Talk:HIV

Questions about the article

There are a couple of statements I do not understand in the article:

"Most people infected with HIV eventually develop AIDS."

Does that mean HIV does not cause AIDS in every one? How many? Is that known?

"Treatment with anti-retrovirals increases the life expectancy of people infected with HIV."

I found conflicting statements when looking this up, including studies that state clearly that ARV's do not prolong life but cause organ failure. Can any one point me to the latest studies regarding this?

"Clinical latency can vary between two weeks and 20 years."

How was this researched? HIV/AIDS has been around for soem 25 years and everytime i look this up latency seems to increase as well. Does that make sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.101.181.59 (talk) 09:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

HIV oraquick discussion should be posted on HIV tests

There is a lot about HIV testing, one of the most common methods now a days is the oraquick test. in just unde 45mins, usually, the test comes out postitive, negative or inconclusive. Usually its detects not only HIV 1 but also HIV 2. That article should have a page directing them to the "hiv test' article. Thanks ( [Daekl])

Mention of life span outside body?

There are quiet a number of people living with HIV infected people, and the virus's life span outside the body is quiet relavant and does not seem to be presently mentioned.

How long can HIV survive outside the human body?

Generally the fragile nature of the virus prevents it from surviving for a substantial amount of time in the open air.

The only studies on the survival of HIV outside the body have been conducted in the laboratory under controlled scientific conditions. These studies have found HIV is not affected by extreme cold, but it is destroyed by temperatures of 60 degrees centigrade and above.

Scientific studies have found that HIV can sometimes survive in dried blood at room temperature for up to six days. It is extremely difficult to assess exactly the length of survival of HIV outside the body in a non-laboratory setting.[1]

Clarification

In the table given at HIV#Transmission, it appears that intercourse with an infected source, yields in HIV transmission less than 50 out of 10,000 times without condom use. Does this mean that if an HIV infect individual has unprotected sex, he/she will transmit the disease only 0.5% (or less) of the time? This seems to be against common belief, which holds that there is a high risk of getting HIV when having unprotected intercourse with an infected individual. 0.5% is not 'high' at all.VR _talk 15:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Whether it's high or not is subjective, but the figure is per exposure, so it can soon add up! Greenman (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Statistics do not work that way. The risk of transmission in each exposure is unaffected by the number of previous exposures. Therefore, if you don't contract the virus on one exposure, you're essentially in the clear, and subsequent exposures still carry a 0.5% rate. By your logic 200 exposures would guarantee transmission, which simply is not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.129.19 (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

While it's absolutely true that the risk of contracting HIV does not strictly "add up" with repeated exposures, I believe that Greenman meant (and correct me if I'm misinterpreting your comment) that the total risk of infection (not risk per exposure) increases as the number of exposures increases. After 200 exposures, there is about a 63% chance that HIV has been contracted. While this is not a guaranteed transmission, it's nothing to scoff at either.Buddy431 (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel it is a disservice to all viewers (especially those who are overly paranoid about HIV) to view a table such as this that clearly lists below-actual facts of transmission rates. It is extremely dangerous to list that unprotected intercourse results in infection on average only 0.5% of the time, especially considering the many real-life contradictions such as in this article, the man in Canada charged with murder/sexual assault for infecting other women 7 out of 11 times. This indicates that he would have had to have sex with each woman about 200 times on average before they were each infected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.35.98 (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The article gives the figure of .04% or .05% for the chance of a man contracting HIV after having vaginal sex with an HIV positive woman one time (insertive vaginal sex). So the likelihood of having contracted HIV after having sex 200 with a woman that is already infected is very slightly less than 10% (assuming a .05% risk per sexual act). But for receptive anal sex with an HIV positive man the cumulative risk for 200 sex acts is close to 63%. Of course, these statistics are all averages. He may have an especially high viral load, those women may have had other STI's that left lesions on their anus, and/or their immune system may have been compromised from meth or other drugs or diseases. They also refer to the women who died as his "former girlfriends". He may have had sex with each of these women many, many, many times.

