Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:HIV‎ | AIDS
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 15 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23

Mentioning year and source

In this edit "A 2006 media report" was added. We do not need to preface every line with "a 2004 book", "a 2009 systematic review and meta analysis" etc as that would just look silly. Thus have reverted the changes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Have removed the sentence entirely as we already discuss here HIV/AIDS#Denial.2C_conspiracies.2C_and_misconceptions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
My insertion of the year of the article is explained on your Talk page, but I support your latest edit.--Soulparadox (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Have found a better ref [1]. Agree that the original ref was not very good as it was a primary rather than a secondary source. Thanks for joining the discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Slate story on HIV/AIDS

There is a story at about AIDS and its denialists. The quote I'm interested in (it's in the second paragraph) is as follows: Before the advent of modern HIV treatments, AIDS was a speedy and terrifying killer, turning an otherwise healthy human into an emaciated corpse with horrifying speed.

The current AIDS article contradicts that statement, as follows: Without treatment, this second stage of the natural history of HIV infection can last from about three years to over 20 years (on average, about eight years). While typically there are few or no symptoms at first, near the end of this stage many people experience fever, weight loss, gastrointestinal problems and muscle pains.

I'm at a loss to understand the discrepancy. I think it should it be addressed in the article. I just want to get some comment before I include the Slate comment and reference in the article. Operative67 (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It's important to understand that in the early days of the epidemic, HIV/AIDS was often not diagnosed until it had entered its terminal phase with severe opportunistic infections. Those individuals were, in fact, infected 3-20 years earlier, but the second stage of the illness went unrecognized because little was known about it at the time. From the perspective of the patient/family, the time from diagnosis to death was indeed often very short in the early days. With a better understanding of the epidemiology of HIV/AIDS and better diagnostic tests, people are presently often diagnosed early in the second stage of the illness. For a more technical discussion of this apparent discrepancy, see lead-time bias. MastCell Talk 18:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Genetherapy against AIDS

Is genetherapy the solution to cure aids and to save Zambia, implanting the genes of somone who cannot be infected with the disease to a sick people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

So it looks like a case of bad reporting by the Slate author, Stern. Surprised no Slate editor caught it. Operative67 (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


Would this review of CCR5 Monoclonal antibodies at least be enough for the article to mention the connection between CCR5 deletion and HIV immunity?

Is it being used in practice? Else would go in the section on research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

HIV timecourse graph

old version
new version

Hey there fellow editors, I have created a new version of the graph to show the time course of an HIV infection in the hope to include it in this article as well as the HIV article. The aim was to make a graph that is as simple and clear as possible to serve its purpose to explain the time course of CD4 cell counts and viral load over the course of a typical untreated HIV infection. The old graph has quite a few issues that have been bothering me and which I tried to address with the new version. Below I am discussing the changes and my reasons behind them.


First, let's define the purpose of the diagram in this article. As I understand it this is an overview diagram to explain a generalized trends of CD4 cell counts and viral load over the course of time of a typical untreated HIV infection. As such, the diagram should be simple and easy to understand.

The purpose, however, is not to explain what HIV/AIDS is or give specific details about different aspects of an HIV infection. An overview diagram is the very last place to add text content. That's what the caption and the rest of the article are for.

  • Comment That's your take on scope. This as an overview of HIV's time course in the context of the HIV RNA and CD4 trajectories. Linking these concepts conceptually is helpful - and reliable sources seem to agree. Clearly, it's not the "very last place to add text" - and I see it as helpful. -- Scray (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    • That is one reliable source, and here's another reliable source (Fig 1) that does not deem the text helpful and leaves it out. So? The point is that, sadly, figures in original publications are hardly a gold standard for good and informative design. And I think we, the editors, are well able to decide for ourselves what belongs in a figure for a Wikipedia article and what doesn't.SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 12:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Remove of text clutter

Following the scope of the diagram, I have decided to remove unnecessary text clutter in the diagram:

-'Wide dissemination of virus; Seeding of lymphoid organs' - These are arbitrarily picked pieces of details about an HIV infection that belong in either the caption or rather the article where the acute phase of HIV is being discussed. They do not belong in the graph itself. If we were to include these two very specific details in the graph, why not include other, equally important information: formation of latent cells, production of antibodies etc.? The list is endless.

