Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:HIV‎ | AIDS
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 15 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 23


AIDS public misperception

Re this edit: [1] by Wafulz which changed "There is also a perceived association between all male-male sexual behavior and AIDS, even sex between two uninfected men." to "There is also a perceived association between AIDS and male-male sexual behavior and AIDS." with edit summary "(redundant; wording)". I think it needs to be changed back. The wording was not redundant, and the meaning has changed. The next footnote provides the surprising information that many people think a man can catch AIDS from having sex with an uninfected man. This fact is reflected in the first sentence, but not in the second; an association or correlation between the two could well exist even though sex with uninfected people doesn't cause AIDS. --Coppertwig 22:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it require a citation then? I haven't heard of people assuming that gay sex causes AIDS.-Wafulz 12:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it has a citation, as I already said. The citation is Herek 1999 and is given by the first of three footnotes at the end of the following sentence. I don't think it's necessary to repeat the same superscript on two adjacent sentences (especially since the more <ref> superscripts, the more slowly the page loads, I believe). --Coppertwig 18:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread your comment. I've restored it with the citation and a minor reword. Could you clarify what the citation says exactly? The wording is still a bit ambiguous- do people think that if two gay men have sex, one of them can contract HIV?-Wafulz 19:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I see on rereading that my comment wasn't worded very clearly. Thanks for restoring the information. Are you sure we need two superscripts to Herek 1999 in two consecutive sentences? Herek 1999 says: "Yet, in our 1991 survey, roughly one-fifth (19%) of heterosexual respondents believed that a healthy man was almost sure to get AIDS or had a fairly strong chance of doing so if he had sex with an uninfected man, even if they used condoms." (italics in the original.) The 3rd footnote (Herek 2005) says, "A substantial minority erroneously believed [AIDS] could be contracted through sex with an uninfected partner ..." Perhaps all three footnotes are relevant to both sentences. Maybe it would be better to combine the sentences into a single paragraph to make it more clear that the footnotes apply to both. --Coppertwig 21:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge inappropriate

Aids and Hiv are two different illnessesTDN 22:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) is the disease generally accepted to result from HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infection. HIV is the cause; AIDS is the effect. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed – Do not merge. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

General text structure and style

Professional detail

In my profile is a link of my suggestion to make Wiki a source of academic information, not just a place anyone can write anything. Applied to this article, I ask, where is the theory of AIDS? What happens in cells? How drugs decelerate HIV? I'd like to be able to read Wikipedia as 1000 books from the university library on Medicine. I didn't read this article at all, but I just assume there isn't even what medicines work on AIDS. Wikipedia articles are just overall representations made by uneducated people. Please improve this. Teemu Ruskeepää 13:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! If you do some basic searching or click on some of the links within this article, you'd notice that all the information you want is present.
  1. By the 'theory of AIDS' do you mean its origin? If so, try reading AIDS origin.
  2. Want more detail about the cells? Check out HIV, which has much more biological depth.
  3. 'How do drugs decelerate HIV'? Well, I thought that both AIDS and HIV had a pretty good summary, but perhaps Antiretroviral drug will be more to your liking.
  4. 'Medicines that work on AIDS' are kind of varying, because everyone reacts differently to HIV as well as the medicines. Wish there was a simple answer there.
Does this help? As for your assumption that 'Wikipedia articles are just overall representations made by uneducated people', I don't think thats true at all. For one, I happen to know at least one specialist doctor and one field researcher contributed and continue to contribute to this article heavily. Second of all Wikipedia doesn't care what kind of degree you have or don't have in the end as long as your contributions are valuable. Third, I actually consider this article to be one of those gold standards of an excellence on Wikipedia - it is well referenced, comprehensive and in depth - all on a very complicated and controversial subject as well. You also might notice that this is a featured article, meaning a good deal of other Wikipedians agree. If you have any other comments relating to this article, feel free to let us know. JoeSmack Talk 15:18, 2 December 2007

The statement that most new cases of AIDs transmission are primarily heterosexual may be true. But, according to the CDC, they are the result of receptive sex ( that means women if you are heterosexual )and most probably anal with a ratio of 5 to 1 (See transmission box in article).

Um, can you give a link to this information? Seems really, really incorrect to me. JoeSmack Talk 13:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's also an interesting example of a form of lying-with-statistics favored by AIDS denialists. Accepting for a moment the figures given, it amounts to one transmission per 30,000 acts of intercourse. Now, there are 30,000 acts of intercourse nightly in every major city, yet the figures are presented in a way that makes a single transmission falsely seem improbable ("Who would have intercourse three times a day for 27 years?!? Why, that proves that sexual intercourse doesn't transmit HIV!") - Nunh-huh 21:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You're forgetting that not all the intercourse happening "in every major city" are between people with AIDs. There are still quite a few people without AIDs having sex. Furthemore, the real problem is not AIDs denial, it's anal sex denial. That denial keeps this disease spreading. Check out this link from NIH:

  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 
No, I didn't "forget" anything. Over 100,000 people in NYC alone are infected with HIV. 30,000 is conservative. - Nunh-huh 16:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anal intercourse? Doctors warn that anal intercourse has a high risk because a lot of HIV positive patients surveyed listed it as a sexual act that they had been doing when they got the disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this article help AIDS patient?

I have found an article relating to CD4+ T cell and wondering if it helps. Since this is the only one publishing about Citrus grandis pericarpium and no second article to confirm their work, I leave this with experts to look after

Oki doki, I found more articles relating to this issues. It seems to me that it is the compound citrus pectin that could be beneficial to the human immune system —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So does for Thymic Protein A —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fundamental Error in Aids Article

The intellectual integrity of Wikipedia is unsatisfactory, as exemplified by the first and fundamental statement in the Aids Article: "Acquired immune deficiency syndrome or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS or Aids) is a collection of symptoms and infections resulting from the specific damage to the immune system caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in humans,[1] and similar viruses in other species (SIV, FIV, etc.)." (1. Marx, J. L. (1982). "New disease baffles medical community". Science 217 (4560): 618–621.) Reference 1 does not even mention HIV. The first isolation of a virus now referred to as a human immunodeficiency virus was not reported until the following year: Barre-Sinoussi, F. et al. (1983). "Isolation of a T-Lymphotropic Retrovirus from a Patient at Risk for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)" Science 220 (4599): 868-871. Here, the authors conclude that this virus isolated from a "patient with signs and symptoms that often precede the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)"..."may be involved in several pathological syndromes, including AIDS." Making the claim that HIV causes AIDS cannot be supported by a report preceding the discovery of HIV. Furthermore, the claim that HIV causes AIDS cannot be made on the condition of a correlation between a HIV virus isolated from a patient with AIDS symptoms. That correlation is causation is a well understood fallacy of logic. If someone is going to claim that HIV causes AIDS, I expect they can kindly direct me to the reference in the scientific literature which gives evidence for this causation. After reading the original scientific literature myself, my conclusion so far is that this report does not exist. Why is the reference for the fundamental assertion in the AIDS article wrong if this is "one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community"? Lyongaultier (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

The problem may arise from the fact that Wikipedia is not a venue for AIDS-denialist propaganda, despite occasional efforts like yours above. There is more information available at AIDS reappraisal if you like, though. MastCell Talk 05:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Sir: In contrary, Wikipedia can be a venue for AIDS-denialist propaganda IF AIDS reappraisal is present. I would expect people would atleast read a reference (e.g. reference 1) before they refer to it, including yourself. My statements above are completely factual, logical, and referenced. I would direct you to reading the scientific literature because this is the authoritative source. If Wikipedia is interested in upholding the intellectual integrity of AIDS and correcting this embarrassing mistake, I will provide you with two suggestions: 1) Replace incorrect reference 1 with the reference in the original scientific literature which provides evidence for the claim, which is made in the first sentence of AIDS, that HIV causes AIDS or 2) Replace the logically incorrect phrase "caused" by a logically correct phrase such as "widely believed by the scientific community" or "correlated to" in the event you cannot provide the requested reference Lyongaultier (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC).
Yes, right after I insert that the Earth is "widely believed by the scientific community" to orbit the sun... In all seriousness: the scientific literature states that HIV causes AIDS. It's inherent in every peer-reviewed medical journal article on AIDS published since the mid-1980's, which leads me to question your impassioned plea for "scientific integrity". But very well - I'll alter the ref in question to point to the NIH's summary of the scientific evidence on HIV as the cause of AIDS. MastCell Talk 07:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You might also check the archives of this talk page; the whole 'caused/widely believed by the scientific community' debate has been discussed many, many times. 'Caused' is the wording that is consistently settled on for good reason. JoeSmack Talk 19:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, first comment on Wiki, so please be easy on me, if I failed to follow all the posting rules. I have to agree with Lyongaultier. In fact, if you read the introduction of the article you referenced to, it says the following in the second paragraph: "The evidence for HIV's primary role in the pathogenesis of AIDS is reviewed elsewhere", followed by a list of unspecific references. And if I understand the workings of a scientific article correctly, there has to be a reference to the scientific paper proving what is postulated in the article. Otherwise you simply can't write it. However, I found another article where someone already has done all the work (; in the section "Conclusion"). ANDSENS (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

nature article [2000] link

The link to the nature article PDF hopefully citing that HIV causes AIDS actually justifies the need to further debate, rather than saying there isn't a problem anymore with that line of discussion. Thank you! Wikipedia rocks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Notes and References Section out of date

I noticed that more than half of the notes and references listed for this article are older than 1999. Some are even from the 80s! I agree with Joe Smack- these are too old to be trusted and should be deleted.Just-unsigned (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think they should be deleted. Some back up more current research (being cited with their more recent counterparts) and some of them don't matter if their old (refs about history for instance). If you can find more recently research for the clearly old studies in medical science, I think they should be updated but I don't think anything should be removed at this point. JoeSmack Talk 21:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
And please, keep your discussion to ONE talk page, not both HIV and AIDS's. It really makes it hard to follow the dialog. JoeSmack Talk 21:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll submit ideas for change to any article that I feel needs improvement thank you. Which one do you post to Joe?Just-unsigned (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Shrug, It doesn't matter to me as long as it can be followed in one place. JoeSmack Talk 22:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
How can a reference be out of date if the knowledge being referred to is still current? It doesn't matter when the reference was created if the content is still relevant. List those references that you feel are no longer relevant with a list of references that will superceded the older ones with more recent developments, then we can discuss. --Bob (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move of one section

AIDS cannot be transmitted. It really makes no sense to me that the HIV transmission information has been shoved into this article, and it's contributing to an undesirable content fork. I propose that we move all the "Transmission and Prevention" information to the HIV article (in substantially its current form), and then substitute a dramatically shorter section that basically says, "AIDS cannot be transmitted, but HIV can -- so go read the HIV article to learn more about transmission and prevention." Does anyone object? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Information on transmission is usually treated in discussions of diseases as well as in discussion of the viruses that cause them. It really has to be that way, since the interaction of infective organism and host as well as other factors play a role in transmissibility. Chickenpox has, for example, an incubation period, but varicella zoster virus (per se) doesn't. Similarly, HIV infection has a window period, while HIV (per se) doesn't. Repetition of information is not a content fork unless the information differs. And, of course, AIDS can be transmitted: it's an infectious disease. It's a transmissible disease. And just as AIDS is a transmissible disease, HIV is a transmissible virus. - Nunh-huh 09:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It passed featured status with the transmission section present. I feel it is important to include transmission and prevention in this article, as it is something that has to be considered when discussing AIDS. Knowledge of transmission and prevention reduces risk of contracting the virus and thus AIDS. In its present form, it is fine. --Bob (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand and accept the goal of not disrupting a FA-status article. However, do you think that it makes sense to have more information about HIV transmission and prevention in the AIDS article than in the HIV article? Because that's what we have now... WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The transmission and prevention article is written from a more lay-person point of view than the article on the virus itself. It also incorporates information on prevention strategies that have been employed to curb the AIDS pandemic as addressed in the media, GOs and NGOs. Thus, it belongs here. --Bob (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Grcampbell that the transmission information fits in well here. It makes sense to me that it's a disease and that it can be transmitted, and that transmission can be seen as being more relevant to the disease than to the virus itself. Transmission involves an interaction between human bodies and the virus, not just the virus by itself. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


Now I see what you are talking about. This is first time I saw template visible only while editing. Honestly, didn't even look at the top, just skipped to the end of the section... Anyhow, TED talk link I think gives quite interesting perspective on the topic, and should be included there.

Lakinekaki (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and put the link. Lakinekaki (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good link in this context. This is exactly the sort of academic view that ought to be included in the article text, properly sourced, if it has enough currency in the academic community that it fulfills WP:WEIGHT. If this is one economist's idiosyncratic view and has not been published, discussed, supported by others, etc then it really doesn't belong in the article, neither as sourced content nor as an external link. Just my 2 cents though. MastCell Talk 18:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
ditto what MastCell stated. --Bob (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. Just-unsigned (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


The following links need disambig:
-Edward Green
-expiration date
-in utero
Randomblue (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Tetrasilver Tetroxide

This has pobably been discussed before because reports have been around on the internet for years, but I couldn't find anything on Wikipedia about it. Is it accurate? Here is the patent[2]. -Anon. 17:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's complete garbage. There are serious questions about whether the product actually exists (that is, that the product they claim to make is actually any different from colloidal silver) and widely agreed that only thing you'll get out of it is Argyria. See this external link for some more information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
More generally, patents are not reliable sources of medical information. One should be doubly skeptical of exceptional claims such as those made in the patent you reference. MastCell Talk 21:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Control by other means

This section in the article is grammatically incorrect, incoherent, and doesn't even make sense. Is there someone who would like to explain the pupose of it before I delete it? (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your description is actually generous. I'm going to delete it; if anyone wants to try to justify its inclusion they may as well do it after it's gone as before. - Nunh-huh 19:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I still feel as though the sexual contact section should at least mention the possiblity that in some cultures anal intercourse has been used as a form of birth control. As I have shown in previous links, the subject has been discussed by most major research institutions as a factor in the spread of HIV.Just-unsigned (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an excellent article on the subject:

http://www. associatedcontent .com/article/511395/some_myths_about_aids.html Just-unsigned (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a transcript from a forum on the subject by a number of highly respected AIDS researchers:{334486FC-248B-47E9-A359-A8371E7CC3BD}Just-unsigned (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

list fo abbrevs

hey everyone. i was just over reading War in Darfur, and i noticed their nifty little table of abbreviations in the beginning of the article. if we put something like this in the article, would anyone object? i think it would be helpful in that it would make the article more approachable. feel free to add or take away from the list. JoeSmack Talk 15:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

List of abbreviations used in this article

AIDS: Acquired immune deficiency syndrome
HIV: Human immunodeficiency virus
CD4+: T helper cells
CCR5: Chemokine (C-C motif) receptor 5
CDC: Centers for Disease Control
WHO: World Health Organization
PCP: Pneumocystis pneumonia
TB: Tuberculosis
....and so forth.

Sounds good to me. Just-unsigned (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Questionable sources

Hi everybody, a proposal is being made to ease the current restrictions on questionable sources in the verifiability policy. I think editors here might have a useful viewpoint on this proposal. See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability Tim Vickers (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Verification is very important. Otherwise, facts are conveniently overlooked to push political agenda or personal opinion. Just-unsigned (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed linking to British Red Cross HIV Work

Coinciding with World AIDS Day on 1 December, the Red Cross kicked off a major online campaign to raise awareness and spark debate about HIV/AIDS among young people in the UK and overseas. The HIV: What’s the story? campaign is based around a microsite. The site also contains real-life clips from around the world of young people discussing their understanding of the disease. Social networking sites like Bebo and Facebook will play a huge role in the campaign, encouraging young people to share information, show their support and find out how they can help.