Hoping To Help (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Common misconception (Gambler's_fallacy). Every time of the 200, the odds are still .05% or whathaveyou. It doesn't become cumulative. Ever flip a coin and have it come up head 5 times in a row? JoeSmack ^Talk 18:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, 10% is right, it just looks small because .05% is such an improbable odd. Subtract the chance of *not* being infected 200 times in a row from 1. 1-(1-5/10000)^200 = 0.0951852102 Raucanum 13:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raucanum (talk • contribs)

Nope, the chance of NOT being infected is still 99.95 every time. Sorry, that's just not how the math of probability works. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In this case, though, the effect of multiple exposures can be additive if the period of time is relatively short. We're talking about several thousand viral particles at each exposure here, not a single coin being tossed. If the period during which multiple exposures occur is relatively short, sufficient numbers of virus particles may survive each time (lability is up to 72 hours outside the body; inside it could be much longer), building to a level at which sufficient exist to create a full-blown infection. Only when the period between exposures is so long that all virus particles can be assumed to have been destroyed before the next exposure, will the probability be as you describe. AncientBrit (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed edits to the lead

I propose that paragraph 3 of the lead be edited to reflect the following changes:

"The risk of an asymptomatic person with a repeatedly reactive serum sample (for HIV) developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known. However, in a prospective study, AIDS developed in 51% of homosexual men after 10 years of infection." These individuals succumb to opportunistic infections or malignancies associated with the progressive failure of the immune system.

These changes are referenced, and accurate, and to information or studies which supercede these citations are readily available. Furthermore, the first reference, is to the most current Abbott Labs ELISA instruction insert, and the second 2 references are the statistical references used by Abbott, the ELISA manufacturer, to reference statistical HIV to AIDS progression. Neuromancer (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I surmise that you meant paragraph 4 of the lead, not paragraph 3. The lead is already long, and contains references that are at least as definitive, and more current, than the ones you suggest. The rate of progression is highly variable, depending on a variety of factors including age at seroconversion (PMID 10791375); thus, the rates of progression you cite are within the estimates of the publications already cited. The phrase you quote, saying "The risk of an asymptomatic person with a repeatedly reactive serum sample (for HIV) developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known", does not account for the plethora of data on progression already cited. As with any medical prognostication there is uncertainty, but progression rate estimates are available. -- Scray (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are other references, however, the lead currently states (9 of 10), which is on the high end of that estimates. Additionally, the current reference is specific to Africa, and from 2004, which seems semi biased for the lead. The quote that I provided is currently used in every Abbott EIA test on the market, and was revised as of 2006. If the manufacturer doesn't seem to think that any more reliable estimates are available, then where is the justification to include it in the Wiki. Additionally, there are no peer reviews of the current 2004 citation available, which calls the citation into question. Neuromancer (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Scray that the current lead and references accurately and clearly reflect the current state of knowledge on the topic. I do not see the proposed changes as an improvement; rather the opposite. MastCell ^Talk 05:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

So how is this justification made? Last I checked, the theology behind presenting worst case scenarios is designed to frighten people. While AIDS is frightening, I don't think that it needs any assistance in being more frightening. Neuromancer (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your post. If you're suggesting that the tone of the current article is fear-mongering, then I disagree. MastCell ^Talk 05:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Then why are you opposed to including a newer reference than the existing one? Neuromancer (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuromancer, if you're taking the Abbott report from 2006 as a newer reference, I don't think that's quite sound. The quoted portion of that Abbott report is old material -- it is simply a summary of research of Taylor et al 1986 and Rutherford et al 1990. The reference currently in the article, from Buchbinder et al 1994, is at worst four years more recent.

