfusions using HIV-infected blood, by sharing needles etc etc etc. --Bob 17:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions that 58% of cases are homosexual males as if they are only slightly more likely to be infected. It's worth noting that homosexual males make up less than 2% of the population.--69.156.119.187 17:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to TheCatWhoChatOnTheMat in re: an "association" between homosexuality and AIDS. The problem with your statement is that you run the risk of confusing (intentionally, it would seem) circumstance with causality. Being homosexual doesn't cause you to get AIDS: practicing unsafe sex does (among other things, as already written). While it's apparent that worldwide male homosexual behavior is frequently practiced unsafely (in many cultures, I would argue, owing to the social stigma that just your sort of statement propagates), it's just not reasonable to use terminology that implies that the very state of being homosexual causes AIDS. Straight sex can be just as unsafe as gay sex. AIDS is caused by behavior, not orientation. --graham 09:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this intelligent gentleman above me, the classification of "homosexual contact" does not stipulate the orientation of the person. A person can, and often will, partake in homosexual sex between another man yet not be homosexual. To make a relation between homosexual contact and homosexual sexuality is like saying that riding a bike means you were in the Tour De France. Additionally, I am interested that there's no real conversation on the social and evolutionary undertones of homosexuals contracting HIV/AIDS. Most experts agree that men are, by and large, geared to reproduction with as many mates as possible. So what is different between homosexual contact and heterosexual contact besides the end result of a child? Absolutely nothing. That is probably another debate for another time, though. My main message is that contraction through homosexual contact does not mean the person who contracted the disease is homosexual. 68.51.57.237 23:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS by country

Does Wikipedia have no AIDS by country articles? savidan(talk) (e@) 05:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: We have two. I intend to write about China and Brazil but seriously, I created Category: HIV/AIDS by country to help organize these as they get written. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

update to the most recent report

I haven't yet gone through, but unless someone beats me to it, much of this article should be updated to use the most recent UNAIDS report as the source for "current" estimates. In particular, estimates of new infections and mortality for 2005 have been revised sharply downwards compared to the earlier reports we quote (see Ch. 2); we claim that there was a sharp increase from 2004, but this is no longer believed to be the case. No doubt numerous other estimates have been revised as well. --Delirium 18:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Bob 23:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recorded a spoken version of this article, but the formatting in the external links section prevents the speaker icon from showing up next to the featured star unless the links section is visible. Is there a workaround for this? Moulder 19:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. It shows up now. - Ganeshk (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and as I said in the edit summary sorry about all the edits - I thought if I substituted the template I could move just the speaker icon part, but apparently there are three levels of templates in use. An exception to the rule is better than a headache. :P Moulder 20:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV?

...a slight majority of those infected with HIV were male homosexuals (58% of all cases).

Ok, so that means 42% were not male homosexuals, and I believe we can assume that roughly half (21%) of that are males, the other half females (because the 42% is not gay).

So, with regards to straight males vs. gay males, almost 3 times the number of gay males have AIDS. This is not a slight majority.