The British Red Cross has recently added an entry regarding their HIV work to Wikipedia (British Red Cross HIV Work) and would be very grateful if the editors of this page could link to or reference it in their article. Such a link would help people find out more about what the Red Cross is doing to combat the stigma and discrimination around HIV and AIDS and how they can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JLloyd21 (talkcontribs) 13:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

World Point of View?? --Bob (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Stigma neutrality

I added a POV flag because the stigma section is clearly rather biased. If you read through it, especially when it goes on to say that conservatives are biased against homosexuals for what it effectively says are unfair reasons. Rather, from a conservative point of view, that argument could be refuted by noting that homosexuals do have a much higher rate of aids than heterosexuals in population studies, and, as a result, hospitals often screen out homosexuals due to their high rate of HIV infection when they try to give blood. That's not because a person fundamentally disagrees with being homosexual, (although that often follows), it is based on fact and recognizing that homosexuals, on average, do lead a rather more sexually active lifestyle than heterosexuals, especially monogamous traditional heterosexual couples.Merechriolus (talk) 05:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And I reverted your tag. You're representing your POV that has nothing to do with the article. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I think merechriolus has a valid point. Read through that section and tell me that it doesn't explicitly say that conservatives are more likely to be uninformed about aids, while the very .pdf file the section cites at the end contradicts that, saying:"The fact that self-described liberalism-conservatism was not a significant predictor suggests that these systems are mainly based on moral judgements rather than political beliefs". Therefore, there is no evidence to support this claim, because it actually contradicts the citations. It is, therefore, POV unless further citations are provided. To that end, I am going to remove the biased section until REAL citations that support the assumption are provided. (citation —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It's very interesting that an "anonymous poster" agreed with Merechriolus and then stated they were going to remove a part about conservative viewpoints, yet Merechriolus removed the noted portion 10 minutes later. Agreeing with yourself to make a content move is, uhh, a pretty asinine move. Baegis (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
That's my brother. You need an account to modify the article, so I did it. Please, don't use that rationale for reverting my edit, though. If you want to revert the edit, please provide you reason here. Anyway, I find your relations with OrangeMarlin equally as suspicious.Merechriolus (talk) 06:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
And by the way, if you don't provide rationale for the edit revert within an hour, I will change it back. Please don't make this like Homeopathy, discuss reasoning beforehand.Merechriolus (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You could stand to take some of your own advice about editing without discussion. Anyway, both of the account's editing patterns are too similar for my tastes. But that's off topic. And I am chalking this up to increase my user page numbers. Baegis (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Baegis, my brother and I have already provided appropriate rationale. Again, you said absoultely nothing to support your argument for keeping the POV. I'm going to request, again, that you provide rationale for your revert, or I will change it back. And by the way, I like your smooth move on your talk page.Merechriolus (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The sock puppet case will be handled on the appropriate page. And if you can't sign your own name, you won't appear on my talk page. That being said, the comment is clearly backed up by the sources, of which there are 3. I didn't even get a full two pages into the first reference before it was abundantly clear the fact in question is well sourced. Sorry to say, but it appears you are incorrect. It stays. Baegis (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Baegis, if you would actually read all the citations, you'd notice that the only time they reference conservatism relative to being uninformed about aids is when they say that conservatism is not a factor in being informed, I believe on page 16 of the citation. It is abundantly clear to me that you are incorrect. Read my brother's comment, where he says: "the very .pdf file the section cites at the end contradicts that, saying:"The fact that self-described liberalism-conservatism was not a significant predictor suggests that these systems are mainly based on moral judgements rather than political beliefs". Therefore, there is no evidence to support this claim, because it actually contradicts the citations. It is, therefore, POV unless further citations are provided. To that end, I am going to remove the biased section until REAL citations that support the assumption are provided." Just because something says it will study conservatism doesn't mean they were right, and just because it has 3 citations that are studies doesn't mean that those citations are correct citations.Merechriolus (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm reverting the page now. PLEASE resolve this discussion before reverting the edit I'm about to make.Merechriolus (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Significant is the word that you are missing in your statement. The article states and so does your alter-ego, that it is not a significant factor. Not significant. But it does not state that it is not a factor. If you read the statistical results you will see the same thing. It's a factor, but not a huge one. Btw, read the other sources as well. Specifically, the first full paragraph on page 2 of ref #132. Baegis (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You're basing your entire argument on a single word? There ARE no statistical results. (Significant is in my quote, though, so I'm not sure which statement you;re referring to...)Anyway, on #132 Page 2, the people are , 1.referred to as anti-gay activists, not conservatives, 2.while the activist quoted may be unfairly blaming homosexuals, he isn't quantitatively incorrect anywhere or explicitly incorrect, and 3., that's one single activist. (I've already read all 3). If you're referring to Patrick Buchanan, he's on the first page, and my same three points also apply to him. Again, the only times conservatives are referred to, no quantitative data is presented.Merechriolus (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
And Btw, thank you for totally ignoring me and reverting my edit anyway.Merechriolus (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Listiness in Symptoms and complications section

Why are these sections written as bullets instead of paragraphs? There isn't a clear reason for the listiness, and I don't see why they can't just be paragraphs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been cleaning up this article too. I'm concerned that it really isn't FA quality, yet it is. There are poor citations (some of which come from some odd sources), difficult writing (see the section on Stigma), and dead links. I think this article needs an overhaul. Maybe that's what you started!!!! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I haven't even started on the writing, but I saw that, too :-) Easy stuff first; I thought it needed a FAR, but I actually think now it's not that bad, and a bit of sustained attention to cleanup, shining a light on the problems, should suffice. Get out your Diberri tool :-) I don't see a reason that sections need to be listy rather than straight paragraphs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Diberri cite tool

For clean, consistent refs, use the drop down menu to PubMed, and plug in the PMID for a cite journal template. Diberri. I've cleaned up the refs; using the tool will result in a consistent citation style, and save your fingers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Did I ever mention that I'm in love with that tool???  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Then you should get out more often :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a world outside of Wikipedia? Really? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
With real tools, even. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing on the history of AIDS?

I can't believe there's nothing here on the history of AIDS, especially the social aspects of it. Stuff like Reagan refusing to recognize it and everyone considering it a gay disease at first, and then, due to the activism of the gay community, it finally becomes more accepted in society, research is done on it, treatments are released, etc. The political and social aspects are a big part of the disease too, so this should definitely appear either here, or in the origins of AIDS article. And if there is already an article on this stuff, please make sure to better link it to these ones, because I couldn't find it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue bear sd (talkcontribs) 16:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That would make for an interesting article, if you are up to the project. This article, though, focuses on the disease itself and only lightly touches associated topics. This is as it should be; otherwise, this article (and many others) gets bogged down with too much information. If there is not already a "history of AIDS" page, there should be. And if one does exist, it certainly should be linked to this article. TechBear (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, a history page would be in order, but it would have to be done separately. Many sub-topics of aids such as Aids in Africa already have their own pages.Merechriolus (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDMOS, this article should have a History section; using summary style as in Tourette syndrome or Asperger syndrome should work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This article was an FA before WP:MEDMOS. For a history section:

In June 1981, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta, USA, published a report about five men in Los Angeles who had contracted Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) without an identifiable cause (MMWR Weekly, June 5, 1981). This was the climax of many reports of other rare life-threatening opportunistic infections. The CDC thus formed a Task Force on Kaposi's Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections (KSOI) (Regional Oral History Office, 1995). A number of theories were developed about the possible cause of these opportunistic infections and cancers, such as infection with cytomegalovirus, the use of amyl nitrite or butyl nitrate "poppers" and "immune overload" (Gottlieb et al., 1981; Goedert et al., 1982; Shearer et al., 1982). In June 1982, a report of a group of cases amongst gay men in Southern California suggested that a sexually transmitted infectious agent might be the etiological agent (MMWR Weekly, 1982). By August 1982, the disease was being referred to by it's new name of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) (Marx et al., 1982). An anagram of AIDS, SIDA, was then created for use in French (Syndrome d'Immuno-Déficience Acquise) and Spanish (Síndrome de Inmunodeficiencia Adquirida) (Direction Générale De La Santé, 1982). In May 1983, doctors at the Institute Pasteur in France reported that they had isolated a new retrovirus from lymphoid ganglions that they believed was the cause of SIDA (Barre-Sinoussi et al., 1983). The virus was later named lymphadenopathy-associated virus (LAV) and a sample was sent to the CDC, which was later passed to the National Cancer Institute, USA (Connor and Kingman, 1988). In May 1984, Dr Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute also isolated a virus that caused AIDS, and named it Human T-cell Lymphotropic Virus-III (HTLV-III) (Popovic et al., 1984). In January 1985 a number of more detailed reports were published concerning LAV and HTLV-III, and by March it was clear that the viruses were the same, from the same source, and was the etiological agent of AIDS (Marx, 1985; Chang et al., 1993). In May 1986, the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses ruled that both names should be dropped and a new name, HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus), be used (Coffin et al., 1986).

--Bob (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

MEDMOS sections

Per WP:MEDMOS ([3]), why are there no sections on Prognosis and Screening/prevention and Mechanism/pathophysiology? That material is merged or combined differently; is there a compelling reason (other than this being an older FA)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe this was made an FA before that proposal came to light. --Bob (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Updating needed

Eubulides (talk · contribs) (Mr Epidemiology in my book) mentioned on my talk page that an update to 2007 data is needed here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I started adding some of the data from the 2007 report (ref name = UNAIDS2007); since the numbers are all dropping, someone needs to explain the drop somewhere in the text, and update all of Epidemiology. This articles looks to be seriously outdated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this article requires an FAR. It almost seems like it was written pre-WP:MEDMOS, and a lot of strange edits have been added without serious review. I tried to clean up some of the sections, but the writing just needs a lot of work. What do you think? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
A FAR is at least a month-long process; better to try to get things corrected via talk page discussion, and only go to FAR if all else fails. I don't think it's warranted yet, and it won't get the article fixed faster. Maybe you can get some attention out of the apathetic MED Project. But the article is really in need of a tune up and update. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Fresh restart on aids POV

Requesting comment as of 3/10/08 because, as I have stated [here], my edits have been reverted again, without any rationale provided to refute my argument that it is POV, and not even any comment at all. My rationale for removing the phrase in question is below; the link provided above to the administrator's noticeboard is for reference.Merechriolus (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Allright, nevermind. If it takes this long, then by the time anyone gets around to commenting it's too late.Merechriolus (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Quoting the wikipedia policy for Tendentious Editing: "the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it". No rationale has, of yet, been provided that is valid rationale. Furthermore, Wikipedia:verifiability says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." The only evidence given in the citations says that Conservatism/Liberalism is not a factor, therefore, this statement is not correct. It therefore should not be on the wiki unless an editor gives good rationale for keeping it. Because of the 3 revisions rule, I am unable to revert this edit without being nincriminated, and therefore I will not. However, I would like to have an outside source come and review the facts:The "stigma" section says that conservatives are more likely to be uneducated about aids, whereas the very citations it uses say that political affiliation is not a factor. (Page 16 of citastion 135, final paragraph on the page) The actual quote is "the fact that self-described liberalism-conservatism was not a significant predictor suggests that these systems are based on moral judgments rather than political beliefs". Therefore, the phrase in the article saying "Those most likely to hold misconceptions about HIV transmission and to harbor HIV/AIDS stigma are less educated people and people with high levels of religiosity or conservative political ideology." Is INCORRECT when it includes conservatives. This is my rationale for deleting the four words "or conservative political ideology". Please provide yours before reverting edits, because, as I said, the responsibility to include information is with the includer, not the denier.(Merechriolus (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Orangemarlin has removed the entire paragraph in which the statement is question was contained. I will wait 24 hours to see if he reinstates the statement in any form; if he does not, I will declare this thread moot. If he reinstates said statements, I will continue to pursue the removal of the POV. If he later restores the phrase in question after 24 hours, I will contact an admin directly. If, by 10:00 PM of Tuesday, March 11th, the phrase is still not restored, I will withdraw current pursuits and requests relating to the phrase in question. I'd just like to thank Orangemarlin for coming around and making this easier for all of us here at wikipedia.Merechriolus (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Stop the wikilawyering. Any further uncivil commentary and lacking good faith is not doing anything good for you. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Merechriolus. I discussed this in a new section below (see Stigma). I didn't see your section at first. Orangemarlin has indicated why he removed the paragraph below. He doesn't intend to restore it. Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No one owns this article. Myself included!!!  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Merechriolus and I agree with you. If we didn't, we would have brought it up. There is consensus. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am glad that we have finally reached agreement on this, but I'm just disappointed in both the amount of time it took, the number of times my edits were reverted (5 total and 2 without anyone even providing reason in the talk page), and the fact that an administrator never directly commented on the talk page after all that time. Anyway, it's been a day, so I'm removing the RfC tag and closing my inquiry on the Admin Noticeboard.Merechriolus (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


The stigma section contains this statement:

Those most likely to hold misconceptions about HIV transmission and to harbor HIV/AIDS stigma are less educated people and people with high levels of religiosity or conservative political ideology.

Perhaps this should re-worded. The current wording suggests that less educated people are much more likely than more educated people to hold misconceptions. One of the articles cited also says that being female or black also puts you in this category. (It actually says that.) Obviously we wouldn't add those terms into this sentence, though. Let's change this sentence so it has the type of neutrality that would be requisite for adding those other characteristics. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The current wording suggests that less educated people are much more likely than more educated people to hold misconceptions - yes, I believe that was the intent. What's your point?
One of the articles cited also says that being female or black also puts you in this category. - Which article says this? Please quote it exactly. Raul654 (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe his point is that all people, including those that are highly educated, can have misconceptions. His point is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was rather vague in my first post. The article is the one currently cited as citation 135, found here [4]. See the bottom of the first column on the first page. It appears that majority of the information I quoted above is from this statement:
Inaccurate beliefs about HIV transmission through unprotected sex were predicted by socioeconomic status (lower educational level and income), gender (being female), race (being black), religiosity, personal concern about contracting AIDS, and lack of knowledge about HIV transmission through casual contact.
JBFrenchhorn (talk) 07:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You said: "One of the articles cited also says that being female or black also puts you in this category." - if by "this category" you mean uneducated people, then you have totally misunderstood the above passage and you need to go learn what a predictor is. If by "this category" you meant people who are statistically more-likely-than-others to have misconceptions about HIV, then you have correctly understood the above passage. Either way, what is currently written in this article correctly represents what that source says. Raul654 (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is the external jump (that I removed yesterday) back at the bottom of this section? See also and further templates belong at the top of sections (see WP:GTL) and links to external sites belong either in External links (WP:EL) or in citations or further reading. The text currently consisting of an external jump could be converted to a referenced statement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I underrstood the statement correctly. Shall we add those additional characteristics into the article? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Orangemarlin just removed that sentence from the text. In the edit summary, he stated a good reason for doing so. Issue resolved. Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I could see of the literature, you could pull articles to support any POV on this topic. At that point, you either mention all POV's, or delete it. It is clear that there are trends that less educated and more "conservative" or religious individuals believe that AIDS is exclusively a gay disease or some other unsupported belief. However, I couldn't find a "conclusive" article. For a medical article, it is clear that this is not worth the editing energy, and we should stick with science and medicine. Thanks for your support of my removing the sentence. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Very important subjects not covered

The text of the article has a single sentence regarding anal intercourse under the topic of "sexual contact". ONE sentence. It simply says that it is the most risky. Absolutely no explaination as to WHY it is more risky. This article contains literally hundreds of words describing the science of Aids in minute detail. There is a very large section devoted to "economic impact" of Aids, but a single sentence concerning the most dangerous sex act one can do with regard to transmission. And a number appears in an info box. Questions that should be addressed: Why is it more risky than vaginal intercourse? How prevailant is it? In which cultures? What impact has it had? Can it be a factor in places like Africa that coincide with the highest rates of infection in the world? Has stigma had an effect on collecting data? What percentage of heterosexuals perform this act regularly? Are condoms used as often during this act or is it performed as birth control when no condom is available? I would suggest that answers to questions concerning the most dangerous form of sexual contact would do a lot more to inform people trying to avoid getting Aids than a thousand words about the economic impact of Aids. Needle re-use should also be covered in depth as well. Elaboration on one of the types of transmission that appears in the info box is already a large part of this article- "mother to child transmission" is one of the factors listed in the info box (as childbirth) and also has a lengthy description under it's own heading in the text. Why not the others? Are they less important? Or just more controversial? In short, I think that the most important information about Aids is exactly how it spreads so people can protect themselves and others—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I just dropped in here, but I agree with the points made above. Transmission routes should be covered.CynRNCynRN (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)After a more thorough read through, it seems to be a very well written and complete article. Still, some of the suggestions above could be included.CynRNCynRN (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone like to write a section with information about the different forms of transmission?Just-unsigned (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

More statistics on oral intercourse?