That reference from Buchbinder clearly notes that 8% of its subjects were long-term healthy HIV-positives 10 years after infection. Thus, 92% -- about 9 out of every 10 -- of the HIV-positive subjects progressed to AIDS within 10 years of infection. This is slightly confusing (at least to me) because the abstract also mentions that only 68% of HIV-positive subjects infected 14 years prior progressed to AIDS. What accounts for that counter-intuitive 20% drop in the HIV -> AIDS progression rate from the subjects infected 10 and 15 years prior? It would be good to explain this later in this article. In its current state, the article only notes the '9 out of every 10' figure in the lead and doesn't repeat or expand upon it in the body -- which it should. Emw (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the manufacturer of the test does not cite any newer information, and the 1994 reference was not peer reviewed, calling it into question. Yes it was published, but it wasn't reviewed. I question any published medical work that has not been peer reviewed, and I believe that the WP guidelines say the same thing. Neuromancer (talk) 07:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that it wasn't peer reviewed? See the journal's guidelines for authors. All manuscripts are peer-reviewed; the only significance of the paper's designiation as a "concised communication" is that it was short. The only content published by the journal that is not peer reviewed is "correspondance", and only some of the time. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait, I'm sorry. Are you referring to the paper in AIDS or the one in Journal of Infection? My comment was related to the former. The latter admittedly has less information about its review system, but is there a reason for your assertion that it was not peer-reviewed? Someguy1221 (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuromancer, I'm not sure why you mention the fact that Abbott "does not cite any newer information." If you're suggesting that this makes the Taylor '86 and/or Rutherford '90 more reliable than Buchbinder '94, I would disagree. The Taylor, Rutherford, and Buchbinder papers are noted as having respectively 49, 237, and 273 citations per Google Scholar. If anything, I would say that Buchbinder is more reliable (given that Buchbinder '94 has been cited 15% more and has had four fewer years to accumulate citations compared Rutherford '90). Emw (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been bold (considering the discussion) and taken a stab at providing some nuance to the 4th paragraph in the lead. I hope it's seen as an improvement by all - I think it brings in some more of the concepts that are important. -- Scray (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I like what you've done... I would suggest changing "HIV-specific treatment delays this process" to "HIV-specific treatments have been shown to delay this progression in most, though as with any form of chemotherapy, there are inherent risks." Or something to that effect. Just a thought. Throwing it in there for you to roll it around your tongue for a few. Neuromancer (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest changing "Most will progress to AIDS within 10 years of HIV infection" to "Untreated, over half of people with HIV will progress to AIDS within 10 years of infection.". "Most" suggests that not having progressed to AIDS by ten years is unusual, whereas nearly half overall have yet to develop AIDS by then - and more than half among cohorts infected at younger ages, according to reference 7. Buchbinder et al (reference 6) identify only 8% as non-progressors at ten years, but their definition of "immunologic progression" is a CD4+ count below 500, not AIDS. I also think it's important to include "untreated", since it is now the norm to commence antiretroviral therapy well before the onset of any AIDS-defining conditions, even in many low and middle-income countries. Sorry, can't be bold myself here, but maybe a regular editor might consider these suggestions. On A Leash (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

HIV RNA packaging

The statement in the article that HIV-1 and HIV-2 may package their RNA in different ways is not referenced

Here are the two original references which demonstrated this finding:

Human immunodeficiency virus types 1 and 2 differ in the predominant mechanism used for selection of genomic RNA for encapsidation. Kaye JF, Lever AM. J Virol. 1999 Apr;73(4):3023-31.

Nonreciprocal packaging of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 and type 2 RNA: a possible role for the p2 domain of Gag in RNA encapsidation. Kaye JF, Lever AM. J Virol. 1998 Jul;72(7):5877-85.

86.14.233.42 (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

HIV infection and washing

Here's a very interesting piece of information regarding HIV infection rates and washing after sexual intercourse. A NIH-funded study in Uganda has actually found that washing the penis minutes after sex INCREASES the risk of acquiring H.I.V. in uncircumcised men. But delaying washing for at least 10 minutes lowers HIV infection rates. The reason for the increased infection rates is uncertain but they have suggested that ""the acidity of vaginal secretions may impair the ability of the AIDS virus to survive on the penis. Delayed cleansing — and longer exposure to the vaginal secretions — may then reduce viral infectivity. Another is that use of water, which has a neutral pH, may encourage viral survival and possible infectivity. H.I.V. apparently needs to be in a fluid to cross the mucosa to infect cells... If the H.I.V.-contaminated fluid dries, its infectivity may decrease. Adding water could resuspend H.I.V. to make it more infectious.""