Yeah its not POV its factual occurance, but the myths of it being a homosexual disease are long busted.--Exander 01:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given its origin and spread before it flooded the U.S., I don't know how such a myth could have ever taken hold. Then again, we're talking about the U.S. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-15 02:23
Woah, easy on the agenda there. The factual occurance is that there appears to be almost 3 times the number of gay males with AIDS than straight males with AIDS (of the surveyed nations). The way it reads is analogous to, "a slight majority of those infected with HIV were males named John (58% of all cases)." You just expect people to sit back and say, "OK, even though 58% of people with AIDS are males named John, I'm not going to say that being named John has any connection to AIDS whatsoever." Come on. Haizum 02:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've honestly got to be in denial, (and I have gay friends if you are tempted to call me a bigot), but to say that AIDS doesn't affect the gay community disproportionately to the level of education and socioeconomic status they enjoy, you're just POV pushing (at your own peril). Haizum 02:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The wording "slight majority," when in fact it appears that 300% more men that have AIDS (in the countries surveyed) are homosexual. Haizum 19:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a left over myth because it supposedly "started out" in the homosexual comunity. Basically it is just pure coincidence, maybe or maybe not because of the viruses alleged origins in the US. Either way, its no big deal.--Exander 08:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haizum, we meet again! BUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Anyway, having over half of all cases, if that number is accurate, applying to a very small minority is not coincidence... a difference that high from the larger group, when the population of the US is so high, cannot be due to concidence. The odds are unimaginable that that's the case. Debating about why that is isn't important I guess, since it seems like we're just discussing the actual figures with no implications of the reasons behind. My point: am I missing something here? Because if I'm not, than I don't see what the POV dispute is. COuld whoever started this heading elaborate for me? Karwynn 18:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I question the wording "slight majority," when in fact it appears that 300% more men that have AIDS (in the countries surveyed) are homosexual. Haizum 19:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well then since pretty much half of the cases appear in Homosexuals which are a very small minority that must be due to its origins in the US. It probably had pretty heavy circulation within the community before spreading to the Heterosexual community. But why are you arguing? This is already mentioned under history and statistics.--Exander 05:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original Transfer?

Should it be noted that the current most substantial (and common) reason for the jump of the virus from primates to humans is that it came from the practices of many poor and starving Central Africans of going into the bush/forest and subsequent unchecked butchering of various animals for meat? All kinds of animals, primarily primates, were indiscriminately consumed at home or sold at market this way and many people keep doing this. The viruses probably jumped due to continued handling/eating of a certain monkey species which was locally infected. This was mentioned in a Discovery Channel documentary on Ebola, AIDs, and other viruses of continental African origin. Discuss?--Exander 00:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I came here wondering about this as well. How was the virus first introduced to the human species, does anyone know? I ask because the rumours I've been exposed to insinuate that tribal religious rituals involving primate blood were where the original transfer was made. The above information at least sounds more plausible (due to greater opportunity of infection). But there must be cited research on the matter somewhere? I believe a majority of the other romours I have encountered are well addressed in the article, so I feel addressing this one would also be a service to the readership. Thanks. :) Jesset77 16:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS originating from poor and starving Central Africans just does not make sense to me. I feel that is a man made virus and it's main goal is human elimination (poor, gay. etc). Though many may not agree with me, I think the virus was originally created for race elimination. Plus Africa is a valuable land from a diamond and oil perspective that the westernalized governments would love to own. I could be wrong but I feel there is much more to this then what we see on the surface. (Jade) 12 July 2006

Protected?

If the article's protected, how are people still managing to vandalise it? Exploding Boy 03:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is only protected from being moved. Raul654 03:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that seems a little pointless. Could whoever protected it change it to s-protect (at minimum--full protect would be better probably, since at least 2 of the recent vandals have been registered (though new) users). Exploding Boy 04:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't protect featured articles as a matter of policy. See user:Raul654/protection Raul654 04:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Bad policy. It would be far better to create a template that alerts users that the current featured article will be unavailable for editing as long as it remains the current featured article. This would make more sense anyway: the article was featured on the basis of its state when the FAC vote was concluded. Exploding Boy 04:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with protecting featured articles. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Featured articles become juicy targets for vandals. This is true, and a necessary evil. Putting a featured article on the front page doesn't just show the article off to the Wikipedia community, it presents it for revision to the Wikipedia community. Protection defeats part of the point. -MBlume 04:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. It makes it a better article, even if one has to shift through vandal edits. JoeSmack Talk 05:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I'm amazed this one ever made it to FA status in the first place, considering how regularly it gets vandalised. Exploding Boy 04:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's regularly vandalized - it's AIDS! It's high-profile, contraversial, and has a perceived link with homosexuality that makes it an easy target for homophobes. FA status is awarded to an article in its proper state, not based on vandalism or the lack thereof. -MBlume 04:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the devs ever get around to releasing their "last good state" feature, most of our troubles will be gone. Readers will see an approved version of the article, and editors will edit the true version; meanwhile, admins (or maybe even long-term registered users) will sift through new edits to see which are/aren't vandalism, and choose those edits as becoming part of the latest approved version (with something this involved, making it simple to do would be nice). So there won't be any rush, or any threat of normal readers viewing anything "bad", at least for the high-traffic articles. And we'll maintain our goal of "anyone can edit", even on George W. Bush. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-15 05:30