Can we get more than just 1 reference on HIV transmission rates with respect to oral intercourse? And a dedicated section for each method of transmission? 1x[infection]/10000x[oral exposures] on the chart seems deceptively low even for a low-risk activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Pre-December-2007 forecasts were inaccurate

This change to the lead added the text "AIDS death toll in Africa may reach 90-100 million by 2025." and cited 2005 and 2006 estimates to that effect. However, these estimates were based on old data that has since been substantially revised downward (see: McNeil DG Jr (2007-11-20). "U.N. agency to say it overstated extent of H.I.V. cases by millions". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-03-18. ), and those old forecasts are now questionable. I removed the questionable claim. If/when newer forecasts become available we should use them instead. Eubulides (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for a volunteer to elaborate on the types of transmission listed briefly in the infobox. Does anyone else want to see this information made available? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you asking? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see my above suggestion titled "Very important subjects not covered". Basically, I'd like to see the same attention to detail that has been given to describing "mother to child transmission" in the text of the article applied to the other forms of transmission listed in the infobox.I would suggest that Bob would be a good person to write the new sections.Just-unsigned (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

the templates boxes appear funny on my firefox

all of the templates boxes are really messed up on my firefox. Anyone else having overlapping problems? For example, the spoken box is right on top of the AIDs template. Tkjazzer (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • There often are problems with FireFox, (see my user page!), but I can't see one here; the templates look fine with both Explorer and FireFox on my screen. Graham. --GrahamColmTalk 22:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem should be fixed now. --Bob (talk) 05:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Aids POV

You are incorrect in your decision to remove the aids POV tag. You neglected to verify the validity of the citations, and upon my brother's examination, the citations actually contradict the statement saying that conservatives are uneducated about aids. Per his request, I will be removing the text in error. It is incorrect, misleading, and contradicts citations. If you contest that edit, I will appeal it to your superiors.Merechriolus (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "superiors" here; if you feel the tag merits inclusion, argue your case on the talk page, citing & observing policy. El_C 05:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I know my way around here, don't worry about me.Merechriolus (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not worried. El_C 06:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I know, I just hate it when these people log off as soon as they make their edits.Merechriolus (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd address those sock accusations before I start running around yelling to the "superiors". Baegis (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi baegis, I'd like you to PROVIDE RATIONALE for reverting my edit.Merechriolus (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what that means. Please sign your edits using four tildes. Thanks. El_C 06:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I meant that when Marlin made this edit, he later became inactive and now cannot provide relevant input.Merechriolus (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well, maybe his cat was on the phone, or something. El_C 07:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
That cat is always tying up my phone line. And it keeps editing Wikipedia too. I personally think AIDS is caused by an experiment gone awry by the Military Industrial complex of the US, but the cat insists on verified and reliable sources. I can't stand that cat.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
God, I know. My iguana keeps reminding users to use those same sources and he keeps overruling what I really want to include. Why can't this place be more like conservapedia so we can just put any random, half-formed thought we have into the article? Baegis (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Blame it all on the Rouge admins. They don't want "The Truth" here at Wikipedia. It's all a conspiracy. -- Fyslee / talk 18:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's time an admin gives Merechriolus a time out. He's now attacking other editors, since his POV is just not accepted by the wealth of science that counters his right-wing agenda.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's time one of you people directly addressed what I'm going at. One more time? Yes! IM BEGGING one of you to give a valid quantitative example of how what you people are defending is not POV itself.Merechriolus (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"The fact that self-described liberalism-conservatism was not a significant predictor suggests that these systems are mainly based on moral judgements rather than political beliefs". Therefore, there is no evidence to support this claim, because it actually contradicts the citations. It is, therefore, POV unless further citations are provided. To that end, I am going to remove the biased section until REAL citations that support the assumption are provided."Merechriolus (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

<RI> Sounds like a threat to violate WP:3RR OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I;m trying to control myself, please forgive me If I use all caps, but, THAT'S A QUOTE. A quote is not something that I am about to do, it's something that has already been said and does not state my current intentions.Merechriolus (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"I think it's time an admin gives Merechriolus a time out. He's now attacking other editors, since his POV is just not accepted by the wealth of science that counters his right-wing agenda." Alright, marley, look. I have presented evidence for making a deletion of a handful of words. I have refuted every argument made up to deny it, and yet you still want to cling on to the conservatives being poorly informed about homosexuals. Please, for once, ignore everything before now: The facts are there. There is no data supporting the statement about conservatives. It does not, therefore, deserve to be there. Just that one statement! Your responsibility is to make the wiki NPOV, so why won't you?Merechriolus (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, the citations actually contradict the statement by saying that political parties were a non-factor, although I have said that about 40 times now.Merechriolus (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You've now reached a level of tendentious. Please stay off my talk page, and take your POV to the articles talk page. And it starts now. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You know what? If people will be like this and totally blow me off, then maybe I will email this discussion to an admin. I made an argument for deleting something which you people fought against with ridiculous vigor. I just wanted to remove one phrase, but obviously, you can't do that on wikipedia, because it automatically conflicts with a rather apparent, at this point, agenda.Merechriolus (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, there it is. The reference to the great big cabal that runs Wikipedia as the reason why someone's edits were not accepted unquestioned. Much like Godwin's Law, it will always rear its ugly head when these conversations continue unchecked. But you are onto something with the agenda part. We do have an ulterior motive; building an encyclopedia is our goal. You have had two editors tell you that your edit was incorrect. I don't know what else you need. Baegis (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Have you ever considered that two people can both be wrong? Neither of you has refuted the evidence I provided. This is incorrect, and therefore POV, by wikipedia rules, so the fact that you two are so fixed on keeping it there is erroneous and actually obstructs the building of the encycloepdia. Please reply to this with a counterargument to my evidence, or I will ignore posts that are not on the subject of the aids argument at hand.Merechriolus (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
At one time, there was a reference listed that backed up the statement that right-wing nutbars (aka conservative political ideologists) were more likely to harbor AIDS-prejudice. Unfortunately, over time, many references have been removed... However, Orangemarlin has rewritten that section to a higher standard since. --Bob (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Bob, please refrain from calling others names. Calling conservatives "right wing nutbars" is a personal attack and in violation of wikipedia policy.Just-unsigned (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not about holding prejudice, but about being uninformed about the transmission of the disease. Thank you all for your help, though.Merechriolus (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Africa spread of AIDS

With the immense amount of evidence supporting the conclusion that Aids has spread faster in Africa than anywhere else in the world due to (1)re-using needles to treat disease and (2)cultural acceptence of anal intercourse as birth control in a society where women are subordinate, the only conclusion one can draw from an article that clings to emphasizing heterosexual intercourse as the main cause of transmission is that homosexual bias continues to drive this article.

http://www. associatedcontent .com/article/511395/some_myths_about_aids.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC){334486FC-248B-47E9-A359-A8371E7CC3BD} —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither are reliable sources. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The credientials of the researchers quoted are excellent. Your comment is a perfect example of the bias I describe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The author of the first article you linked is "junior in college majoring in child/abnormal clinical psychology," according to her bio on Associated Content. The author of the second article has a Ph.D. in History and specializes in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. Neither author is qualified to speak about HIV/AIDS. Both articles are blogs, and by definition blogs cannot be considered as reliable sources. If you can provide documentation from a reliable source, written by people recognized as specialists in HIV/AIDS and/or its social impact, then your points will be considered. TechBear (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I clearly said that the credentials of the researchers/ doctors quoted were excellant- not the writers of the articles themselves. It is those doctors opinion that healthy vaginal tissue has been found to be impermiable to the virus- as opposed to intestinal tissue which has been found to readily absorb material down to a small molecular size. Needle re-use in Africa has been an agreed upon problem for years.
Please indent and sign your posts. You admit that the articles you reference are unsuitable. Please find articles that are. TechBear (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The two sources from our anonymous friend are examples of poorly written and referenced secondary or even tertiary sources. If there is published research from these physicians, it should be easy to find on PubMed. I'm not looking, since it's pretty clear it's POV and we're not giving undue weight to fringe theories. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

PubMed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ever heard of NIH? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You've reached my limit of tolerance. Read WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

CDC anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So you're not impressed by PubMed, The NIH or the CDC? The bottom line is, you don't want facts. Seems like the only case I CAN prove is my claim of your Bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You might find your comments better received if you expressed them civilly and without personal attacks. Continuing in this vein is not going to be productive. MastCell Talk 21:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've taken my share of rudeness here from the first day when I was just trying to help. None of you "editors" have been civil. And the article never gets updated no matter how many excellant sources I heve posted. Did you read my links or not? Are the opinions by the CDC, NIH, and PubMed valid or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the Agence France Presse is not the CDC and the University of California San Francisco is not the NIH, and PubMed doesn't have an opinion, it is a database. Now, the anal sex fetish has been brought back to the fore. For the uninitiated, there is an entire discussion on the topic here. --Bob (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The sites listed are CDC, PubMed and NIH sites even if the research came from institutions like The University of California San Fransisco. These sites would not allow information to be placed on them that are without merit. I would appreciate it if you not refer to me as "The Anal Fetish".

The problem is that you (the IP) are attacking a strawman. The article doesn't downplay the risks of receptive anal intercourse so far as I can see - they're spelled out with numbers in the infobox, which is about as prominent as you can get. What you're producing is not the opinion of the "CDC, NIH, and PubMed" - it's a handful of articles, many by the same author. This view may be worth mentioning, and we can certainly discuss it, but things will never get anywhere without a more civil approach, a willingness to discuss rather than attack strawmen, and a bit more attention to detail. MastCell Talk 05:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"Mastcell" has made some valid points and I concede that some of them are true. However, as you can see, "Bob" just refered to me as having an "anal fetish" which is the just the type of personal attack I have recieved from this person "Bob" (and others) in the past. I would be happy to enter into a more civil discussion- I will not attack anyone that treats my viewpoint with respect instead of (1) dismissing it out of hand and (2) making personal attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Bob didn't attack you. Grow up. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Who are you to say when a slander like that is not an attack? Keep your comments to yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Spread of AIDS to US/Haiti

The very end of the article states that AIDS was spread to the US via Haiti, when there is actually some suggesting the opposite. If you follow the link to the article cited, the page it's at includes links to another scholarly article that disagrees. One of the authors, Paul Farmer, has studied the US-Haiti AIDS connection in some detail and argues that AIDS spread to Haiti via the US (He wrote a book about it, AIDS in Haiti). To make the article more objective, I think that information about the controversy/his perspective should be included. I also think it might be helpful to include some analysis or explanation of the two positions. (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So far no response as to why we don't want to discuss transmission in detail.Just-unsigned (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

New data indicates 62% of HIV transmission has been the result of anal sex and as much as 60% of the population in countries such as brazil perform this act- most of the time without protection. (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Impact of needle sharing and anal sex in Africa: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Reprinted article from the Wall Street Journal:

OK. Can we think about using reliable sources from here on? When it comes to HIV/AIDS, Michael Fumento and Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives are quite clearly not in this category. MastCell Talk 19:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Unpopular but not unreliable. The CDC has increased it's definition on what constitutes AIDS over a dozen times. That's fact. The only subject open to conjecture is "why?". The problem for them now is that they're running out of ways to expand the definition. In addition, the ONLY evidence so far for the vaginal transmission of HIV has been surveys where the people are asked "Do you think you got this from vaginal sex or were you injecting drugs or doing receptive anal?" Talk about a survey with a pre-determined outcome!!Laboratory attempts to show transmission through the (healthy) vaginal wall have not been succesful. The best estimates are that receptive vaginal HIV transmission in Africa is about 20%.It usually coincides with wounds from violence, STDs and the practice of "Dry sex" in that culture. Estimates on receptive anal transmission are about 60%. Is there another scientific reason that HIV spreads fastest in cultures that practice anal sex and re-use needles? If so, what is it? The fact that this huge article on Aids only has one sentence on anal sex speaks volumes.

You are perilously close to beating this strawman to death. Your comments consistently imply that there is a conspiracy to understate the risks of anal sex. That is not the case. They are spelled out in the article and highlighted in an infobox. It is riskier than vaginal intercourse. The article says so, prominently. What is this about? MastCell Talk 17:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

origins/history section

Shouldn't the Origins/History section be at the top of the article? JayKeaton (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDMOS. The History sections always comes last, because, this being a medical article, it's really more of information rather than about the medicine. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
oic JayKeaton (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Tuskeegee Experiment

Not wanting to start a whole new article, I was going to put a blurb on the relevant AIDS article about the Tuseeagee experiment, and it's role in fostering the idea that "The Government purposefully spread AIDS", especially among the black community.

One such link is here:

http colon slash slash www dot whale dot to slash p slash tuskagee dot htm

(How odd that Wikipedia has an article about this experiment blacklisted!)

As of now, Wikipedia completely ignores a real event that has relation to this topic, and was notable enough to be subject to "intense political pressure".

I can't find the "AIDS theories" article, or whatever it would be called, but what I was hoping to add was something like

"The Tuskeegee Experiment, performed from 1932-1972, was performed by the US Public Health Service on 400 black sharecroppers who suffered from Syphilis and lived in Tuskeegee, Alabama, with the intent to record what would happen to them if deprived of treatment. That the atrocity was supervised by the CDC, the same group which now oversees the American AIDS epidemic, has been emphasized by researchers such as Martin P. Levine in his book Bad Blood."

I guess it should probably still get its own article, but I wouldn't be able to do it - I have almost no access to relevant documentation, and no skill with writing real-world articles.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Whale dot to is a patently unreliable source, not to mention it was the subject of a concerted spamming campaign on Wikipedia, which is why it was blacklisted. This may be more appropriate for AIDS conspiracy theories. MastCell Talk 22:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


Wrote out the pathophysiology section. Provided one reference. Please add further inline references (not much into journals yet).sarindam7 (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive indexing, reordering of existing archives, possible bot archival

I've been a bit bold and set up archive indexing of the talk pages here, since they appear to be a mess. I found AIDS/references in article space, which looks like a copy of Talk:AIDS/references with a few less additions. Once the indexing was done I was hoping to rearrange the talk pages into some kind of updated numerical order based on their creation date, which would probably mean moving more recent archives forward. Most of those subpages appear to be long dead conversations from 2005, and some are tagged as archive anyway. I was planning on doing the following:

  1. Set up automatic indexing of the Talk pages. Done, but remove the configuration up top if anyone objects.
  2. Merge AIDS/references with Talk:AIDS/references. Possibly requiring a history merge.
  3. Move all Talk:AIDS named (references, circumcision, etc.) sub-pages that are in the archive box into numerical order based on create date, and re-ordering the Archive # to match.
  4. Possibly auto-archiving the talk page itself with a bot, but a somewhat large age threshold (90 days?).

Obviously none of these are very important at this stage in the article's development. The only one that really needs to be done is moving AIDS/references out of article space. But while I was at it I might as well re-organize the other pages. On a similar note I've been re-organizing Commons:Category:HIV, and there are some new/updated images there. -Optigan13 (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had the sub-pages moved into an order, see the requested diff (here). Although I forgot to request the move on the references sub-page. So I'll be correcting that shortly. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Confusing bad grammar

"The primary mode of HIV infection worldwide is through sexual contact between members of the opposite sex." This makes no sense and is confusing; it suggests they are *both* members of the opposite sex to [some unspecified sex]. It should say "opposite-sex partners" or "partners of different sexes". (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

how men get infected of HIV in an intercourse

We are aware when in the course of intercourse, the vagina or the anus has some parts which absors the semen and the person can get infected, but when a person, whose penis is inserted, it does the action of pumping out and not receiving any fluids, but still when a male penetrates into an infected person and has the sexual intercourse, the person gets infected - how?