Increased HIV infection rates have also been seen in women who clean using water and is even higher for some reason when using soap.

link: http://www.i-base.info/htb/v8/htb8-8-9/Penile.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.115.176 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 2 January 2010

Haiti

Given the stigma in the early of the pandemic; given the fact that according to the Origin of AIDS article, AIDS spread through the Western Hemisphere via Haiti; given how HIV/AIDS ravaged that country's blood supply; I'm surprised there's not more on HIV in Haiti in Wikipedia: it's not in the AIDS article, nor in the Haiti article, nowhere. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Simian Aids?

"does not cause the development of simian AIDS"? I think this is outdated. Here is a popular piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/science/23chimp.html?_r=1 196.21.144.220 (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. We should add reliable sources for the development of AIDS in non-human primates. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

At least one source was already present. I added a review and had a go at a rewrite for clarification. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sexual transmission and circumcision

Suggested change: "Later trials, in which uncircumcised men were randomly assigned to be medically circumcised in sterile conditions and given counseling and other men were not circumcised, have been conducted in South Africa,[39] Kenya,[40] and Uganda[41] showing reductions in HIV transmission for heterosexual sex of 60%, 53%, and 51% respectively." to "Later trials... showing reductions in female to male sexual transmission of HIV of 60%, 53%..." As it stands, the sentence suggests that male to female transmission might also be reduced by these amounts, which is not supported by the studies. Sorry, can't be bold myself, but maybe a regular editor might pick this up. On A Leash (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really. I don't have time to look up the references right now, but as I recall.... The difference between circumcised and not has to do with the fact that the inside of the foreskin is delicate and abrades easily. These abrasions and microtears make it easier for the virus to be passed F to M during unprotected sex. Circumcision has (not yet, at least) shown to make any difference with regards to M to F transmission. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Change made. -- Scray (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Odd aversions to the provision of an adequate reference, and improper manipulation of the blocking procedures.