This will happen right after the lion lieth down with the lamb, and the people beateth their swords into plowshares. - Nunh-huh 05:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QUICK CLARIFICATION

What is the person has received a BJ with a Condom on? Can he still get AIDS?

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)[reply]

Removed From Front Page

The AIDS syndrome is unique in that the enormous number of "AIDS Dissidents" are united in their analysis. Do a Google search for "aids dissidents" - 32,000 hits. - Ivor Catt

References

Is there a reason the references are so spaced out? It makes the wikitext impossible to read. If nobody objects, I'll take away the spacing, which should also take out a few GB from the article size. See Cannabis (drug) for an example of what that would look like. --Rory096 14:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The references are like that exactly for that reason, so that it is easier to edit, and see where the references begin and end. This was a point previously raised and consensus was to leave as is. --Bob 17:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's easier to edit with them like this? It's impossible, the wikitext is virtually unreadable! If you want to show where refs begin and end, you could use comments, like this: <!--REF BEGINS HERE--> and <!--REF ENDS HERE--> . This would have no effect on how the article is displayed, but make the it actually editable. --Rory096 18:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
as is, it is editable, and easy to see where the refs begin and end and where the actual text is. Much easier like this than with all the refs jumbled up into the inline text. --Bob 18:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's editable, and it's probably even worse for people who just come along and see it and don't know wikitext. Just having a comment at the beginning and end of refs would do it too. --Rory096 03:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impressed

I clicked through today from the front page and I must say, impressive article! Sometimes I wonder as to how FA articles qualified when they seem marginal, but I have no doubts here! Well done. --Falcorian (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is a fantastic article and very informative. Kudos to all those who worked in it. (Wish I could write something this good) - Zone46 01:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

misleading graph

See Image talk:Aids in africa graph.gif for my objection to this graph. Ideogram 17:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, if you read the graph, it is not misleading whatsoever. The y axis is clearly stated. If you glance at it and are stupid/lazy enough not to correctly read the graph, then maybe you have a point. However... --Bob 18:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a famous quote from a famous book in that discussion that outlines why it's a bad idea. Implying that I am stupid or lazy is uncivil. In any case I have better things to do than argue with you. Ideogram 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reference was not directed at yourself, but at anyone who reads it incorrectly. --Bob 18:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I have some time so I'm going to argue with you.
Do you understand that most people are stupid or lazy? Why make a casual reader do the work of discovering that Botswana, for instance, is not really near extinction when you can make it clear at a glance by basing it at zero? You can't even read the scale in the small image in the article, you have to click on it. Who's going to do that? Ideogram 22:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now now, please lets not get worked up. We're not, however, going to assume most people are lazy/stupid. Wikipedia was built on the idea that people are pretty damn smart, whoever they are. Lets keep things constructive please. JoeSmack Talk 23:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And Bob, please don't bite. JoeSmack Talk 23:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not that worked up. But the point that graphs that aren't based at zero are highly misleading is well known in the literature, as evidenced by the quote on the talk page of the image. Ideogram 23:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, maybe I should just remove the graph myself. Ideogram 03:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like, you can edit the graph to include the zero line. However, I'd think that a consensus would be nice before removing it (I know that I would personally place it back in pending further discussion if it were removed!) I'm of the opinion that the graph currently is accurate and easy to understand. I understand your concern - you think that it is misleading. I personally think that it appropriately truncates the y axis at a natural break point in order to highlight the decline in life expectancy. Famous quotes from famous books aside, I'm not convinced that it should be removed. InvictaHOG 03:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that might provoke a reaction :-). I don't care enough about this article to start an edit war. I don't care enough to edit the picture. I'm pointing out to you that anyone with a background in statistics is going to laugh at Wikipedia when they see this graph. But you got your FA star anyway, so what do you care? I have a lot of other ways I'd rather contribute to Wikipedia anyway. Ideogram 03:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not contribute to this article and do not care about stars. I have a background in biostatistics and understand that we obviously disagree about this graphic representation. I would not object to changing the graph as you see fit but I do think that the graph should stay otherwise! InvictaHOG 03:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I must thank you for continuing to talk to me after my admittedly offhand response. I agree the best solution is to fix the graph since it does have useful information, but again I don't want to be the one to edit it (I have a deathly fear of paint programs). I'm desperately hoping I can mouth off enough to convince someone else to do it. But if a quote from a textbook won't convince anyone, what else can I do? Quote another textbook? Seriously, in my opinion you should respect what the textbooks say, it is in the spirit of verifiability after all. Ideogram 03:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The old appeal to authority, eh? I don't think that we have to rely on textbooks to dictate style, but if you ever get over your fear of paint programs, I'd welcome the change! InvictaHOG 10:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an aside, the UNAIDS annual global report also uses graphs truncated on the y axis. Just because some person says something in a textbook, it doesn't actually mean that much. Duesberg has stated tons in textbooks and books, but do you think that he is right? Not everybody who has stff published is right. --Bob 16:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stigma section