Not sure who actually made the above comment, but it wasn't WKnight94. He was the deleting admin as part of a confusing history merge. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to the actual question of how HIV is transmitted to insertive partners, the penis does actually receive fluids, which can enter through the Urethra or scratches/sores (See this answer at UCSF's website). -Optigan13 (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Reorder sentences in intro suggestion

I think this paragraph buries the lead, which is the pandemic. I think this paragraph should start with "AIDS is now a pandemic." with the rest of the paragraph which now precedes that put at the end. A link to the epidemiology section may be appropriate too. This is how it is now: Most researchers believe that HIV originated in sub-Saharan Africa during the twentieth century.[4] The disease was first identified by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1981 and its cause identified by American and French scientists in the late 1980s.[5] AIDS is now a pandemic.[citation needed] In 2007, an estimated 33.2 million people lived with the disease worldwide, and it killed an estimated 2.1 million people, including 330,000 children.[6] Over three-quarters of these deaths occurred in sub-Saharan Africa,[6] retarding economic growth and destroying human capital.[7] Jensiverson (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

AIDS in the Swimming Pool

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There doesn't appear to be any information on the risks of swimming in the same pool as an AIDS infected person. Our pool was closed for a mandatory 72 hours after a nurse who was swimming recognised another swimmer as being an AIDS positive patient from the hospital which she worked. From what I understand after asking a couple of questions is that in a confined space such as a swimming pool all the fluids that exit the body from all holes etc is able to roam free within the pool and the elevated temperature means they stay active for much longer and are able to enter other swimmers' bodies from any cuts they may have or through the nose or eye sockets where the skin is very thin. I was at the pool at the time (fortunately I was not in the water!) and the story made the local TV station so it must be notable enough to include. --Doctor Bojangles (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It would indeed be remarkable if a pool were closed because someone with AIDS had swum in it! Remarkable, however, because of the ignorance displayed rather than because of any actual risk. There's absolutely no way you can get HIV from a pool. It just doesn't happen. Where did the pool closing you describe occur? I would be very surprised if follow-up news stories didn't point out how ludicrous and wrong-headed the closing was. - Nunh-huh 07:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
<ec>:This is a joke right? By this logic, the nurse should have closed it down because one swimmer might have hepatitis A, varicella zoster, or influenza. In other words, the chlorine contact, oxygen in the water, UV radiation from the sun, and the dilution of a few viral particles in a swimming pool of how many tens of thousands of liters mean that the risk of HIV infection is approximately 0. I'm going to assume good faith that you weren't here to cause trouble, but this is ridiculous, and will never be included in this article. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Glad you brought up the chlorine and UV radiation, although you stole my thunder. I'd really like to know where this alleged pool is. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 18:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Something similar happened in Alabama last year. A two-year-old was banned from a pool because he was HIV positive. You're about as likely to get infected with HIV in a pool as you are to get pregnant from lap-swimming sperm. Doesn't stop the rumours, though. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Did anyone check out Doc Bojangle's contributions? I'm about ready to pull out a troll report. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Pool's closed due to AIDS. (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Really? Urban legend!. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

beginning of AIDS

The first documented AIDS case was where a male African flight attendant acquired AIDS from intercourse with a monkey and then further transmitted it to humans via active sexual activity aloing his long flying routes. So this patriarch of AIDS, who was an African, began the AIDS epidemic that has not only devastated Africa but the rest of the earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reliable source indicating that the transmission to humans occurred through bestiality? Seriously. Is it not as likely to occur through consumption of the infected meat? If you have no reliable sources, I'll assume that you went of on a racist rant.Gkmx (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is: Also see Take a wild guess as to how it got transferred to humans; it wasn't from eating the monkeys, it was transferred the same way it is today- through sexual intercourse, or bestiality. The only reason it's not mentioned in the article is because gays don't want the rest of the world to know that they're the ones who started the epidemic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

How is this relevant to gays? It could have been a female monkey. You can't simply blame all sexual acts you find repulsive on one group. I'm sure most homosexuals are as disgusted by beastiality as you are. --Lophoole (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You may want to reread the sources you provided:
"The virus was passed onto chimpanzees when they ate infected monkey meat, believe the scientists from universities in France, America and the UK." (CNN, 2003) Fifth paragraph down.
"The most commonly accepted theory is that of the 'hunter'. In this scenario, SIVcpz was transferred to humans as a result of chimps being killed and eaten or their blood getting into cuts or wounds on the hunter." (, 2008) from "The hunter theory" section.-Optigan13 (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

AIDS is not caused by HIV

Clearly this Wikipedia article is horribly wrong. See: (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. It also gives undue weight to fringe theories that are not accepted by medical science. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

people with aids need to seek medical attention immediatley —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"The claim that the virus HIV causes AIDS is an hypothesis which is not supported by facts or evidence, and which has demonstrated no usefulness for predicting or explaining the epidemiology of AIDS." That just about sums up the reliability of that source. I might just contact the creator of that article with a very large list of facts and evidence. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 17:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it's actually a lab working on orgones, as the URL implies, I'm sure they'll be very receptive to scientifically based arguments and evidence... MastCell Talk 18:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Well, who am I to argue with a 'life force' anyway. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 18:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

← If more sources show up, use it. But remember that was published in 1993. We may have found different information since then. Cavenba (talkcontribs) 10:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, that orgone reference really ridiculed the entire issue. However, one must be able to see, that the following is to be taken serious.

The first sentence postulates that AIDS is caused by HIV, but the article which it refers to in footnote [5] clearly avoids the word "caused" and uses "correlate" instead.
Also, the "Related Articles" box on that site contains an article article with the title "Human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: correlation but not causation.", discussing how AIDS and HIV correlate.
I know the piece is from '89, but I can find no scientific article, which has proven anything more than correlation.
Wouldn't it be adequate to change the wording from "HIV causes AIDS" to "HIV correlates with AIDS" in this article as well? --ANDSENS (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't. AIDS denialists have their own article on Wikipedia, so you can take your pseudoscientific BS over there. Go and read How HIV Causes AIDS or HIV Causes AIDS--Bob (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we need a little clock at the top of the talkpage, like they have at industrial sites: "3 days without an AIDS denialist arguing that the lead is 'biased'". I suspect we would not get beyond a week or so, as these arguments tend to cycle about that often. For the record, HIV causes AIDS, and any reference work which aspires to any sort of respectability or accuracy will not minimize or downplay that fact. MastCell Talk 17:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Can we also have a betting pool? This could be entertaining. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Abstinence only programs a failure?

There happens to be a quote in this article saying that abstinence only programs have failed. Even though this tidbit includes proper citation, I think that it is A. out of place, and B. untrue. I happen to have personal contact with a woman who teaches AIDS prevention in Africa. Their abstinence program has been highly successful, more so than passing out condoms. Why is this? Most people, especially teens or decultured people in Nigeria, do not know how to properly store and use a condom. I can elaborate, but I believe it is unnecessary, as this information is out of context anyways. I am going to remove this, please add this in a separate article where it applies. Thank you. --Wick3dd 19:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

But you do see the difference between promoting abstinence, and abstinence-only programs? I'm sure in Nigeria the programs, while promoting abstinence, also acknowledge the existence of condoms and the fact that they effectively lower the risk of HIV transmission. Abstinence-only programs, on the other hand, don't cover barrier methods or anything beyond abstinence. Unless I'm missing something, these don't seem comparable. MastCell Talk 21:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In Africa they teach abstinence outside of marriage. They leave out condoms. It is such an epidemic over there, it requires a harsher program than it would here. Most Africans wouldn't be properly storing condoms, and condoms are not guaranteed to block HIV everytime. The safest option if for them to stay loyal to one person. Thanks for the reply. --Wick3dd 02:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really comfortable with your generalization about what "most Africans" would do. Of course condoms are not 100% effective, and abstinence (if practiced) is. Of course, simply telling people to be abstinent is not really an effective way to control an epidemic. That said, I think your clarification (adding "in the United States" to the studies of abstinence-only education) is a reasonable one. MastCell Talk 03:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem we need to address concerning Africa is practice of using anal sex as a form of birth control when condoms are not available. Education that anal sex is many times more likley to transmit HIV might promote abstinence when no condom is available. Information is power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Abstinence outside of marriage hasn't been strictly adhered to by most human community in most of recorded time. There have been bastard children through all societies and all cultures. So what exactly makes you think it'll work in this day and age? Being faithful to 1 person does nto garentee they will be faithful to you. 09:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever we can't believe anything you say you can't even spell. Abstinence is the best way that we have right now, face it.

~This is not the right place to be debating whether teaching abstinence is the best idea. (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't asking anyone to believe anything, I was merely asking a question because I wasn unclear about the circumstances in which AIDS can be spread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Transmission and Prevention

This may have come up in past discussions, but can someone tell me why the main section on the transmission of HIV is in the AIDS article instead of in the HIV article? You cannot transmit AIDS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the following sentence under the Transmission and Prevention section, Sexual Contact subsection: The risk of HIV transmission from exposure to saliva is considerably smaller than the risk from exposure to semen; contrary to popular belief, one would have to swallow liters of saliva from a carrier to run a significant risk of becoming infected.[78]

I looked up the article in citation #78, and it doesn't support this claim at all. In fact, to my reading, it doesn't even mention the word "saliva" once. I think that whoever wrote this sentence should either find the correct citation, or the Wiki editors should remove it, because I've never found any source that does support this claim. The CDC states that there are very low levels of HIV present in saliva, but does not list contact with saliva or kissing as possible methods of transmitting HIV. (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The following line is not supported by the reference: "Randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision lowers the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men by up to 60%". The infection risk was not lowered 60% as suggested, but was 60% lower than the control group (uncircumcised). The actual reduction in absolute risk was less than 2%. This needs to be clarified. intactguy (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked up the reference, and I can't agree with your assessment of "not supported." "Up to 60%" might not be the preferred way of describing the results in a medical journal, but it is a simple and I think valid way of expressing it for a general audience. In fact, the source states that the protective effect is even greater when the subjects are sorted by whether or not they were actually circumcised (as opposed to being simply assigned to the circumcision group).
What are you using as a source for your absolute risk figures? Are you referring to the Kenyan observational study mentioned in the source, where circumcision is associated with a per-act infection risk reduction from 1.28% to 0.51%? If so, the risk reduction is almost exactly 60%.
FYI, the source also addresses the objections you raised on the circumcision page, disputing the relevance of circumcision to developed countries. The source describes a study of over 3,000 men in the US that found a doubled risk of HIV transmission in men who were not circumcised. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
So were the men circumcised 60% less likely to be infected or 60% less likely than the control group. In example, the Orange Farm Trial(had the highest protective effect it showed the 60% drop, 53% in Uganda, 48% in Kenya), of the 3,274 men 49 (1.4%) uncircumcised men, and 20 (0.6%) circumcised men were infected when the trial was stopped (early). I tossed the less than 2% to avoid looking everything up and doing the math, but since I did, they were 0.8% less likely to have been infected overall, but 60% less likely to be infected than the control group. The sentence implies that if circumcised your overall risk of infection is cut by 60%. Is my math bad?
Although its irrelevant to the 60%, could you clarify which source you are talking about, here or on the circ page? intactguy 21:01 UTC June 19 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intactguy (talkcontribs) 21:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Also I am not arguing the validity of the 60%, I just see it as sensationalism more meant for headlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intactguy (talkcontribs) 23:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with your math...just some common misconceptions about statistics. When the sales tax is increased from, let's say, five percent to six percent, state officials try to downplay the increase, referring to it as merely a 1% increase. The rate hike is actually 20% (a 1% increase would result in a 5.05% sales tax rate). Six minus five is one, but one is 20% of five. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Um~ this is weird to ask but...if two people who don't have HIV of any kind and do not have AIDS engage in anal sex, is it possible to get HIV/AIDS? And if so how possible? If the answer is 'don't ask it here' can you lead me to a place that has the answer? The AIDS WiKi article isn't clear on that (for me anyway). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, probably the WP:RD is the place to ask, but as long as you're here: no, anal sex doesn't magically generate the AIDS virus, and no, you can't be infected by having sex with someone who isn't infected. In the real world, of course, being sure that someone isn't infected is more complicated than it is in the hypothetical world. - Nunh-huh 00:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Cause of AIDS discovered

The sentence about HIV being determined to be the cause of AIDS should be changed from "late 1980s." to either "mid 1980s" or "1984." The footnoted article documenting this information actually says it was 1984. "Late 1980s" is therefore inaccurate and does not even reflect the source material cited. --Peirce's Signs (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Corrected to "early 1980s" since the work culminating in the 1984 publications was done over several years. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


I wonder if the following:

"President Thabo Mbeki's embrace of AIDS denialism"

should be reworded. I looked at the Mbeki article, and though he seems to have some sort of connection with denialists, it seemed vague, and to suggest he "embraces" it is perhaps an overstatement, or at least doesn't give the proper context. (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there another term you would use to describe Mbeki's close association with AIDS Denialists, and appointment of a denialist Health Minister? One thing that jumps out at me looking at the Thabo Mbeki page is the lack of sources to back up assertions about his limited relationship with AIDS denialism, while this page has three to do so. His health minister's page Manto Tshabalala-Msimang addresses her views with more detail and sources. An op-ed piece in the New York Times states it as "The theory, which we call AIDS denialism, has gained such currency with President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa that his administration is reluctant to expand access to antiretroviral drugs."[6] This is also covered in Greg Behrman's book The Invisible People (Ch. 10)[7], which describes Mbeki as embracing denialism, including denialists on health panels, and consulting with two denialists who assert that poverty causes AIDS[8]. Embrace might sound a bit harsh looking at Mbeki's page, but I think that is because it is trying to downplay his connection with denialism. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you question accepted science on the HIV virus and argue that AIDS is the direct result of "poverty, chronic disease and malnutrition", whilst entertaining a health minister who advocates garlic and beetroot over antiretroviral drugs; then you haven't just embraced AIDS-denialism - you got into bed with it and had unprotected intercourse with it. His entire presidency has been so wracked with AIDS-denialism that, as he approaches the end of his term in office, it has become the most noteworthy feature of his presinecy and most likely what he will be remembered for. Finn (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


Not sure how long this segment is supposed to be. Added a bit on AIDS related mania, and tried to segregate material into 2 paras, one superinfections, the other primary sequelae. Not sure about title of section either. So left it as neurological and psychiatric involvement as I thought neuropsychiatric, though shorter was maybe not quite so encompassing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So what's about strategies like infect and resist, which concern on medical surfaces or doctors, who help infected by infecting others ?! Contact and confidence out_ source. Not only a western german problem, I think. It#s sickodullness in the medicine field. Lying and pretending to be healthy and harassing nurses. Which border can clear this boarders up?!-- (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Selfline no you in; You no me in!

Duffy Antigen Receptor for Chemokines

Not to be too "current"-oriented, but this information may be useful to add to either this article or HIV or both. This will ultimately be published as "Duffy Antigen Receptor for Chemokines (DARC) Mediates Trans-infection of HIV-1 from Red Blood Cells to Target cells and Affects HIV-AIDS Susceptibility", Cell Host & Microbe. - Nunh-huh 19:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just reading a book about parasites, and it mentions this antigen. I haven't read anything about it for maybe 20 years, and now, twice in a day. Hmmmm. By the way, maybe we can find the reference on pub-med. That way we can reference the original article. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
PMID 18621010 (PMID: 18621010 [PubMed - in process]) -Optigan13 (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
As Optigan notes, it's still not published. All we have so far is press reports. Amusingly, some of the science blogs quote Wikipedia's article on the Duffy antigen system in their commentary :) This is the New York TImes article. - Nunh-huh 22:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
They must not do much fact checking. Using Wikipedia as a source? Not unless you review everything citation. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Just noticed that someone is working on this on wikinews wikinews:African AIDS prevalence may be physiological. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

He et al.: Duffy Antigen Receptor for Chemokines mediates trans-infection of HIV-1 from red blood cells to target cells and affects HIV-AIDS susceptibility. Cell Host & Microbe 4, 52–62, July 17, 2008. DOI 10.1016/j.chom.2008.06.002

Also referred to in Gene that protects against malaria may increase HIV risk in Africans Aidsmap, July 21, 2008. Finn (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


Why is AIDS usually referred back to being gay? Was it in the homosexual community first? Or is this just plain ignorance? -- (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Both, really. The syndrome was first described in gay men. And it's ignorant to think that only gay men are affected by HIV/AIDS. Check out the article - it's actually in there somewhere. MastCell Talk 05:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Illich and Iatrogenesis

I placed these internal links in the spanish translation of the article and were accepted so I thought they might be useful here too as an antecedent of denialists.