-'Conditional Constitutional Symptoms', 'Opportunistic diseases' - That is what 'Symptoms of AIDS' means. Again, it doesn't need to be specified here. It should be explained in detail in the article text where the symptoms of AIDS are explained. Moreover, this diagram is very general in nature. Thus, it doesn't make any sense to pinpoint 'ConditionalConstitutional Symptoms' & 'Opportunistic diseases' to particular points in time at 7.5 years and 10 years. This may mislead the viewer to believe that for example conditionalconstitutional symptoms will not occur before 7.5 years of an HIV infection.

  • Comment "clutter" is subjective. The current figure reflect widespread usage of figures like this. While we're expressing our own opinions, the choices make sense to me (and I don't see "production of antibodies" as coupled to this figure at all - so I agree that would be arbitrary). You also seem to misunderstand that "constitutional symptoms" are a harbinger of AIDS (and that "conditional" would make no sense at all in this context), thus they are placed just at the transition between clinical latency and AIDS. That could be clarified in the caption, certainly. It's just a diagram, so the caption/text should indicate that all timing indicated - on the current version or your new one - is highly variable person-to-person. -- Scray (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    • In my previous comment I mixed up the words 'constitutional' and 'conditional'. Fixed now.
    • 'production of antibodies' or 'formation of latent cells' is not coupled to this figure but 'seeding of lymphoid organs' is? It's completely arbitrary. (Btw, Thesefigures in other reliable sources consider the antibodies so important that they even add a third graph for them to the diagram, while leaving out the text like I did.)
    • As for the widespread use of the figure, most of those instances are derivatives of this very wikipedia figure. Ignoring those (plus the original figure this is based on, linked above), there are few left that also include the additional text. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 12:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Label positions

Many of the positions of the text labels in the old version seems rather random and therefore cause confusion. For example: 'Death' is placed right underneath of 'Symptoms of AIDS' therefore giving the impression that death was one symptom of AIDS. The three brackets for 'Acute HIV symptoms', 'Clinical Latency' and 'Symptoms of AIDS' are each placed at a different height making it harder to read the diagram and distinguish between those three phases. In the new version of the diagram, I chose to use the same style for start and end point of the infection ('Infection' & 'Death'). Unlike the other text labels, these two labels describe a precise point in time and therefore contain a vertical arrow to indicate the beginning and end of the infection. For the three phases 'Acute HIV Syndrome', 'Clinical Latency' and 'AIDS Syndrome' I chose a subtle but clear to distinguish gradient in the background. Unlike with the three horizontal brackets in the old version, the gradients in the new version extend downwards and therefore make it easier to distinguish the three phases visually.

  • Comment Agree that the labels for infection and death could be clearer in the way you describe, simply by editing the current version. The gradients reduce contrast between text and background, reducing legibility. -- Scray (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but the gradients are so subtle that I really don't see how they are an issue concerning reduced contrast. Are you really saying the new version of the figure is less legible than the old one? SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 12:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

X-axis & the two graphs

In the old version the x-axis extends to the left beyond 0 weeks (to approximately -1 weeks) and to the right beyond the point of death. In my opinion it makes more sense and is more intuitive to let the x-axis start with the infection and end with death.

The old version also contains two errors (apparently due to sloppy drawing of the graphs): The start of the blue graph ('Primary Infection') does not line up with 0 weeks but is placed at about 1 week. (Check the 2000px version of the old version or open it in a graphics program and draw a vertical line, if you don't believe it.) That doesn't make any sense at all. The graph should obviously start with 'Primary Infection' at 0 weeks. The other thing is the start of the viral load graph. Is there any good reason why it should not extend down to the x-axis? I don't think there is. One might argue that there is a lower level of PCR tests to detect viral RNA, however, that limit is somewhere about 40 copies/ml and therefore even below the x-axis.

  • Comment not particularly consequential, and readily fixed in the current version (we can wait to see consensus before deciding whether to edit current or new). -- Scray (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    • It's not particularly important if the graphs starts at the correct point? I thought this was a scientific article... SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 12:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Font + Size

The original font size of the smaller text labels in the old version is 12pt, making it very difficult to read any of the text unless a larger version of the diagram is being viewed. The text size was increased to 14pt in the new version. One might consider to increase the text size of the axis labels as well (maybe skipping every other label on the CD4 axis). To add clarity to the overall look I chose a san serif font.