This is a very poorly written section. Rather than spend time copyediting it now, I'll wait to see if consensus is to keep it or delete it first. Ideogram 18:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You won't delete is because an article on AIDS requires such a section. If you don't like it, copyedit it. Don't delete it, as that would just be reverted instantly. --Bob 18:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I would delete it. I said I would wait to see if other people wanted to delete it before I fix it. Ideogram 18:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a section that was required in order for the article to pass to FA status. --Bob 18:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd, I thought I saw it inserted after I read the article, which I got to by seeing it as the Featured Article of the Day on the Main Page. Ideogram 18:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted between last night and when I added it back in. --Bob 18:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the original text or a reconstruction? Can you point me to the version that was awarded FA status? Ideogram 19:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the text when it was a candidate and here it was when it got through the featured article gauntlet, finally award FA status. All its discussion of what should and shouldn't be included are here. This can all be seen through the featured article template at the top of this page, and looking at dates in page history. hope this helps clear things up. :) JoeSmack Talk 21:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I really couldn't believe my eyes that this section was so poorly written compared to the rest of the article. I'll go ahead and copyedit it now. Ideogram 21:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a great deal of trouble with the list "ostracism, rejection, discrimination and avoidance of HIV infected people; compulsory HIV testing without prior consent or protection of confidentiality; violence against HIV infected individuals or people who are perceived to be infected with HIV; and the quarantine of HIV infected individuals". It seems to consist of multiple near-synonyms with overlapping meanings. Ostracism, rejection, avoidance, and quarantine are all quite close together in meaning. Could someone explain to me what this is trying to say? Ideogram 21:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I made a stab at fixing the list. That should be good enough. Ideogram 22:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS in media

Someone probably already said this, so delete this if it's old news. The "AIDS in media" section is dreadfully short. I'm sure (in fact, I know) it's appeared in popular culture more than once. Brutannica 20:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange numbers