[[10]]-- (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither Ivan Illich nor iatrogenesis seem to have much of a connection to the subject matter of this article. - Nunh-huh 14:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ivan Illich's book on medicine: Medical Nemesis (1975)-- (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


Recent edit by User:Hoagiej, in paragraph 2, was likely an attempt at vandalism. MMPgh (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Transmission in women

The transmission section only refers to vaginal sex for women. This suggests by omission that women are not getting HIV from receptive anal sex. If that is the case, then a source/ reference is needed demonstating that vaginal sex is the true source of transmission (even though another section clearly states that anal is more risky).

The first sentence of the section is: "Sexual transmission occurs with the contact between sexual secretions of one person with the rectal, genital or oral mucous membranes of another." This statement is both accurate and gender-neutral. I can't find anything in the section stating or implying that women are not at risk from anal sex, so I don't see the need for changes in this regard. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The sentence in question states: "Women are more susceptible to HIV transmission do to (1) hormonal changes, (2) vaginal microbial ecology and physiology, and (3) a higher prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases."

Omitted were factors such as:(4) cultures that use anal sex as birth control putting women at greater risk than men(5) cultural trends such as using anal sex to preserve virginity by young women and (6)trends in pornographic media and its effect on culture- these also have had an impact on HIV transmission in women worldwide.

You are certainly welcome to insert additional factors supported by reliable sources. Also, please remember to sign your comments with four tildes. Thanks, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it Groundhog Day again already? MastCell Talk 18:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I that the one where Bill Murray discovers the secret bias that "continues to drive this article"? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You fellas really shouldn't take it so personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Why did Russia marked at 2% AIDS rate on your map? According to official site of Ministry of Health Care and Social Development of the Russian Federation there is only 417 715 persons registered with HIV in whole Russia, which is about 0.3% of Russia population (May 2008 data). Here is the speech of Tatyana Golikova, the Minister of Health Care from official site (in Russian): —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innab (talkcontribs) 23:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The rate for Russia is for HIV prevalence, not AIDS, and it is given as 1-2%, based on the map. The source is a UN 2008 report, as indicated in the image documentation. The number of persons registered as having HIV will not equal the total number of HIV positive people unless Russia requires regular testing of all citizens and all positive tests are registered. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, I cannot undestand why does Russia marked at 2%. Here is your article about AIDS in Russia that clear said: At the end of December 2007, the number of registered HIV cases in Russia was 416,113 (0.3% of total population)... The actual number of people living with HIV in Russia is estimated to be about 940,000 (0.6% of total population).
According to CDCP there 1,106,400 persons are living with HIV in USA in 2006 (about 0.3 percent of total population), so the colors should be about the same also.
Russia is colour-coded as having an adult (ages 15-49) HIV prevalence between one and two percent. The source of the corresponding estimate is the UNAIDS 2008 Global Report, and the percentage given is 1.1%, with a low estimate of 0.8% and a high of 1.6%. Wikipedia is not a source for itself; if the Wikipedia article on AIDS in Russia is in conflict with the latest sources, the article should be edited to include the new estimate. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


There's a stray "s" in the caption for abacavir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2008

Fixed. - Nunh-huh 23:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible cure to AIDS

OMG!! check this out!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

See the section directly above this one for the discussion of the same story. -Optigan13 (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that this bone marrow recipient is showing no indications of HIV infection after the transplant is fantastic! The possibilties are tremendous and I hope that much more research is done to verify. If true, it may mean that genetic treatment,coupled with education about the high risk of anal sex, could possibly irradicate AIDs from the planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Aids can be spread by vaginal sex. (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Aids can cause a heart attack or stroke. Because tumors can grow in veins and arterys. (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

another promising approach to AIDS treatment is announced

[11] Assoc. Professor E. Evgeniev Gabev, MD, PhD

It is now evident that even prolonged and aggressive treatment with combinations of antiretrovirals alone will not lead to HIV eradication and a complete cure. Recent studies indicate that the infection will persist for life, even in patients on effective anti-retroviral therapy. Some of the major reasons for that include the inability of the drugs to stop virus replication completely, their high toxicity and the creation of drug resistance leading to fast viral rebound and transient therapeutic effect. Here we show that blocking of the polyphosphoinositide transmembrane signalling system of HIV target cells by lithium in combination with antiretroviral(s), both requiring obligatory encapsulation in liposomes, overcomes most of the routinely used therapy drawbacks. The extended preclinical and pilot clinical trials evaluating our preparation FTL/AZT/PEBA (Lipohivir), based on the above approach, reveals that it is not toxic and may contribute considerably to successful AIDS therapy and the prevention of HIV-promoted malignant transformation. Fitting analysis of viral load decay provides further evidence that a whole body HIV eradication might be achieved in a reasonable time.
Ivail (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The Talk page is for discussing the content on this page, not for original research. If you don't have a reliable source then it is not a good fit for Wikipedia. --Scray (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, he provided the source: it just didn't say what the heading claimed. In fact, a reliable source isn't sufficient for inclusion; facts have to be important enough, per our editorial judgment, for inclusion. Given the length of the article, we've opted not to include announcements of promising but unproven treatment approaches. - Nunh-huh 04:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand your points, but my comments were valid. The link that was provided is to a PDF file sitting on a private web site. That alone made it an unreliable source, but I looked up the reference in PubMed - but could not find it. Thus I concluded that this was a non-starter. --Scray (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I certainly agree with you that the "European Journal of Parenteral Science" is not the journal one would expect the "cure for AIDS" to be announced in... - Nunh-huh 21:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Edits reflecting AIDS denialism

I just reverted a series of edits by Fbartolom and am commenting here because the edit summary would be too long. The edits did not reflect a neutral point of view but rather were strongly slanted toward AIDS denialism, which is clearly not consensus. The edits were poorly-worded, disrupted article flow, and were otherwise unhelpful. --Scray (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Same here. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

RS wanted

The best way to shut these denialists up, is to give the RS which was published when it was proven that HIV is the cause of AIDS. I am not a medical student, so I would not know where to find it. Any help? Kaaskop6666 (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You could start with a few of the reliable sources cited in the article. For now, please observe the talk page guidelines: this page is for discussion of specific improvements to the article, not for general discussion about whether HIV has been proven in a single paper to cause AIDS. Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep your hair on, K! Are you afraid I am soapboxing??? Let me refrase: which of the 153 footnotes constitute the proof that HIV causes of AIDS? (I am no medical student and have little time to try and investigate.) Do you know? Kaaskop6666 (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Fair question, and perhaps this should be more directly addressed. As a suggestion, here's a nice well-referenced summary from a WP:RS: [12] --Scray (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Kaaskop6666 and Scray, please, let's not debate yet again on the talkpage the issue of whether a single scientific publication must prove HIV/AIDS. If Kaaskop6666 has a fair question about this topic, it should be raised in a more appropriate forum, such as the Reference Desk. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was just assuming good faith. I don't know (nor care to revisit) the old baggage. --Scray (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
yet again ... sorry, am new here. Could you point me to those previous discussions, keepcalmandcarry? I am not saying that a single publication or anything must exist???? I would just assume that when a virus which is quite illusive is found to be the cause of AIDS, there exist several publications for that? So, are these publications already in the article or do they need to be added??? Kc&co, you sound pretty annoied and battle-fatigued, but please keep in mind that I'm new so I am liable to raise things which you might have heard a 1000 times but I have not? Kaaskop6666 (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Keepcalmandcarryon has appropriately pointed out that this page is for discussing improvements to the article. The references in the article address your question, and I've cited another excellent review (a few lines up). If you want to extend the discussion, the RefDesk (cited above) would be more appropriate. --Scray (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have now read the weblink which Scray gave and added it into note 149 in the section about Denialism, where I felt it would be most appropriate. However, I seem to have made a mistake in the markup, it appears at the wrong place. I do not get it, and will not mess any further. Please help? Kaaskop6666 (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The formatting in the edit view makes it hard to see, but you had actually added it to the very end of the article body. I moved it into the location I think you intended. Good idea. --Scray (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Rant that does not belong here

This disease has claimed, as well as many millions of regular people, famous people as well. The most noteable example being the late great freddie mercury, one of the true legends,and in my opinion, the best vocalist that has ever lived. any kind of cure would be such a breakthrough, and will undoubtedly save millions of lives, but sadly, it will be all too late to save freddie.<<< Whoever messed with my writing, please do not. To be fair, i have as much right to an opinion as everybody else. Thanks! I will check regularly and simply un strikethrough it if it happens again so i would give up. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:Talk: Talk pages are for discussing changes to the page, not a chat forum. --Scray (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, he doesn't understand that point. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

OP here, Sorry everyone, totally my fault, I totally missed the part abut this not being a chat page, i am sorry and apologise, i was a little drunk, i understand now, i got it wrong. Sorry once again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Dangerously misleading sentence

A line in the sexual transmission section that says "Infection is unlikely in a single encounter. High rates of infection have been linked to a pattern of overlapping long-term romantic relationships.", is very dangerous and wrong statement. Sure there's no doubt sleeping around unprotected increases your likelihood of getting infected by a major long shot, but to suggest that having unprotected sex just once will not put you at risk at all is completely wrong and must be fixed immediately. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

of course, the sentence you've quoted doesn't suggest that having unprotected sex just once will not put you at risk at all, it states that the risk of transmission in a single encounter is small (a statement that is absolutely correct). What change would you suggest so that other people don't misread it as you have? - Nunh-huh 05:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
What about "The risk of infection rises with the number of encounters."? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Does it? The risk is the same for each individual encounter. Technically and statistically, a greater number of encounters does not increase the risk of each event, since risk cannot be additive. I've long ago destroyed brain cells that stored information about all those damn statistics classes I had to take over the years, but I recall there is an accurate way to describe it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
"The overall risk of infection rises with the number of encounters."? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree. Let's say there's a one in thousand chance of contracting HIV from each encounter (please don't quote me, since I don't know what the risk is). The first encounter and thousandth encounter (no jokes please) would entail the same exact risk. Based on your proposed language, it seems to say after a thousand encounters, you have 100% chance of contracting HIV. Again, I can't remember the exact statistical language, but it should be something like "the probability of contracting HIV can be high for individuals who have a large number of unprotected sexual encounters." There's probably a better, less-weasel worded way of saying it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
That 1000-encounter idea would be that case if the infection rate rose linearly with the number of encounters, but since you're dealing with risk this isn't a linear function (I'm not a mathematician but I'd think it will never reach 100% only approach this value asymptotically). Cumulative risk (overall risk is my de-jargoned wording) will rise as a function of number of encounters, although the risk posed by each encounter is constant. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
We might be moving into an esoteric statistical discussion that may not be germane to the article. I see what crackthewhip775 is trying to say, I'm just not sure I agree based on the statistics. Which got me to thinking. What is the risk from each individual encounter? A heterosexual male, who might have 20 partners in a lifetime, with the probability that any of those partners having HIV so low (unless one is selecting only HIV positive partners) that there's little chance of any of those 20 partners having HIV, would have almost no chance of contracting HIV. Homosexual males who don't engage in high risk behavior have negligible risk. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Poor choice of words with "negligible", since although the risk is small, the cost is as bad as it can get. I'd still shy away from something that carried a one in 2,000 risk of death, even if I might feel lucky. After all, people win the lottery every week. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
But I think the risk of contracting HIV amongst an average group of heterosexual males is so small that it approaches nonexistent. The risk isn't even close to 1/2,000. I remember a few years ago, OSHA got into a regulatory nightmare over the risk from bloodborne pathogens in hollow-bore needles. Hospitals had to spend 10-20X more fore so called safety needles. That risk wasn't even close to 1/ was more like 1/150,000 or so. That's 150,000 needlesticks, not procedures, and I'll have to admit that I've never stuck myself with a needle, so to even have 150,000 needlesticks (to get one transmission) is so rare as to be negligible. So the cost-benefit of the safety needles was HUGE. Without anything firm, I'm still convinced the risk is low.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The exact individual risk depends on both the incidence, which is highest in Sub-Saharan Africa, and the number of times they have unprotected sex. If you assume an average person has 10 different sexual partners per year, and has sex 2-5 times with each partner (on average), then they will have about 1,000 chances of catching AIDS over a 20 year period. With a 1% infection rate that will correspond to 10 "infected contacts" and a one in 200 overall chance of getting AIDS. That is a pretty significant risk in my book. However, that is assuming that the infection is spread equally throughout the population. What I don't know enough about epidemiology to factor in is that risk probably doesn't increase linearly with sexual activity and that a few people will be centers of infection with many more partners than others (prostitutes are an obvious example). Tim Vickers (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
HIV transmission does NOT have a constant level of risk per exposure. Some people are genetically resistant (e.g. CCR5_Δ32#CCR5-.CE.9432) as potential recipients, and some people are likely not to be very infectious even if infected (e.g. HLA B*57). In addition, acutely infected people are the most infectious, and people with genital ulcer disease are likely to be both high transmitters and particularly susceptible. So, the risk depends dramatically on many variables. In addition, it's known that the cumulative risk approaches only about 40% (in discordant couples), and the uninfected partners tend to show evidence of cellular immunity to HIV (suggesting exposure). --Scray (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


never will there be a cure? Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the AIDS page says that there will never be a cure. As stated, though, it is very unlikely that current antiretroviral treatments will cure HIV infection. Other approaches are likely, and as discussed on this Talk page, there is one case of possible cure; however, the method that was used in that case is not something that is likely to be used widely in its present form. --Scray (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

aids and gay sex

how came aids is so indentifay with the gay camunity ? is it a mith or a rial thing that gay have more risk for aids and way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

AIDS was discovered in gay men, so this association is partly historical. The issues surrounding this association are addressed in the section on sexual transmission and epidemiology, among others. --Scray (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Identified by American and French Scientists"

There has been enormous real world dispute about this, see HIV#Discovery. The article's source for the above quote, Robert Gallo, is one of the parties in dispute, so this cannot be considered an ideal source. The HIV article, and indeed the US Government and the Nobel commitee, now give the French credit for the discovery. I'll change it to just French if no one objects here first--Mongreilf (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't change it: the key word is "identified". HIV was isolated and partially characterised by multiple laboratories around the world. The Montagnier lab was probably the first to isolate the virus, but its isolation from many patients; its identification as the cause of AIDS; its characterisation as a lentivirus, etc....these steps in the identification process were not performed by one lab alone. If a change is deemed necessary, "scientists working in or collaborating with American and French laboratories" would be more accurate (since not all of the involved scientists were American or French). Alternatively, the nationalities could be dropped entirely. In any case, I would caution that the politics behind the Nobel decision, whatever they were, do not mean that reliable sources dismiss the contributions of Bob Gallo's lab in the identification of HIV. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Science is an international endeavor, I'd favor just removing the nationalities. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Comments by scientists internationally indicate that Gallo's group deserves substantial credit for characterizing HIV and developing the test for HIV infection, even though they did not originally isolate the virus themselves. Nationalities don't enhance the article. --Scray (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan is experiencing an increase in HIV/AIDS cases, with 90,000 people, or 0.1% of the population, between ages 20 and 45 testing positive for the disease, India's Daily News and Analysis reports. In addition, a large number of women are living with the disease in the country. RIZWAN HAYAT LILLA —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Cells affected

The virus, entering through which ever route, acts primarily on the following cells:[65] Lymphoreticular system: CD4+ T-Helper cells CD4+ Macrophages CD4+ Monocytes B-lymphocytes Certain endothelial cells Central nervous system: Microglia of the nervous system Astrocytes Oligodendrocytes Neurones - indirectly by the action of cytokines and the gp-120

I would like to see some more proof and references on this one... why are B-lymphocytes, astrocytes and oligodendrocytes affected? And something more on the neurones would be nice too ;) --Pauluzz (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article on AIDS and its source

The first line reads "Acquired immune deficiency syndrome or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is a set of symptoms and infections resulting from the damage to the human immune system caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)."

If you read the source's article's brief summary, it says, "Overall, it is increasingly evident that both the tropism and burden of HIV infection correlate closely with the manifestations of disease."