Rehashed sequence of edit-warring which led to block
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yesterday I was the target of what seemed a plainly vexatious request for a block which was imposed for 24 hours. The request appears to have been made by someone, or perhaps more than one, wishing to pre-empt being themselves the recipient of a justified block. It was all most unfortunate, futile, and counter to the Wikipedia imperative of acting in good faith. It seems to relate to my reasoned suggestions about the simple need for adequate referencing. Here is the sequence of events: - I had noticed that there was no reference for the opening statement, "Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a lentivirus (a member of the retrovirus family) that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)," so I suggested that an appropriate reference be provided in the following edit: 01:16, 27 February 2010. Summary was: (See the reason= parameter via 'Edit this page'.) Edit was - Citation needed|reason=Common referencing practice and Wikipedia's verifiability policy appear to require reliable sources for scientific discoveries or techniques unless they are common facts (e.g., "The Moon orbits the Earth") Scray responded with a reference in good faith: 03:20, 27 February 2010 Scray (talk | contribs) (119,730 bytes) (one of many reliable sources supporting this statement) I read the reference provided and responded as follows, using the reason parameter, as Wikipedia recommends, as follows: 06:44, 27 February 2010. Summary was: (Undid insufficient reference - see reason parameter in Edit for explanation) Edit was: Citation needed|reason=Previous reference leads reader to an Abstract which states, "Although this article provides few definitive answers, it aims to focus commentary on salient points." The provision of 'few definite answers' would suggest to a reader that the reference is inadequate. The reference might best be categorised as a tertiary source. A secondary source reviewing and confirming the original primary source/s seems to be indicated, particularly on such an important aspect of such an important topic. For the same reason, the primary source/s could and probably should also be carefully referenced. Scray was the only person who appeared to respond (twice - see below) in good faith, but the next response was oddly disappointing: 08:41, 27 February 2010 Nunh-huh (talk | contribs) (119,730 bytes) ((-) absurd request. Kindly read references (not merely their online abstracts) before objecting to them.) I had read the reference, and responded as follows: 11:01, 27 February 2010 Summary was: (Sub-standard tertiary Weiss reference not only fails to refer to the primary source/s, but is dated ten years after HIV was discovered in 1983 and 7 years after it was named as the AIDS virus in 1986) Edit was: Citation needed|reason=What is absurd about requesting an ordinarily adequate reference here? Not only does the Weiss reference unfortunately lead Wikipedia readers to an article's abstract which states that "this article provides few definitive answers" but the article itself nowhere refers to the primary source/s for HIV as the cause of AIDS. Surely it is non-contentious that a secondary source for a reference should be able to do this. The Weiss reference not only fails to refer to the primary source/s, but is dated 1993, an incongruent ten years after HIV was discovered in 1983 and 7 years after it was named as the AIDS virus in 1986, and it is plainly a tertiary source. This matter requires no umbrage or rudeness, just an adequate reference that will not lead a lay reader to an apparently (and actually) inconclusive abstract and article as the reference to Weiss does. On reading the article itself one doubts that Weiss intended or would have regarded his article as such an appropriate reference. The next response seemed a strangely terse non sequitur: 13:46, 27 February 2010 Verbal (talk | contribs) (119,730 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 121.220.115.40; Restore ref, rm commentary . (TW)) It was followed by Scray's provision of another reference: 17:24, 27 February 2010 Scray (talk | contribs) (120,044 bytes) (a more recent reference explaining some current concepts explaining the link between HIV and AIDS) I read it and responded as follows: 02:07, 28 February 2010 Summary was: (References dated 9 and 26 years after Heckler announcement are as unsuitable here as papers written 9 or 26 years after the discovery of poliovirus would be as references for the cause of polio.) Edit was: Citation needed|reason=A secondary source reference which verifies an additional primary source for HIV as the cause of AIDS are both still indicated. The Weiss and Douek et al references are respectively dated 9 and 26 years after the Heckler announcement. They can not properly be cited as references for HIV as the cause of AIDS any more than papers written 9 or 26 years after the discovery of poliovirus can be a proper reference for the cause of poliomyelitis. They are also in any case both only tertiary sources. The 2010 Douek et al review itself does not give a reference for its strongest but nevertheless insufficient assertion that "HIV is the proximate cause of AIDS" - surely we are not looking for an inadequate reference for a merely proximate (q.v.) cause of AIDS, but an adequate reference for the proven actual cause of AIDS. All reasons given for the unsuitability and removal of the Weiss reference in previous edits remain valid and unaddressed. Please give cogent reasons for further edits on this matter, in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, and please, for the sake of Wikipedia credibility and integrity, leave 'citation needed' in place until until an adequate reference can be found. The next response by DD2K was another terse non sequitur, that like all except Scray's, addressed none of my reasoning. It referred to commentary when there plainly had been none - only the provision of Wikipedia's recommended reason/s in the reason parameter (and of course the reason parameter makes no difference to what the Wiki reader/user sees, as it is not displayed outside the Editing display). I began to suspect some edit warring/blanking: 02:13, 28 February 2010 DD2K (talk | contribs) (120,012 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 121.220.115.40; Removing unecessary commentary. (TW)) I responded as follows: 04:23, 28 February 2010 Summary was: (Restoration. Reversion was w/out consideration of points made; see Edit Warring guidelines. There had been no commentary; reason= parameter used as recommended in Template:Citation Needed guidelines.) My Edit was essentially the same as 02:07, 28 February 2010: (AIDS),Citation needed|reason=Valid secondary source reference which verifies a (preferably also cited) primary source for HIV as the cause of AIDS are both still indicated. The Weiss and Douek et al references are respectively dated 9 and 26 years after the Heckler announcement. They can not properly be cited as references here any more than papers written 9 or 26 years after the discovery of poliovirus can be proper references re the cause of poliomyelitis. They are also in any case both only tertiary sources. The 2010 Douek et al review itself does not give a reference for its strongest but nevertheless insufficient assertion that "HIV is the proximate cause of AIDS" - surely we are not looking for an inadequate reference for a merely proximate (q.v.) cause of AIDS, but an adequate reference for the proven actual cause of AIDS. All reasons given for the unsuitability and removal of the Weiss reference in previous edits remain valid and unaddressed. Please give cogent reasons for further edits on this matter, in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, and please, for the sake of Wikipedia credibility and integrity, leave 'citation needed' in place until until an adequate reference can be found. Nunh-huh returned with the following: 04:28, 28 February 2010 Nunh-huh (talk | contribs) (120,012 bytes) (discussion goes on talk pages, not in templates and edit summaries. If you have issues, discuss them on the talk page.) I had engaged in no discusssion, just the recommended provision of explanation in the reason parameter. No one had raised any issue over any of this in the Talk page; I had no issue other than a growing suspicion of blanking/warring, so I responded as follows: 07:20, 28 February 2010 Summary was: (Undid apparent blanking by Nunh-huh before report to Edit warring noticeboard. There's been no discussion as alleged, only (unaddressed) explanation and reasoning as recommended in Wiki documentation.) Edit was: failed verification|reason=Valid secondary source reference which verifies a (preferably also cited) primary source for HIV as the cause of AIDS are both still indicated. The Weiss and Douek et al references are respectively dated 9 and 26 years after the Heckler announcement. They can not properly be cited as references here any more than papers written 9 or 26 years after the discovery of poliovirus can be proper references re the cause of poliomyelitis. They are also in any case both only tertiary sources. The 2010 Douek et al review itself gives no reference for its strongest but nevertheless insufficient assertion that "HIV is the proximate cause of AIDS" - surely we are not looking for an inadequate reference for a merely proximate (q.v.) cause of AIDS, but an adequate reference for the proven actual cause of AIDS. All reasons given for the unsuitability and removal of the Weiss reference in previous edits remain valid and unaddressed. Please give cogent reasons for further edits on this matter, in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, and please, for the sake of Wikipedia credibility and integrity, leave 'citation needed' in place until until an adequate reference can be found. It was then that the apparently vexatious and pre-emptive request for a block on me must have been made, resulting in the following: 07:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at HIV. MastCell It was followed by yet another reversion from another editor: 08:10, 28 February 2010 Verbal (talk | contribs) (120,012 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 121.220.115.40; Rm extensive talk page material, discuss on talk. (TW))