These numbers look strange as hell to me. I realise I'm not a doctor, and I don't know much about AIDS, but I cannot believe that there is only 1 chance in 2000 to get aids if your a man having unprotected sex with an infected woman. That sounds way, way, way too low. The source is mindnumbingly reliable so I don't doubt it, but can someone explain this to me, is there something I'm missing? Oskar 21:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many people a day with HIV do you think have unprotected sex? I bet many times that of 2000. Add together all the days and the numbers start climbing. I thought it seemed small too, but if you look at the big picture it's actually very high. JoeSmack Talk 22:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Smack is right. There are viruses that spread easier than HIV, but the sheer number of infected people and the times people have sex (or the number ofer people who are addicted to injectionary drug use and don't have access to clean needles) contribute to AIDS being a pandemic.--Johnnyw talk 14:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The accompanying text explains that transmission is much more likely to occur if the infected partner has a high viral load (e.g. in very early or late stage disease) or if the uninfected partner has another sexually transmitted infection. The 1 in 2,000 figure applies to a "best case scenario". Perhaps this should be made clearer. How about a note inside the table itself? Trezatium 21:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article says, "studies conducted in developing countries have estimated that per-act transmission probabilities are greater by a factor of 10 for both male-to-female and female-to-male transmission. Although the greater efficiency of male-to-female versus female-to-male transmission has also been observed in developing countries, a systematic review of the literature found a greatly enhanced efficiency of female-to-male transmission in the high-prevalence epidemics of Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The ratio of male-to-female summary mean transmission rates in the developing world compared to the rate in Western countries was 2.9, whereas for female-to-male transmission this ratio was 341." Shouldn't the table acknowledge this kind of data? Trezatium 21:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that the numbers have to be thorougly checked and verified. Considering this: has this article been published in any peer reviewed journals? The site where the article is listed is reviewed by the author itself, or at least, the author's own university, UCSF. --Johnnyw talk 22:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that we cite the UCSF article itself. It would be better to investigate its references (which have been peer reviewed) and cite those as appropriate. Trezatium 22:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another excellent source is this book chapter (check out Table 18.2). Trezatium 22:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

main page survival

Congrats to everyone who helped this article survive the Main Page Challenge(tm)! I dare say it is a much better article now because of the resulting contributions. Here are the changes, see for yourselves. Good job to all!  :) JoeSmack Talk 19:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HIV causes AIDS?

"Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS or Aids) is a collection of symptoms and infections in humans resulting from the specific damage to the immune system caused by infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)."

Given that wikipedia has an article on AIDS reappraisal, this sounds like POV. Peter Duesberg, Kary Mullis, and Walter Gilbert's expertise should be enough to at least rephrase this statement as not being definitive. - unsigned

No, of course this simple statement of fact needs no rephrasing. The denialists already get more than their due here. - Nunh-huh 01:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it depends, is the wiew supported by only a few people, or a lot? I mean, I believe there is no God, but I wouldn't write in the God article, “God is a fictional deity that …” for the introduction. --FlareNUKE 21:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gonna have to agree with Nunh-huh, sorry FlareNUKE. I can't tell you how many times we've been down this road for the article. It should stay how it is. JoeSmack Talk 21:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never suggested changing it. At this current time it is believed that HIV causes AIDS and until it is disproven (if it does) we'll consider changing it. Although I do think we should add an area about the theory it doesn't, but that's all. Unless it's already there. --FlareNUKE 06:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is already there. --Bob 19:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the controversy needs to be fleshed out on this page. It is not enough to say that there is some debate - the reasons for the controversy must be given. Peter Duesberg's 1987 paper in the journal Cancer Research, "Retroviruses as Carcinogens and Pathogens: Expectations and Reality," details "how and why the retrovirus HIV cannot cause AIDS" (Farber). I recommend reading the article "Out of Control: AIDS and the corruption of medical science" ([2]) by Celia Farber in Harper's Magazine, March 2006, which accuses researchers of no longer applying scientific standards to AIDS work, and then adding the appropriate information to this entry. Here are some relevant quotes: "He simply pointed out that no one had yet proven that HIV is capable of causing a single disease, much less the twenty-five diseases that are now part of the clinical definition of AIDS. He pointed to a number of paradoxes regarding HIV and argued that far from being evidence that HIV is 'mysterious' or 'enigmatic,' these paradoxes were evidence that HIV is a passenger virus. ... The classical tests of whether or not a microorganism is the cause of infectious disease are known as Koch's postulates. ... Although claims to the contrary have been made, Duesberg maintains that it has never been demonstrated that HIV satisfies all of Koch's postulates.... Another embarrassment for the HIV hypothesis is the extraordinary latency period between infection and the onset of disease, despite the fact that HIV is biochemically most active within weeks of initial infection." Instead, Duesberg's hypothesis is that "AIDS is a chemical syndrome, caused by accumulated toxins from heavy drug use." The very least that could be done with this section would be to link to the pages on Peter Duesberg, the Duesberg hypothesis, and AIDS reappraisal. --CloseWatch 23:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article on AIDS doesn't need to be the article on AIDS reappraisal. I think it is just fine the way it is. JoeSmack Talk 01:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hetero-sexual sex and AIDS