In my book "increasingly evident" and "closely correlate" do not equate with "cause". It seems a little bit strange that the first sentence of the article should exaggerate or contradict its source. Am I the only one noticing this?

Mitchellrenner (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Mitchell Renner 2/21/09

There is no contradiction there. The correlation is consistent with causation, and the consensus of decades of research is that HIV causes AIDS. --Scray (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

To correlate closely and to cause are not the same thing, I still offer. Mitchellrenner (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That HIV causes AIDS is the consensus of the scientific community and the default point of view of Wikipedia. When and if this consensus changes, the article will be updated accordingly. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
To decode that sentence a bit more, it means that the severity of the symptoms correlate closely with both the cells HIV infects (the tropism) and the viral titer (the burden). That sentence in the abstract is about how HIV causes the symptoms, not about the basic statement that HIV causes AIDS. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I have no vested interest in the matter one way or the other, but from the abstract of the indicated source, it seems as if the source article does not establish 100% proof. If I am wrong, please correct me. But if indeed that is the case, a different source should be used to validate the claim. If the claim that HIV causes AIDS is made based upon the scientific community's consensus (as Keepcalm indicates) and not from the source cited, then change the source to something else that makes that claim (or one that claims it is made based on consensus). As it stands now, the source cited does not seem to back that claim. Mitchellrenner (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
You're wrong. But to avoid this kind of absurdist nonsense, in which the serious editors of this article are hectored by those who don't understand the basic principles of science, correlation, or causality, I've added a citation that even a denialist won't be able to distort. Because I don't anticipate you'll be able to readily check the cited pages, let me quote them for you: p. 1523: "HIV, which was identified as the etiologic agent in the uniformly fatal acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) shortly before the publication of the last edition of this textbook, has now infected over 10 million individuals worldwide"; p. 1799: "The etiologic agent of a cytopathic retrovirus, HIV." More recent editions of the textbook would no doubt have pithier, more concise statements, as the 1988 one is still giving historical background. This is a "question" that was answered more than twenty years ago! However, it's all I have sitting around the house. I suggest that if you have any remaining doubts, you consult a recent medical textbook. I think we've been using the current reference because it's both historical and informative; but it seems that, unfortunately, we've overestimated our audience. We should start to add simpler, less confusing documentation, and I think a medical textbook might be the type of source we need. - Nunh-huh 01:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for adding a second reference. I hope Wikipedia will continue to be an area for discussion for all types of people, specialists and non-specialists in whatever area of knowledge is being considered, as long as the dialogue is constructive. I believe the dialogue is just as important as the documentation, after all. My critique is based on the logic of the language being used. I will read both references cited, and most likely leave it at that. Mitchellrenner (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I have a copy of this book lying around from my biomed-engineering classes. It has one page on AIDS/HIV. If you need general refs from a modern textbook, we can use it. Raul654 (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Raul, textbooks make bad medical references, since they're several years out of date by the time you use them. The fact is that about a million reliable sources dispute Mitchellrenner's contentions. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I have a different problem with the first sentence – I think it’s semantically misleading for a reader alighting on this page. I think it should read, "Acquired immune deficiency syndrome or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is a disease of the human immune system, caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)." As it is, the lead sentence confuses the actual disease AIDS with its symptoms and those opportunistic diseases which are used to indicate or define it. While this might seem an overly pedantic point, conflating the signifiers (symptoms, signs and indicator opportunistic diseases which result from immune deficiency and which are used to define the underlying disease) with the signified (the actual immune system disease itself) leads to an enormous amount of confusion in understanding exactly what AIDS is. This is particularly the case with the disease AIDS because many of its signifiers are themselves diseases. This semantic confusion is exploited by some AIDS denialists to claim that AIDS is not an entity of itself, but merely an arbitrary collection of previously known entities.On A Leash (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of our feelings about this, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for us to express our point of view no matter how well-meaning or rational. If you can find reliable sources that support a change in the use of terminology that would reduce confusion please be bold and improve the article, but without sources it's just original research - something we avoid here. Sometimes this is frustrating, but insistence on reliable sources is clearly in the best interests of an encyclopedia. --Scray (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the invitation to be bold. Wikipedia editing rules for this page do not permit me to do this.
Calling AIDS a “disease of the immune system” is not my own personal point of view. It is common usage, reflected in just about every English language tertiary source in the world – well, except for Wikipedia. AIDS is, according to these sources,
Merriam Webster: “…a disease of the human immune system that is characterized…”
Britannica: “…transmissible disease of the immune system caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)...”
Free Dictionary: “…a disease of the immune system characterized by increased susceptibility to opportunistic infections…”
Many other highly reliable tertiary sources define “AIDS” as a disease:
OED: “…a disease, caused by the HIV virus and transmitted in body fluids…”
Cambridge: “…a serious disease caused by a virus which destroys the body's natural protection from infection…”
Finding secondary sources that call AIDS a “disease” is as difficult as finding secondary sources claiming definitively that the sky is blue. However, here’s one:
NEJM: “The disease now known as the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, or AIDS, was first reported 20 years ago this week…” AIDS- the first 20 years
I really cannot understand why it’s so important for the Wikipedia article on AIDS to begin with an introductory definition that is not only conceptually confusing to any reader who will rely on it, but is also at odds with the definitions used by most other major English language tertiary sources.On A Leash (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I really cannot understand why you think it was important for the sentence to be that way - I was not resisting you. I asked for sources, and you provided them. I have made the change you suggested, and added the NEJM reference. Hopefully, that will help prevent it from being reverted. Sorry I did not pay attention to the fact that you're not yet able to be bold - it was not meant to add to your frustration. Nice suggestion, and I'm glad you were persistent. --Scray (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Scray's edits look good to me. Further more, online dictionaries are not reliable sources per WP:MEDRS. NEJM is, and Scray has done a perfect rewriting. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Scray. Sorry if I came across as an irritible trollOn A Leash (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

AIDS and contraception

There is a debate on the effectiveness of contraception in AIDS prevention and transmission, at least outside the scientific community. I feel that this topic is so controversial that it would perhaps deserve its own sub-article within the AIDS category, called AIDS and contraception or Debate over AIDS and conraception. It is very important to distinguish these criticisms of contraception and calls for chastity from the other, more condemnable issue of AIDS denialism. For instance, both political and religious leaders in Africa have condemned sexual liberation because if a person has sex 100 times with 100 different people, typically he would only use a condom 70-80 times or less, and therefore 20-30 people would be contaminated with AIDS. These people would then continue to use condoms and do the exact same thing, which would be to contaminate about 20-30 people. ADM (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

First, your numbers are WAY off in terms of the number of people who would be infected with HIV, since the per-act transmission rate is generally thought to be well under 1%. Now, that could be much higher if the HIV-infected person is acutely infected, or either partner has genital ulcer disease, but it's nowhere near 100% per act. Be that as it may, feel free to create a new article if you think it can stand on its own, and let the community help you decide whether it merits inclusion. It might be a good idea to develop a fairly mature draft before creating a page. It's not clear to me that we need such a page, and would dispute that it's about contraception per se - sounds more like an article about sexual behavior, but I'll keep an open mind. --Scray (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a specialist in immunology, but I do know that some variants of HIV are known as super-HIV, because they spread and develop much faster. [13] In that case, the assertion would be 100 % valid, and if this super-HIV ever became more widespread, contraception would almost become obsolete because it would certainly not be able to stop the progression of the global epidemic. [14] ADM (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no credible report of "super-HIV". The report you cite (the actual Pubmed citation is PMID 15781098) is infamous in the HIV research community. It was immediately recognized as probably overblown [15], and has not been followed with any reports of the feared outbreak. While theoretically possible for a more highly-transmissible HIV strain to emerge, no reports of such a beast have appeared in reliable sources. --Scray (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
In any case, there are also reports of super-gonorrhea [16]­[17] and other super-bugs [18] that no vaccine or condom can prevent. Of course, we're not there yet, to the point of a national epidemic, but no condom will ever prevent a large-scale super-bug epidemic if and when it does happen. ADM (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
What do you do, just make the "no condom will ever prevent" stuff up? The "super" in "super-gonorrhea" indicates drug-resistance, not the miraculous ability to travel through rubber. - Nunh-huh 02:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Romans 6

As part of the debate on AIDS and condoms, I noticed that one epistle section commonly cited by opponents of contraception is Romans 6, especially verse 23, which contains the famous quote the wages of sin is death. [19] It seems like a very relevant quote, since this is precisely what radical groups like Act Up are talking about when they accuse the Church of sending homosexuals to their deaths. ADM (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Citing that biblical passage, the application of which to homosexuality could itself be considered offensive, would not add to the content of this article. Also not sure to what you refer when saying "the Church" when there are so many in the world. Are you speaking from a specific point of view? --Scray (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
You can tell what Church I am talking about, since no Evangelical or Reformed church will ever really refer itself as the Church. The Orthodox Church has the same position as Rome anyways, and so it does not matter so much. Bible-based opposition to contraception does matter however, given that it is the crux of the issue. ADM (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The only "issue" it could be the "crux" of (I love that word in this context) is whether the Church will value its interpretation of a Bible verse more than it will value human lives: apparently the answer is "yes". But that really is rather tangential to this article, which is devoted to knowledge about AIDS, rather than the extra deaths caused by Church teachings not based in scientific evidence or rationality. - Nunh-huh 07:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, that is part of the debate. If you believe in philosophical notion of free-will, then that means that people are responsible for their actions and that no institution of 80-years olds or secular government of 40 year-olds will stop people from behaving in this way or that, according to their conscience. However, if you are into positivism and sociology, you might say that people are just mindless sheep and that it is important for everyone to agree on contraception so that the sheep will all end up behaving in the same desired way. ADM (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
You seem to want to settle things by debate, which is just plain silly: the only advantage it offers is that it lets non-experts prate on about their opinions without having done the requisite work which would make their opinions worth considering. Scientific questions are settled by accumulating data and evaluating it, not by pretty speeches and rhetorical flourishes. In any case, none of the things which seem to interest you so much more than actual information about AIDS really belong in this article, and so they also really don't belong on this talk page. - Nunh-huh 08:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
AIDS is a at least as social as it is medical or scientific ; moreover, while WP is very interested in specialists, it is not exclusivly written by them. Second, in a post-modern culture, it is no longer permissible to allow scientists to dictate everything, especially since scientists love to debate among themselves for long periods of time. Finally, the talk page is only reserved for controversial or unresolved issues, such as this one. ADM (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course, the social aspects are amenable to scientific study, which is what I meant. If you want to know if "abstinence" works, or "condoms" work, you need to look at actual data, not random opinions. - Nunh-huh 08:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyone can give numbers, that is maybe not the issue, see all the numbers in the book The Skeptical Environmentalist and all the given reactions. Even opponents of contraception can give numbers, see for example the writings of Harvard expert Edward C. Green, who gives a rate of AIDS/per/condom, and basically says that more condoms equals more AIDS. [20] ADM (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that either of the sources you cite would be considered reliable sources. So, we're not talking about those "numbers" for this WP page. --Scray (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

AIDS industry

Speaking of AIDS, I noticed that one expression that is sometimes used by specialists is AIDS industry. Is it mentioned in any relavant articles ? ADM (talk) 07:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the expression "AIDS industry" is a pejorative epithet used exclusively by people other than specialists. The only relevant article might be "AIDS denialists". - Nunh-huh 07:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Uh-uh, see this entry on Elizabeth Pisani, a leading scholar and opponent of the whole business. [21] ADM (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
She seems to be "a former Asian correspondent for Reuters", not a "specialist" - though of course she's absolutely correct about the miserable failure of abstinence programs :) . - Nunh-huh 07:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
In any case, there are plenty of sources, both left and right, that have no problem talking about it. [22] [23] [24] [25] ADM (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
You called them "specialists" before, not "sources"; I suppose they are specialists in something. A more accurate term is "critics", and the term is still pejorative. - Nunh-huh 08:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
A denialist nutbar term. Not to be used here. These people are not specialists, but uninformed journalists or laypeople or nutbars... --Bob (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, an industry is something that manufactures a product, so Pisani's term carries a very strange implication. Imagine taking about the "malaria industry" for example! Tim Vickers (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Aren't they the ones conspiring to keep DDT off the shelves, so they can sell more artemisinin? (Since you asked...) :P MastCell Talk 23:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
That's those damn rich-country environmentalists. Protecting their precious birds at the expense of Africans. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Condoms as Western sexual colonialism/slavery

I have been reading several African newspapers in recent times, and I was surprised to discover that many Africans believe that condoms are a kind of Western conspiracy to subvert the ancient survival values of the tribe and to herald a new era of sexual colonialism and slavery. They think that it is basically a trap set up by Western NGOs to control Africans even in their family life and conjugal relations. [26] [27] [28] [29] Cardinal Trujillo even called it contraceptive colonialism [30]. ADM (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Since this is starting to resemble a game of whack-a-mole, could I ask you to take a look at the talk page guidelines? Specifically, this is not a forum or blog where you post interesting tidbits and we respond with our opinions on them. Please discuss a specific, concrete change in wording to this article that you would like to see, ideally supported with reliable secondary sources. MastCell Talk 23:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Proper Name

Isn't it supposed to be referred to as 'The Aids'? I have NEVER heard anyone say 'Aids', only 'The Aids'... as in, "Magic Johnson has The Aids." Can an admin please correct the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 02:40, 27 November 2008

Do you have a source for that? I have never heard that before. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
"AIDS" is clearly the consensus in published literature and clinical settings, at least in the U.S.A. Colloquially, I have heard "the AIDS". --Scray (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I've never even heard it, myself, except in the context of "the AIDS virus" or "the AIDS pandemic". Sounds like something Borat Sagdiyev might say, though. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm from the Northeast, and it's almost always referred to as "The AIDS"; hearing it as just "AIDS" sounds very affected to me. Kind of like saying "he has flu" rather than "he has the flu". But, if the national consensus is "AIDS", I have no problem w/ it staying that way. Just thought I'd bring it up for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It can be used either way. He has the abc syndome, or, he has abc syndrome, right? (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm from the Northeast and have spent significant time in the Southeast as well, and I do HIV/AIDS research. I've found that just "AIDS" is far more common than "the AIDS." Either one of them works grammatically, but I think AIDS is the more commonly accepted version and is the one found on medical sites that discuss the disease -- take a look at WebMD, the CDC website, the website for the WHO, UNAID, CARE, and other national and international organizations and well-respected medical information pages. They all refer to it as simply "AIDS", and not "the AIDS."

For the sake of standardization we should keep it that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


The misconceptions subsection reads in part: "Other misconceptions are...that open discussion of homosexuality and HIV in schools will lead to increased rates of homosexuality and AIDS." I'm sensible to the fact that open discussion in school is usually a good thing, but I kind of doubt that this can be reliably described as a misconception as presently worded. Has somebody actually established scientifically that open discussion of homosexuality in school couldn't possibly lead to higher rates of homosexuality? Or even higher rates of AIDS? I don't have access to the book cited, but it seems like that would be difficult to prove, even if true. This smells like political correctness, not fact, to me.

By the way, I'm not trying to start a political discussion here about what sort of things should or shouldn't be discussed in schools. I just don't think a belief should be labeled a misconception unless it's been objectively shown false. Can someone check the citation for this?0nullbinary0 (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think PMID 17321420 is a better source for this statement, as this is a peer-reviewed academic review with a worldwide viewpoint. We could also cite PMID 12476253, if two sources were needed. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge article with HIV Disease and trim down?