- What can be behind these odd aversions to the provision of an adequate reference, and the self evidently improper manipulation of the blocking procedures? There is still no adequate reference for the simple but obviously important opening sentence on HIV.

Peter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.63.111 (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It now seems that what is behind it all is not an administrator being manipulated, but an administrator's perverse mauling of good faith as evidenced above, and by the same administrator's gratuitously extraneous semi protection of the HIV Article - and all because someone persists in reasoning the need for a reference that conforms with Wikipedia's policies.

What an opaquely irrational, unjust, self-defeating and shamefully sad travesty of its original ethos Wikipedia has become. Vale Wikipedia, R.I.P.

Peter (121.220.63.111 (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

MastCell's actions are in support of Wikipedia's principles. I'm glad that you found the edits I made constructive, but I'm frustrated by the disruptive nature of your comments. The validity of a reference is not dependent on when it is published - more recent publications can provide greater insight as the science matures. I added the references I did because I thought they were improvements, incremental though they were considering the wealth of information already contained in the rest of the article. There is a FAQ at the top of this page that was established by consensus to address commonly-asked questions like the one you're asking (about the established links between HIV and AIDS). I (and the many other WP editors) would be happy to work with you to improve WP further, but if you wish to continue this pattern of WP:Tendentious editing then I encourage you to take it elsewhere. -- Scray (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope I'm doing this right... (first timer)

Shortly after the viral capsid enters the cell, an enzyme called reverse transcriptase liberates the single-stranded (+)RNA genome from the attached viral proteins and copies it into a complementary DNA (cDNA) molecule. The process of reverse transcription is extremely error-prone, and the resulting mutations may cause drug resistance or allow the virus to evade the body's immune system. The reverse transcriptase also has ribonuclease activity that degrades the viral RNA during the synthesis of cDNA, as well as DNA-dependent DNA polymerase activity that copies the antisense cDNA strand into a sense DNA.

Hans von Trevor (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome, first timer!! I assume that you meant to suggest that the words "sense" and "antisense" were reversed in the cited text. I've fixed it now, I believe (please let me know if you think the result is not correct). Also, I removed the semiprotection template - I think you added that in error. -- Scray (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Verified?