  • I want to protest how two of my additions to this article have been treated. I added two links to GOVERNMENT STATISTICS that show that hetero-sexual contact contributes only 15% to the number of AIDS cases and the two links were removed. I request that the incident be reviewed

Potentially controversial, but needed, addition

I have a question but before I get into it I want to make it 100% clear that I do not believe any fraction or piece of the beliefs I am about to say need adding to the article. Now that I've said that... Several small, radical, and vocal Christian groups make the claim that AIDS is some form of judgement from God to kill those who sin (extramarital sex, homosexual sex, drug use, etc). As an example, this article. While they are distasteful IMO, they are a decent-enough sized and well-known sect of the population that they are worthy of mention in the article. Maybe under "Stigma" or "Alternative theories" as a subsection? I'll write this section, but I wanted to make sure I hadn't missed a previous discussion on this topic in the various archives. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fringe views of fringe religious groups belong in their respective articles, not in the article on AIDS. There are simply not important enough to be here, unless they've had a significant effect (such as Catholic condemnation of condom use). - Nunh-huh 22:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No further addition required in this article, especially as it is more than adequately covered in the current stigma section.--Bob 22:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are fringe views, and are peripheral to any actual discussion of AIDS. Such views are appropriately treated in their articles; see Westboro Baptist Church. By all means, if you can find a religious group with peculiar views on AIDS which are not in their article, add it to that article. - Nunh-huh 23:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Origin

I heard on the news that they have found some monkey-type that has something that is kinda like aids in some african country and they on the news said that that is where it most likely came from namely a monkey most likely bit a hunter and by doing so gave him aids. For anyone who actually wants to look into this and find sources I wish you good luck, I just heard it on the news. (FishHeadAbcd 17:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

POV?

The article here has different POV on AIDS. I don't see it on this article. Anomo 22:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See AIDS reappraisal, linked in this article. There's a lot about AIDS that is not in this article (including most of the therapy) because of the summary style required in such a large article. InvictaHOG 03:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question is not a "different POV", it's a fount of misinformation. The section on Koch's postulates is particularly ignorant. - Nunh-huh 00:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to know if it's real or hoax? Anomo 01:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's real only in the sense that some people believe it. It's complete bullshit, of course! - Nunh-huh 01:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This page

sucks. It's not what's in it, it's what is kept out by a small cabal of, in all probability well meaning, but sadly dim, individuals. --Tess Tickle 02:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, most reasonable people think that keeping misinformation out of the article is an improvement. Chacun à son goût. - Nunh-huh 02:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fast-developing strain found in Manhattan

Shouldn't there be some mention of the newly found strain in Manhattan that develops into AIDS very quickly? It is an note-worthy, and concerning, development. - unsigned

You mean the mutli-drug resistant strain reported in February 2005? It's actually not particuarly noteworthy (it affected only four people) or concerning, though there was a great deal of hysteria in the initial coverage. The men it was found in seem to be doing quite well (clinically stable and responding to anti-retroviral therapy). See the CDC's report here. Though the initial patient progressed to AIDS in less than 20 weeks, it is not clear that this was due to the strain, per se. "Sufficient data were not available to determine the rate of disease progression before diagnosis of HIV infection or initiation of ARV therapy in any of the three patients with matching genotypes." - Nunh-huh 00:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a link to the CDC report would suffice.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HIV/AIDS&oldid=67924662"