As a medical term, AIDS is now classed as late-stage HIV disease, and its use as a medical term is fading. Currently, the article HIV Disease redirects to HIV; perhaps we can pull most information about the disease out of the HIV article, merge it with this article and set it to the article HIV Disease. This article would then be abbreviated to focus on the history of AIDS and the still extant legal aspects. Thoughts? TechBear (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Disagree - AIDS is still in heavy lay usage (which trumps medical usage) and I can attest to continued heavy use of AIDS in medicine and the science of HIV/AIDS. It may be true that "HIV disease" will eventually eclipse "AIDS", but that's far from true right now. --Scray (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • ""Agree"" Also, the article itself needs to be opened up to editing so the vast world with other knowledge can complete the page. I take issue with the lack of knowledge of the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legallyblonde (talkcontribs) 01:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree - Seeing as we still have AIDS (journal), several government and nongovernmental organizations with AIDS in the title (UNAIDS and PEPFAR for starters), and the general public usage, I don't think we should be moving at this time. Also, I wouldn't remove the semi-protection on the article. While we may get some other editors to work on it, it's probably a bit too tempting for teenagers to discuss their friends' sexuality and disclose their friends' HIV status in the article. Also HIV disease is a valid redirect, HIV Disease (capital D) wasn't until I added that redirect. Not sure on how you would do the merge/changeup in what material is presented in the HIV vs AIDS articles. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Circumcision Topic

I would suggest the section on circumcision be re-written to reflect a more balanced view of the issue. According to this article [31] most research favoring the circumcision-as-preventative-measure hypothesis is carried out by white men from countries where circumcision is prevalent. Opposing research mentioned in the same article suggests that the foreskin helps to combat disease and might be more beneficial. (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That link is not a reliable source, and the papers describing the circumcision work (with regard to HIV prevention) include African authors. Even if they did not, the cited studies supporting circumcision as prevention of HIV infection are randomized trials - the best evidence we're likely to get. If there are reliable studies suggesting harms of circumcision that outweigh the benefits, then by all means be bold (you may need an account to edit this page) or suggest content (with sources) here for others to add. --Scray (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The "Cochrane review" (in quotes because I think it's dubious) linked from (and, importantly, hosted on) the CIRP site raises serious concerns about bias and validity in the HIV circumcision studies; however, I looked up the actual review, which strongly supports the finding that circumcision is a safe and effective means of preventing HIV infection. I am not sure why there is such a discrepancy - i.e. whether this was intentional due to CIRP bias or just an issue of different versions, but the information on the CIRP site is clearly questionable at best. --Scray (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

AIDS and contraception: Our text is misleading

The section "Religion and AIDS" contains the sentence

"The topic of religion and AIDS has become highly controversial in the past twenty years, primarily because many prominent religious leaders have publicly declared their opposition to the use of contraception, which scientists feel is currently the only means to stop the epidemic."

which IMHO is dangerously misleading.

HIV transmission is not stopped by the use of contraception, per se. HIV transmission is stopped/reduced by barrier methods, principally the condom, which of course also acts as a contraceptive.

- However, most contraceptive techniques (e.g. birth-control pill, IUD, contraceptive implant, surgical sterilization, vaginal spermicide) do not stop/reduce HIV transmission. (Some of these, such as spermicides, may actually increase HIV transmission).

- The use of barrier methods is important in reducing HIV transmission in situations in which contraception is not an issue, e.g., male-male sex, heterosexual anal sex, vaginal sex between naturally or surgically infertile heterosexual partners, dental dams in oral sex practices.

I think that we really need to fix our text to clarify this. Thanks. -- (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns, and will re-read the article to see what changes are needed (let me know if you agree or disagree with what I do), but thought I should point out at once that contraception per se does stop one form of HIV transmission, that is, vertical transmission (from parent to child, by preventing the conception of the child). Of course, I think it's clear the sentence you quote is alluding to the discouragement of condom use by Catholic religious leaders, but is trying to skirt the issue and needs emendation. It's also worth pointing out that such leaders often mistakenly refer to the use of condoms by gay men as "contraceptive use" when in fact it is use of a barrier to prevent disease in a circumstance in which conception is impossible, and therefore so is contraception. - Nunh-huh 23:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I think if we simply substitute "condom" for "contraceptive" in the sentence you quote, we say what we need to say without saying anything untrue, and I have done so. Please suggest any further changes you think are needed. - Nunh-huh 23:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Thanks. -- (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

ZA Clinical Trials on AIDS Vaccine (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Cure Cases

The press often lists cures based on individual cases. Should there not be a linked article of patients and professionals of these and summary of relevance?

For example this case —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:15, 9 November 2008

I would not say "often" - this is the only credible case I know of where someone went from well-documented HIV infection to well-documented aviremia without dependency on antiretroviral drugs. Time will tell whether this is a "cure" - the virus could mutate and escape control, or the patient's original T cells might reappear and get HIV-infected. The treatment is ridiculously individualized and expensive (in case one is thinking about generalizing it), and does not demonstrate anything new conceptually. CCR5delta32 homozygotes are resistant to HIV infection, but they are rare. They can also progress to AIDS, albeit more slowly than people with "wild-type" CCR5 genes. Treatment with current medications is far cheaper and safer than a bone marrow/stem cell transplant.
While this case is notable, I'm not convinced others are. Linking to professionals involved is not within scope for Wikipedia - this is not a phone book. --Scray (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC

"Man appears free of HIV after stem cell transplant" Someone please update this page with this important content. Source:

There is a PATENTED cure: #5676977. You can look it up at: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It is patented. So what? A patent is "is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state to an inventor or his assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for a disclosure of an invention." It is not a guarantee that the invention even works, much less that it works as claimed or is safe. That vetting is done through other government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration, and is entirely separate from the Patent Office. TechBear (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

mesh number

the number is not shown, only linked? -- (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Confusing wording regarding 2007 deaths


I would suggest removing the word "had" from this sentence, because it makes it sound like this is the number killed up to 2007, when it is in fact for 2007 alone.

"In 2007, it was estimated that 33.2 million people lived with the disease worldwide, and that AIDS had killed an estimated 2.1 million people, including 330,000 children."

Jeremy4891 (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done, you can see the change here. Thanks! The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sentence is still not clear- it isn't obvious that those statistics refer to 2007, needs something like 'in that year' adding to it to make it understandable on first reading.

Recent, bizarre (sick) phenomena

Poz parties. A circle friends (gay guys) getting together and having a party when one of them becomes HIV-positive, because they no longer have to worry about not getting it. Sort of a sick rite of passage thing. I've heard this goes on in some larger cities. Anyone else heard about this phenomena? :( I first heard about it back around 2002 or so. -- (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I see its mentioned in the article -- I had to get to the end of it to see it. -- (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
That is correnct, those things happen. If you have some more information for which you are able to find citations, feel free to add more info to the article. BytEfLUSh (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)



This is clearly not true - just read the article for more information, but more specifically the Talk page guidelines, which apply to this page, specify that this page is for discussion of improvements to the article - it is not a discussion forum. Do you have a specific concern about the article's content? Also, please don't WP:SHOUT. --Scray (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

WHAT ABOUT LE SIDA WHY IS THIS NOT MENTIONED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QazimA (talkcontribs) 21:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"Le SIDA" is a synonym for AIDS in some other (non-English) languages such as French. Since this is the English Wikipedia, we use the term "AIDS" for the disease caused by HIV. --Scray (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


"open discussion of homosexuality and HIV in schools will lead to increased rates of homosexuality and AIDS." While this belief is baseless, it isn't really a misconception because it's not demonstrably false. It may seem like a small issue, but I think this makes the article look a little biased. Gtbob12 (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Unless someone gives a good reason for its inclusion, I'll remove it as POV.-- (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


Anything about the recent vaccine developed in Thailand? It has a 31.2 percent success rate or something. (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that after seeing this: --Cabbage9 (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

HIV is not the only microparasite that causes AIDS!

Anyone who does a decent literature review will realise that there are other forms of AIDS, not just limited to retroviruses either. While HIV is a commonly associated, it is not the only cause. This article is unnecessarily biased towards only one form of AIDS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly a place to raise reliable sources demonstrating a clear role for other pathogens. I've made extensive literature searches and have found others (than HIV) to be lacking in supportive evidence. We editors are an inquisitive bunch, though, so please make suggestions! -- Scray (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Because the research community has an overwhelming consensus that HIV directly leads to AIDS, and because there appear to be no sources asserting otherwise that meet the standards of reliable sources and verifiability, this is the view presented by the article. You may wish to read this essay on scientific consensus, which provides some guidelines for Wikipedia editors. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 18:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the poster means there are other causes of immunodeficiency like chemotherapy and malnutrition? He'd be right, but it wouldn't be labeled as AIDS. JoeSmack Talk 22:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Good point. My father is a transplant patient: because of his anti-rejection meds, he has to deal with many of the same issues faced by a person with AIDS. Claiming that he actually has AIDS because of his meds would be incorrect. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at: 1)Duesberg P, Koehnlein C, Rasnick D. The chemical bases of the various AIDS

epidemics: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition. J Biosci 2003;28(4):383–412. 2) Bauer HH. Questioning HIV/AIDS: morally reprehensible or scientifically warranted? J Am Phys Surg 2007;12(4):116–20. 3) :HIV/AIDS surveillance and control system in Lazio. HIV infections and AIDS: Lazio 1982–2007. Available in Italian at the web site: 2008. <>. In short: Ministry of Health in Italy does accept AIDS cases without HIV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Prevention Section Table

The table in the section labeled "Prevention" is a combination of figures from the various cited sources, and the entries add up to more than 10,000. This either suggests that there is a degree of overlap between the entries, which should be clearly described, or it's a combination of the sources which is inaccurate. It don't think it means to show "Estimated per act risk for acquisition of HIV by exposure route" as over 11,500 out of 10,000 interactions. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the data is based on incidence (the rate or range of occurrence) and not prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease in a given population at a specific time), e.g. they didn't poll 10,000 people with AIDS and provide a breakdown, so it doesn't need to add up. JoeSmack Talk 22:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

A WORK BY MARKEL AZAOLA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This line is bullshit

"In the United States, young African-American women are also at unusually high risk for HIV infection. This is due in part to a lack of information about AIDS and a perception that they are not vulnerable, as well as to limited access to health-care resources and a higher likelihood of sexual contact with at-risk male sexual partners."

I read the source, complete bullshit. Stereotypical bullshit. Reads like; every African-American girl is a poor dumb tramp so of course they get aids more often.

Bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to read the reference: it points out several reasons why this is the case, none of which are your conclusion. If you have suggestions on how to make the article better, please share them. Unconstructive, reactive posts like yours offer nothing. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I read the source and I am sharing my discontent with this statement. I think that the source is unconvincing and offers nothing that really enhances this article. The source appears unreliable. This worthless statement should be omitted, but I can only post nothings on the talk page as wiki is no longer free but is now as restricted as your viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks and incivility don't make for compelling suggestions. When I get a chance, I'll look at the source in question, maybe others will comment. -- Scray (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

U.S. patented cure for AIDS, U.S. patent #5676977

the fact that there is a cure for aids might be noted in the article as apparently its being suppressed

this should definitely be included

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Method of curing AIDS with tetrasilver tetroxide molecular crystal devices

Abstract The diamagnetic semiconducting molecular crystal tetrasilver tetroxide (Ag.sub.4 O.sub.4) is utilized for destroying the AIDS virus, destroying AIDS synergistic pathogens and immunity suppressing moieties (ISM) in humans. A single intravenous injection of the devices is all that is required for efficacy at levels of about 40 PPM of human blood. The device molecular crystal contains two mono and two trivalent silver ions capable of "firing" electrons capable of electrocuting the AIDS virus, pathogens and ISM. When administered into the bloodstream, the device electrons will be triggered by pathogens, a proliferating virus and ISM, and when fired will simultaneously trigger a redox chelation mechanism resulting in divalent silver moieties which chelate and bind active sites of the entities destroying them. The devices are completely non-toxic. However, they put stress on the liver causing hepatomegaly, but there is no loss of liver function.

also note this site...this sounds phenomenal but the patent was filed and subjects have been given the shot,

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As you've been told before, this isn't a cure for AIDS. That a patent was granted doesn't prove it "works". Much of the information on the websites you cite is not merely simply wrong, it's spectacularly wrong. - Nunh-huh 23:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
If anyone truly believes that technology exists to "fire" electrons from a silver ion to "electrocute" the AIDS virus in a "completely non-toxic" manner, then please contact me about about a large sum of Iraqi gold that I need your help in retrieving. :P In all seriousness, you might want to do some background research on Boyd Graves before citing his website in an encyclopedia. Oh, and here is some followup on Tetrasil, for the curious. Apparently it is at least useful as a pesticide to disinfect swimming pools... MastCell Talk 00:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Spam and poorly sourced edits

As Scray observed in his reversion edit summary, the recent additions by Infinitesimus are poorly-sourced or unsourced. I would add that several of the statements made by the user are, at least according to current medical consensus, wrong. From the user's first contribution, through addition of apparent spam to main space in numerous articles, it would appear that Infinitesimus aims to add claims about an herbal remedy known as Dzherelo or ImmunoXel. Even if this remedy has been discussed in the primary literature (and the user has been notified of WP:MEDRS by several editors, see User talk:Infinitesimus), its addition to the main article on AIDS is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I Have referred Keepcalm to my talk page, where I have reminded him of two things: 1. MEDRS does not require that ONLY secondary sources are used -- check through the AIDS pages and you will see many many primary sources used. Wikipedia medical entries would shrink to nothing if we follow Keepcalm's advice. 2. Deletion is NOT the way to edit contributions. Keepcalm would like to delete the corrections I have properly made regarding HIV and TB co-infection, including the severity of the problem as published by WHO and other "secondary" highly reliable sources. This is not your wikipedia, Keepcalm. Edit, don't delete. Thank you. Infinitesimus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinitesimus (talkcontribs) 02:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I urge you to carefully consider KeepCalm's advice. While it is true that there are primary references in WP articles, our guidance (cited by KeepCalm) compels us to limit such references to the major conclusions of the primary reference, to avoid giving them undue weight, and generally to avoid things like phase II clinical trial results that are often overly optimistic. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. BTW, deletion of inappropriate content is perfectly appropriate, within guidance of policies like WP:3RR etc. I also urge you to reconsider repeated insertions of material highlighting a particular product (i.e. ImmunoXel) because it gives me (and others, apparently) the impression that your view of this product might be non-neutral. -- Scray (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Scray, you seem to understand this subject. In the section AIDS#Experimental_and_proposed_treatments, how do you possibly select abzyme and an single patient bone marrow transplant as worthy of the main AIDS page, and at the same time recommend deletion of the published Phase 2 positive results to which I referred? The two treatments I added, Immunoxel/Dzherelo for HIV/TB and Immunitor V1 for HIV cachexia, have been used in thousands of patients, well over 60,000 in the case of V1. I would propose a separate page for Experimental AIDS Treatments, where anything that does not have regulatory approval would be moved. Agreed? What I do not appreciate is wasting WP contributors' by simply deleting their work. --Infinitesimus (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
First, I do not determine the content on any WP page - this is a communal effort, based on consensus. You ask about two examples in this Talk page's article. In the case of abzyme, my own opinion is that's an unusual and interesting technology (an antibody-enzyme) and the entry does not name or promote a single product (I do not know whether that was the rationale was at the time it was added). For the bone marrow transplant, that garnered an unusual amount of attention, and was arguably the first cure of HIV infection. Of course, content in that space is fluid and may change as the field advances.
If you want to create a separate page on a subject of your choosing, you could draft it in userspace, e.g. in a sandbox associated with your username. It would be wise to get some input from other editors along the way, keeping in mind that any content will be evaluated based on adherence to applicable Wikipedia policy and guidelines, including WP:Notability. Also note that you do not "own" any content in Wikipedia, even that located in "your" userspace (more info here).
If you find deletion frustrating, please understand that it is a part of any editing process, and on WP one can reduce the risk of deletion by building consensus for changes that might be controversial. No matter what any of us do in anticipation of a change to WP, deletion is always a possibility. -- Scray (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I too have concerns with these additions. The evidenced sites to support the claims have number of people in the trials around 50. I currently think that other than of interest with respect to research this is not notable.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Read the Cochrane paper before citing it

There is no greater disservice of wikipedia than editors mis-stating what a citation actually says. I am going to edit the herbal alternative section again to ensure that readers are not led to believe that the Cochrane review, in this case, was a large one -- it was not. Despite the great name of Cochrane, not all the reviews carry the same weight. Here are some points to consider: "Several randomized clinical trials testing the effect of herbal medicines" would lead anyone to think that the review included the majority, or at least a serious selection of herbal products used by the 60% of HIV patients who use them. The Cochrane in this case only reviewed 8 products! Only one trial per product! Small numbers of patients! Hello, Scray? Comment?--Infinitesimus (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