I hope you agree with my reasons for changing the diagram. Let me know what you think and if you approve using the new version in the article. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 23:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment Font and size are readily fixed in the current version. Overall, I guess it's apparent that I prefer the current version, but applaud your effort and agree that there are some things that could be tweaked; more importantly, this figure reflects reliable sources and unifies some key features of HIV infection. -- Scray (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Vitamin D & HIV/AIDS

Why don't anyone talk about the actual cure for HIV/AIDS? Vitamin D3 normally at doses 10,000IU or above, cures HIV/AIDS (all patient's treated at this dose or above, tests negative for HIV within two months), CD4 count rises dramatically above 600 x 10^6 and of all things leukocytosis occurs (10,000 x 10^6 ml) and a mild fever may occur. The problem is that I am the primary source and I was given no encouragement by anyone to write this in any scientific journal because I am only an undergraduate student. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mataylor1983 (talkcontribs) 08:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I encourage anyone with a cure for HIV to present it at an international HIV conference and publish it in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. Once secondary sources provide evidence of notability and authenticity, we can seriously consider adding to WP. Absent such support, this is not the place to talk about speculative cures (particularly when many people with HIV have received vit D3 / cholecalciferol at that level as supplementation without being cured). -- Scray (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I have not read any study in which very high doses of vitamin D3 have been used as medicine, I believe that the studies that do exist is concerning 400IU to 2000IU of Vitamin D3 and they found that vitamin D3 levels correlate with CD4 count and negatively correlate with viral levels. I don't think its fair for them to expect an undergraduate student to receive government funding for a high dose vitamin D3 study which hasn't been done yet? If Scray knows where to find such a study, please reference it. We all agree on using secondary sources I just hope that some doctor decides to look into that person's story and investigate vitamin D3. And this is the place to talk about it politely even if its only speculation, perhaps the page itself could be updated with the studies that show that vitamin D3 has a positive effect on CD4 counts and has a negative correlation with viral load. So far the page itself does not even mention Vitamin D3, not even in the alternative treatment section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Based on a cursory review of the literature, there are published studies of vit D3 supplementation in persons with HIV (PMID 23611825, PMID 19117833) that have shown no significant benefit in terms of CD4 count (and we know that halting HIV replication would rapidly improve CD4 count). There is some interest in studying this more directly (PMID 21852710), and there are recommendations to supplement vit D3 in persons who are vit D3 deficient (including people with HIV; this is not a treatment of HIV per se, so it does not belong here unless coverage in secondary sources dictates that we include it). I don't think any of this rises to the quality that we'd want to include in the article - and that is the only thing we should discuss on this WP:Talk page (NOTE: this is not the place to discuss speculation, because WP in not a forum for such discussions). -- Scray (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

updated figures

In the epidemiology section figures are given from 2012, yet in the intro they are given for 2010, can the later figures be given for both? Article is locked so I cannot fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the page is protected such that only users who have been autoconfirmed can edit it. You can find more information about autoconfirmation at WP:AUTOCONFIRM. Makyen (talk) 09:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


Do not see what part of the paper supports this "Those who have not been treated with HAART have a higher rates of these metabolic problems suggesting that HIV itself may have an negative impact on cardiovascular system.[1]"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Emailed you the specifics and let you know via email/talk page. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Probable cure for AIDS

There's probably an experimental cure for AIDS, which is the stem cell.

There is a news article saying that two men were functionally cured of AIDS while they were undergoing a stem cell therapy to treat their lymphomas. In July 2012, Henrich had reported that the two men had no HIVs at their blood.

Source: Castillo, Michelle (3 July 2013). "Two men "cured" of HIV no longer taking treatments". CBS News. Retrieved 12 January 2014. (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

We use secondary sources. Yes interested but no not a general "cure" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2013

I'd like to make an edit request:

under the section of "Discovery", I believe that Francoise Barre-Sinoussi should receive equal credit as Luc Montagnier in discovering HIV, as they received the Nobel Prize for it jointly.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


In light of the new developments in our understanding of how HIV kills CD4 T cells

1. I would like to add these relevant references:

To the sentence: "It directly and indirectly destroys CD4+ T cells.[57]" please add [1][2]

2. To the section Pathophysiology I would request to add:

After the sentence: During the chronic phase, the consequences of generalized immune activation coupled with the gradual loss of the ability of the immune system to generate new T cells appear to account for the slow decline in CD4+ T cell numbers.[69]: I would request to add the following sentences:

Recent studies[3][4] demonstrate that lymphoid CD4 T cells, abortively infected by HIV-1, die by caspase-1-mediated pyroptosis, a highly inflammatory form of programmed cell death. The DNA sensor IFI16 was shown to detect HIV DNA and triggers such cell death. Depletion of CD4 T-cell depletion and inflammation are signature events that propel HIV disease progression to AIDS. Cell death by pyroptosis appears to create a pathogenic vicious cycle in which dying CD4 T cells release inflammatory signals that attract more cells into the infected lymphoid tissues to die and to produce chronic inflammation and tissue injury.