How can you verify the date of the first observation of HIV? That seems like conjecture. That needs to be clarified for a variety of reasons. The testing necessary for this kind of confirmation was not available for the timescale presented, and don't see any links to significant sources. Considering the sensitive nature of this topic, it's worth it to be as thorough as humanly possible, and this seems too much like an easy answer to buy it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.27.175 (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

On what part of the article are you commenting, and what do you suggest as an alternative? -- Scray (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Add number needed to harm in per-act risk table

I think we should add the number needed to harm in another column in the table of per-act risk for acquisition of HIV. For instance, if 10 per 10,000 people are "harmed" by receptive penile-vaginal intercourse, then, if I'm correct, the number needed to harm is 1,000. I think it's more telling. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall having seen it reported this way - usually it's per n acts. Could you cite a reliable source for the "number needed to harm" approach to infection risk? -- Scray (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't need to be specified as number needed to harm. Rather, it would simply be more telling to also say that the risk is about one in one thousand by receptive penile-vaginal intercourse. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

HIV Risk Table

I deleted this section because:

1) Plays down the risks. In its sources there are info like this which were omitted in wiki:

“ For example, at a per-act risk of 2 per 100,000, a rate of engagement in sex of once a day (assuming constant risk) would result in infection of more than 7% of people within 10 years [2] ”

Or this:

“ RESULTS--Overall, 19 (12%) male partners and 82 (20%) female partners were infected with HIV, suggesting that... ”

[3]

2) WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE

3) Also there are contradictory info: [4] Phoenix of9 23:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC) NOTE THAT this study is from 2010, while the sources in the table uses studies from 1992! Phoenix of9 05:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) I don't object to sourced commentary being added to help readers make sense of the table; you're welcome to help with that.

(2) The page you linked doesn't prohibit providing sourced information about diseases. We're not telling people what to do here, just doing our best to provide unbiased information.

(3) I don't see any inconsistency between the table you removed and the article you linked. The table gives 50 infections per 10,000 exposures to an infected source for receptive anal intercourse without a condom, corresponding to a rate of 0.5%; this is within the 95% confidence intervals given by the article regardless of whether withdrawal occurs prior to ejaculation. For insertive anal intercourse, the table gives 6.5 infections per 10,000 exposures corresponding to a rate of 0.065%; the article you linked gives a higher rate for circumcised men and a lower rate for uncircumcised men, so presumably the average rate for all men is somewhere in between.

Based on the above I've restored the table. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

1) Then you will have to come up with a table that incorporates those and similar info.

2) The current table is biased, ie: plays down the risks.

3) Again, intervals were ignored in the table. 2.85% is almost 6 times greater than 0.5%.

4) If you want to add a table, please make changes, dont let a biased table sit there. Phoenix of9 12:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The information is accurate and properly cited. "Plays down the risk" is point of view and original research on YOUR part, which makes your arguments invalid. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

2.85% is almost 6 times greater than 0.5% is not POV, its numbers. The fact that certain info has been omitted from the table is not original research. It's against WP:NPOV to choose certain info over others. Phoenix of9 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

2.85% is the highest credible estimate in that source. Saying that it's "really" 2.85% misrepresents the risk by artificially inflating it. We could, with exactly as much credibility, choose the lowest credible number in the source. The 5% and the 95% numbers are (exactly) equally valid.

However, neither of the lowest nor the highest number is the best choice: the best choice is the source's preferred number, which is what we've been using. We chose it because the source chose it, not because it "downplayed" or "overstated" or did anything else. We're not trying to shape public health here: we're trying to accurately report whatever number the expert chose.

If you can make a credible case that the expert actually chose some other number, or if you have a concrete, specific improvement that you'd like to suggest, then I'd be happy to hear it, but so far, you just seem to be panicked that people will discover the actual facts, e.g., that unprotected penile-vaginal intercourse is about 100 times more likely to result in pregnancy than HIV transmission. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you not read? The source I was talking about is not even used in the table. So your claim "we chose it because the source chose it" is absolute nonsense. The number this source "chose" [5] is 1.43%, 3 times higher than 0.5 which is what is in the table. Phoenix of9 05:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh and Adrian J. Hunter, for insertive anal intercourse, my 2010 source gives 0.11% for circumsized men. That is 1.7 times higher than 1992 sourced 0.065%. Perhaps those who cant understand basic math shouldnt edit this article. Phoenix of9 05:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)