For Cochrane to include a trial it has to be of a certain quality. They than search the entire literature and include all these trial. The lack of trial means that there are not many trials of good quality.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Jmh and yes, I know how Cochrane works. That doesnt negate my points - only a few products reviewed, only one trial per product, only small numbers of patients.--Infinitesimus (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I have corrected the wording. It was implied that Cochrane was just a collect of small trial and that there were large well done trials out there that were missed but were in the 2002 review.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. If there are only 8 well-designed randomized trials of alternative therapies for AIDS, that is not a flaw in the Cochrane review. It simply points up the lack of useful scientific evidence and research on the subject. Most herbal and alternative remedies have never been subjected to any sort of rigorous scientific evaluation, for a constellation of reasons which it's probably better not to argue over here. If we're reaching for the moral high ground, then I'm going to go with James and say that it's a disservice to the reader to imply that the Cochrane Library overlooked high-quality trials; they haven't. MastCell Talk 17:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The only statement that is truthful is "The fact that a Cochrane review could only find some small clinical trials of 8 herbal products (which themselves were not adequately studied to make any conclusions) clearly indicates a lack of rigourous scientific evaluation, for a constellation of reasons." Any inference as to the lack of efficacy of ANY herbal or alternative treatments is spurious unless it cites a properly conducted clinical trial. Right? Keep it truthful.--Infinitesimus (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Claiming things which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa, is a logical fallacy. JoeSmack Talk 18:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention directly at odds with 4 or 5 centuries of the scientific method, but who's counting... Do they still teach science in schools? You know, where you generate a hypothesis and then test it, rather than assume that your hypothesis is true and then demand that other people disprove it? The latter thought process seems to be the source of quite a few tedious arguments on Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 18:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This edit and accompanying edit summary are not ideal. The edit summary claims that the Cochrane group "addressed 8 products, not herbals as a whole." That's wrong. They did, in fact, address herbals as a whole. They searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Science Citation Index, the Chinese Biomedical Database, TCMLARS; plus CISCOM, AMED, and NAPRALERT for all randomized, controlled clinical trials of herbal medicines. That is addressing herbals as a whole. MastCell Talk 18:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is proving two points: 1. there are only seven trials that met their criteria, and 2. looking at several products (all with numerous ingredients) they found suggestions of efficacy, but the numbers were small. Nothing else. --Infinitesimus (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
So to conclude "insufficient evidence to support the use" of alternative medicine. I am unsure what the issue is? We have no good evidence and without good evidence we should not recommend stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
It is the usual problem. Scientists say "no good evidence to show that herbal products change [endpoint]" and laypeople put it differently as "Scientists have demonstrated that herbal products have no ability to change [endpoint]". Be careful please. This is one of the obvious traps, that is sometimes well hidden in words. Readers of wikipedia cannot be expected to read between the lines to get the true outcome of scientific work. --Infinitesimus (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
We do not say that they do not work just that there is no evidence and no one is making a claim otherwise. It would be unwise to use something with no evidence when we have stuff that does have evidence of beneficial effect.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Vitamin supplementation

The importance of vitamins is understated currently. See for example any of the NLM-listed reviews on the subject eg . The no-citation negative comment in the vitamin section should be deleted. --Infinitesimus (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That source does not deal with AIDS specifically, but with multivitamin supplementation in general. There are plenty of high-quality sources on multivitamin supplementation in HIV/AIDS. A reasonable starting point might be Marston et al. from NEJM, which was prompted by Fawzi et al., also in NEJM.

I would be fine with removing the statement of no benefit in adults with "adequate dietary nutritional intake", pending a specific source. It would be more accurate to say (as the WHO does here) that the primary thrust should be providing adequate dietary intake of calories and nutrients, and that multivitamin supplementation is a low-risk and perhaps useful addition in people who cannot achieve adequate nutritional intake. MastCell Talk 19:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the deletion is a good idea, and as editors get a chance to review the literature, it is quite possible you will find plenty of example where various of the vitamins taken in excess of RDA minimums have significant, and important effects on various HIV/AIDS endpoints. This will come.--Infinitesimus (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Selenium citation is misrepresented

Another complete misrepresentation of the citation in AIDS#Alternative_medicine. Hurwitz et al said that the selenium effect "remained significant after correcting for the effects of disease-related factors, including ART regimen and adherence". How does this possibly translate into what wikipedia says: "Selenium can be used as an adjunct therapy to standard antiviral treatments, but cannot itself reduce mortality and morbidity.[132]" I won't bother editing unless someone powerful agrees, since certain editors like repeatedly deleting things I write.--Infinitesimus (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that selenium alone (or selenium in combination, for that matter) can reduce mortality and morbidity? The Hurwitz trial doesn't provide any such evidence, as I'm sure you noticed when you read it. The Hurwitz trial used CD4 count and viral load as surrogate endpoints, and even then the difference between the selenium and placebo groups in those measures, while statistically significant, was extremely small and of questionable clinical importance. In any case, the trial made no pretensions of examining the effect of selenium supplementation on downstream morbidity or mortality endpoints. So could you elaborate a bit on why this is a "complete misrepresentation"? MastCell Talk 00:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, this 2007 paper does seem to review the literature fairly completely when the authors say that "HIV studies have shown a relationship between a lower serum selenium level and a lower CD4 count, more opportunistic infections, faster disease progression, and greater HIV-related mortality". Regarding the numbers, the statistical significance is clearly stated, and the medical significance is also mentioned in this peer reviewed publication on a DBPC trial in a high impact journal. I don't have the experience to negate what they found: "The results support the use of selenium as a simple, inexpensive, and safe adjunct therapy in HIV spectrum disease."--Infinitesimus (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Note the word "adjunct" in your final quote - this is reflected in the section in question: Selenium can be used as an adjunct therapy to standard antiviral treatments, but cannot itself reduce mortality and morbidity. The source you cite does not indicate that selenium by itself (i.e. in the absence of standard therapy) reduces morbidity or mortality. That seems balanced and well-supported by the literature cited. -- Scray (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Cannot be used by itself? Wrong statement. The authors did not say what could or could not be used by itself. They merely observed that selenium was effective in the ways indicated and that its effectiveness was not dependent on whether ART was concomitantly used. It would be much more accurate to say what the authors found, that selenium supplementation helps in HIV treatment, as plain as day. No need to hide the result and say "Selenium can be used...", it should read as the authors concluded, as quoted above. Why misrepresent a good finding? --Infinitesimus (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I think there are two misunderstandings here. First, the word "adjunct" refers to selenium used as an addition to other therapies. So when the quote says "a simple, inexpensive, and safe adjunct", they are saying exactly what Scray indicates. I'll assume that a misunderstanding of the word "adjunct" accounts for your misstatement about using selenium alone.

A slightly more sophisticated issue has to do with association (or correlation) vs. causation. There is evidence that lower levels of selenium are associated (correlated) with poorer outcomes in HIV/AIDS. That doesn't show causation, though. It may be that low selenium caused the poor outcomes, or it may be that low selenium levels are a by-product or marker for poor global nutritional status or other nutritional deficiencies that actually cause poor outcomes. The prospective randomized, controlled trial does try to answer the question of causation - but their answer is limited to saying that selenium caused a small improvement in viral load/CD4, not that selenium supplementation prevented clinical complications or death. MastCell Talk 05:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

AIDS and Homosexuals

The commonly-understood relationship, statistical or otherwise, between AIDS infection and homosexuality should be addressed. I appreciate that Wikipedians want to avoid appearing to endorse the misunderstanding that AIDS is a "gay disease", but the common perception that AIDS is an issue of particular interest to the gay community needs to be discussed, even if only to be refuted. Personally, I came to this article just now hoping that it would shed some light on the reason behind the connection. --MQDuck (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that, Duck. At the moment at least, the editors of this page are refusing to acknowledge raw statistics from the CDC and PHAC, the main disease authorities of the U.S. and Canada, respectively. Apparently any sort of connection with HIV/AIDS and homosexuality is "too hot to touch". (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
If this page is a frequent target of the sort of people who like to say that AIDS is the result of the dirty lifestyle homosexuals supposedly live, I can understand if it's proved most practical to just avoid the issue of 'AIDS and gay people' altogether. But unless that's the case, I'd say it's a mistake to not address it. [Note: This comment was previously deleted for unclear reasons] --MQDuck (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe it started out in the gay community and took some time to spread into heterosexuals. Also there are a number of pathophysiological and social considerations. The risk of transmission is 4% if you are the insertee in anal sex but only 1% if vaginal sex. There was also a famous airline employee who traveled around and had sex with everyone he could. He was homosexual. If this is not already in the article it should be. The risk of getting HIV if one is the male incerter is only 0.4%. The numbers are approximate from my school years.
The other issue is cultural and has to do with the distribution in the number of partners people of different genders have. If you wish to write about this issue I am sure it has a place. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't feel qualified to add such a section. Also, it should discuss the affect of AIDS on gay culture, not just throw out some statistics. Perhaps WikiProject LGBT studies can be recruited. --MQDuck (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Well create something on your talk page. Let me know if you need help finding papers. And I can look it over once you have created something... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


It should be noted that Aids is mostly prominent in the gay community. Although heterosexuals can get the disease the majority of those infected are gay or bi sexual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If it were true, my anonymous friend, we would have noted it. However, it isn't, so it would be a very silly thing to "note". You may want to read the sections of the article on AIDS in Africa more closely. For future reference, comments on Wikipedia are generally left at the bottom of the talk pages, not the top, and signed by typing four tildes (~~~~) - Nunh-huh 03:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Minor note, I've now moved this post to the bottom of the page. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
We're supposed to forget about the 8 million people in Africa with HIV. :P I guess all them are gay, too, right? Can we just delete this fucking section? I mean, really. Anonymous prick should move to Iran. -- (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
If you were infected by a homosexual, that doesn't mean majority of the cases are. You should not let your personal experience interfere with reality. BytEfLUSh (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You can get the disease from anyone, you don'thave to be gay nor bi sexual to catch it, seems like someone needs to read a little bit more into this disease!Shinea-sha (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A while ago I tried to insert a small but significant statistic into an article about the connection between male homosexuality and HIV/AIDS in the United States but it was deleted twice.
It was direct from the CDC and PHAC, and stated that since active homosexual males are more than twice as likely to get HIV/AIDS yet account for only around 4% of the population, the disease was thus 50 times more prevalent among active homosexual men in the U.S. CDC officials even quoted this fact verbatim during at least one recent HIV Prevention Conference.
I cited everything with dozens of links and used neutral language, but my edits were removed due to "synthesis", i.e. I was apparently "drawing my own personal conclusions" from raw statistics, and it was thus "biased". So yes, there is a connection but according to Nunh-huh, "they" haven't noticed it yet. (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no denying the incidence as it pertains to risk, among the homosexual community specifically within the sphere of North America is significantly higher than any other demographic, again specifically within North America. That said, it's really important not to negate this important information; whether the impetus is fear of continuing to contribute to a stigma or fear-mongering, or any other motivation. Accurate information is pivotal in the continuing efforts to fight this deadly virus (ie. safe sex practices, etc. that didn't receive much attention before the AIDS epidemic/pandemic received notoriety and due attention). Ignoring or deleting accurate and well-documented information, as the above user has cited, regarding high-risk demographics doesn't serve to protect anyone. I hope they'll re-insert the information, and that other editors will try to see its importance without prejudice.Corymichael780 (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please add the following info to the article....Repost...

Dietary concern and the disease

-- (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer If the contents in the above links are involved in Glycemic index, Glycemic load and Insulin index, please ignore them as the measures have been questioned-- (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Terminology for rates

Hi everyone,

What is the consensus on Wikipedia for various terms associated with rates of AIDS infection?

In the news, I see the following terms:

  • HIV/AIDS prevalence rate:- fraction who have HIV circulating in their blood stream
  • HIV/AIDS transmission rate:- fraction of new cases of HIV infections
  • HIV/AIDS infection rate:- unclear whether this means "HIV/AIDS prevalence rate" or "HIV/AIDS transmission rate"
  • AIDS mortality rate:- fraction who die from AIDS or opportunistic diseases

I suggest that we match the terminology of a reliable source on direct quotes, but in paraphrases we avoid the unclear "HIV/AIDS infection rate".

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Life expectancy without treatment

The article cites 3 different life expectancies for an AIDS patient without treatment, from 1 to 11 years. The difference in these figures ought to be explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The 9 to 11 year figure refers to the median survival from the time of initial infection with HIV, while the roughly one year survival is the period from the onset of the first AIDS defining illness (opportunistic infection or tumor).On A Leash (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
This means I could contract the infection with HIV, and pass it on for 8 to 10 years, before coming down with an AIDS defining illness. What a horrible disease! I hate diseases that have long subclinical infection periods.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Research at home

It would be nice to point out that at least one distributed computing project (where private computer users can let their computers help find cures) is helping research new drugs before they are actually produced. This process saves time and money. See

The research is public domain and non-profit. If people can help at home, why not? The computer does all the work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been proposed, and unsupported, before. Wikipedia is not a place for promoting any cause, however laudable. If this project were to produce even one notable drug, then that might be worthy of inclusion - if supported by reliable sources and truly notable. -- Scray (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

My friend, there have already been successes, and published, in many areas of distributed computing. There is no "cause" being advocated here! This is virtual testing of molecules against disease. Do you know how the latest prime numbers were found? We are talking hard-core science. Seriously, you must be confusing this with something else. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the project - I have the software running on two of my computers right now - but that doesn't make it sufficiently relevant to this article for it to be included here. Again, if you can name even one notable drug that has been developed by this project that would not otherwise have been developed, then propose a change to the article. Wikipedia is not a place to promote any cause, not even a laudable non-profit one. It's an encyclopedia. -- Scray (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The WCG already has a wikipedia article, World Community Grid, and contributions to improve that article would be most welcome. However, we only report here what has been stated in reliable medical sources. If you find a reliable review of research into AIDS, Muscular dystrophy, or Dengue fever, etc. that covers the use of the WCG in searching for or finding useful drugs, then use that to add information to the relevant article and cite the source. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Replies appreciated, however a "cause" is not the same as a science project aimed at finding cures. I don't think you should deny people the opportunity to do whatever they can do to help. No one is spamming them, asking for money or preaching to them. Think about it, how many non-profit projects that are created by real scientists and interested technology people are in existence? Answer: very few. I say include the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see Category:HIV/AIDS organizations including prevention organizations, research institutes, as well as Category:Medical and health foundations. Per Scray above, not for promotion. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Ryan White.jpg nominated for deletion on commons

File:Ryan White.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. Feel free to voice your opinion about this at its entry. -Optigan13 (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see added to this HIV/AIDS some definitions of terms used to explain how AIDS virus enters and affects the immune system, i.e. not everyone is healh care trained or educated in pathophysiology. I would also like to see the importance of the protease inhibitors explained: they are very very important in the medication regiment. Here are some definitions. Feel free to use them in any way you please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DIVSHA (talkcontribs) 19:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Inventing the Aids Virus: Proposed Article-Stub for the book

Being new to Wikipedia, I'm soliciting comment on a proposed stub for Duesberg's book. It's currently a blacklisted title and so resides on my talk page. Appreciate any constructive comment, as well as a cover-pix. Bruce Swanson 14:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceSwanson (talkcontribs)

I don't see a need for a separate article; Duesberg's views are covered well in the biography, Duesberg hypothesis and AIDS denialism. Is the book sufficiently notable on its own? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi guys, I just dropped by for a quick reference and found the graphic for "Disability-adjusted life year for HIV and AIDS per 100,000 inhabitants." strongly misleading. The steps are not equally distributed, which somewhat distorts the picture. I suggest a rework. Cheers! -- (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking critically about this, but the graphic is straight from the WHO, and the choice of steps in such an analysis is always a challenge; "reworking" it would be original research. If you find a better one from a reliable source, please suggest it. -- Scray (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha, thanks for the info. I also gave this a little more thought and came to the conclusion that it's probably best to leave it as is. The spread of diseases tends to accelerate as more people become infected. The irregular steps used by the WHO might have to do with certain thresholds which are important in policy analysis.