Thank you, and Happy Holidays. (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

We typically use review articles rather than primary sources per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

AIDS Came from Eating Monkeys

Scientists from the University of Nottingham found that two strains of an HIV-like disease, SIV, has been discovered dormant in chimpanzees. Humans later caught the disease after hunting and eating the infected chimps. In humans, the disease morphed into HIV-AIDS, which reportedly has killed over 20 million people, mostly in Africa where eating monkey flesh often practiced [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


The lead says "AIDS is considered a pandemic", this should be rephrased as "HIV/AIDS is considered a pandemic", which is the expression that's also used in the given source. The point is that not all HIV-positive people will progress to AIDS. We should really be careful not to mix up the two terms in this article. Can someone change this please, as I am unable to edit the article. Chakalacka (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- Scray (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Since we are already at it, this sentence in the Virology section should also be fixed: "HIV is the cause of the spectrum of disease known as HIV/AIDS.". It just doesn't make sense. Maybe "HIV is the cause of the disease known as AIDS." or perhaps "HIV is the cause of a spectrum of diseases known as AIDS." Chakalacka (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
There is also "acute HIV" which is a disease caused by the HIV virus. So I think it is okay the way it is. The spectrum is HIV/AIDS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Has "acute HIV" actually been characterized/defined as a disease? I'm not a doc but I am wondering. Either way, I feel that the current sentence in a nutshell says "HIV is the cause of HIV" and somehow that seems more confusing than clarifying. Chakalacka (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is a disease. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2014 (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

What actually? Noteswork (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

"These" versus "The vast majority of these"

Disagreement with this edit that I wanted to discuss rather than just revert.

The full phrase in question, with the disputed part bolded, is:

A small group of individuals continue to dispute the connection between HIV and AIDS,[228] the existence of HIV itself, or the validity of HIV testing and treatment methods.[229][230] The vast majority of these claims, known as AIDS denialism, have been examined and rejected by the scientific community.

As it looks now, it is implied that there exist some disputes about HIV and its relationship with AIDS that have been examined and accepted. This is most certainly not the case: EVERY such denialist claim that has been investigated has been rejected, quite firmly. While "These claims" is technically imprecise, it does not give a false impression and is significantly more correct. Thoughts? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it to say that all denialist claims are answered. There are not any reliable sources presenting unanswered denialist claims. There is no controversy in the scientific or medical community. Anyone who wishes to state otherwise should present a source making a claim which has not been answered. So far as I know, by the late 1990s the debates had resolved in the scientific and medical communities, and no claims have been made since then. See Wikipedia's guide to reliable sources for medicine for information about how to present medical claims. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
What we had before which was "These claims" was perfectly clear. Thus restored to that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Removing very odd opinion from lead.

People are free to their opinions but I don't think they are needed in this Wikipedia article. I will be removing the line "The disease has also become subject to many controversies involving religion." Considering most people on the planet are religious, and most have different views of all subject matter, anything could be "subject to many controversies involving religion".Mantion (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not an opinion or odd, and it's in the lead because it summarizes significant aspects of the article...per WP:Lead. Flyer22 (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes there have been some controversies revolving around organized religion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

HIV/AIDSAIDSWP:MEDMOS#Article titles states that "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term." Therefore it seems apparent that AIDS should be the title of this article, since the number of PubMed hits for AIDS far exceeds that of HIV/AIDS (219,347 vs. 23313). [2] [3] Jinkinson talk to me 03:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: See these two past discussions about the HIV/AIDS title: Talk:HIV/Archive 6#Merge of HIV and AIDS article into a single article called HIV/AIDS and Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 21#Article title. I'm weighing out of this discussion; I don't care as much as I used to about whether this article is titled AIDS or HIV/AIDS. The HIV/AIDS title has grown on me. Flyer22 (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Information: The searches above are inaccurate in that
A: the AIDS search contains all HIV/AIDS results. The following searches produced the listed number of results:
B:The second inaccuracy is that the search for "AIDS" is definitely picking up a large quantity of articles where the text "AIDS" is only found in either a category or a reference. Without significant further limitation, the numbers are inappropriate to use as a basis to compare the prevalence of usage levels between AIDS and HIV/AIDS. Filtering for use of the terms only in the title or abstract provides the following results:
The numbers when filtered for only searching for the text in the title or abstract show a much less lopsided usage of the two terms. Further, the numbers show a significant shift towards the use of HIV/AIDS instead of just AIDS on a percentage basis.
— Makyen (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes we must make sure we do not let google countitis infect us. Having made 604 edits to this article [4] and having read all the major guidelines while bringing this page to GA it is clear what is the most commonly accepted term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Very strong oppose WHO uses HIV/AIDS. Thus I oppose. AIDS is the older term. HIV/AIDS is the newer term. This article is NOT just about AIDS which has a specific definition. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
This is the leading global publication on the subject [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Ironically, Jmh649, the WHO report linked above uses "AIDS" 249 times and "HIV/AIDS" only 185--which seems to provide more support for my proposed move than support for keeping the current title. IOW, "WHO uses HIV/AIDS" is a bit misleading, since while the report is entitled Global HIV/AIDS Response, the document seems to prefer dropping the "HIV/" to using it. Jinkinson talk to me 19:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Have you looked at the terms in question? What terms are picked up for AIDS? UNAIDS is one that occurs on nearly every page. But most importantly AIDS is a subgroup of HIV/AIDS which is the continuum of disease caused by HIV. This article is not about just the one part, AIDS it is about the whole continue of disease. We need to use an understanding of the literature and a reading of the sources not a simple counting of terms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source that supports your argument, which seems to be that HIV causes a continuum of disease, HIV/AIDS, of which AIDS is but one part? Also, while the argument that major medical bodies refer to it as HIV/AIDS definitely has merit, I still think it's a bit confusing to have an article whose title consists of the name of a virus and a "continuum of disease" caused by it. Since I am now on the fence about what this page's title should actually be, I will let the rest of this RM play out until a consensus is (or isn't) reached. Jinkinson talk to me 23:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Read the "signs and symptoms" section of the article. When we state the number of people with HIV this is different than the number of people with AIDS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) causes HIV infection and AIDS."[6]. We could change the title of the article to HIV infection and AIDS but the current title is a more common abbreviation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. The article treats two related syndromes, HIV infection (before it manifests as AIDS) and AIDS. You can't replace the current title with the name of just one of those things. I would have no objection to Doc James's HIV infection and AIDS, however. But HIV/AIDS is widely used, and I don't think it causes any confusion.- Nunh-huh 01:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose The name HIV/AIDS is used by some reliable sources so it is appropriate. Beyond that, PubMed hits alone do not constitute enough of an argument for change. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose there is a specific definition of AIDS, which refers to a subset of people who have HIV. A sentence incorporated into the lead explaining this difference may address Jinkinson's concerns/confusion, such as "AIDS is used to refer to individuals affected by HIV based on their symptoms or the levels of virus found in their blood". --LT910001 (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose There does not appear to be a good argument for moving the page. The current article name is "the scientific or recognised medical name" for what is covered in the article. AIDS is a subset of that. Which of the two "HIV/AIDS" and "AIDS" is actually most common in articles at this time has not been clearly determined. The numbers above indicate that it is reasonably close. "AIDS" is too short of a search term to be able to indicate solely by the numeric quantity of results for a search that it is more prevalent. Further, given that it is a subset of HIV/AIDS, it is quite possible that substantial quantities of articles are using the term to accurately describe just the subset. In addition, it is clear the trend is toward increasing use of the "HIV/AIDS" term. — Makyen (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose The term AIDS was around for almost a decade before HIV was accepted as its causative agent, and it is only in the last 15 years that HIV/AIDS has begun to supplant AIDS; that is why there are so many more references to AIDS. HIV/AIDS is the correct name and should remain the name of this article. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Congenital HIV/AIDS infection

No article on it. Surprised. Anyone smart?

How, exactly, does a newborn with HIV differ substantially from someone who contracts the virus later in life? Can you refer editors to reliable, third-party sources that detail the differences? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 22:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
It's described in the article, I don't see why it should be a separate article, and your comment is unsigned. Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Red ribbon

Consider it a better image for the lead. Thus restored. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks appropriate. Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit suggestion

In the "acute infection" section, "a rash, headache, and/or sores of the mouth and genitals" can be improved in its English language usage by changing it to "a rash, headache, or sores of the mouth and genitals". (see also Swan's book Practical English Usage for the correct use of and and or). Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories etc edit

Editor ShawntheGod added "Some people dispute the scholars consensus about the origins of HIV" to the page (see this edit for its context) without adding any references, in what appears to be a sentence where it makes no sense. I reverted, thinking it was vandalism, and wrote in my edit summary "rv point that made no sense in that locatino and is already made at the start of the para". The editor reverted my revert, saying "no it doesn't, it says "a small group of people continue to dispute the connection between HIV and AIDS", not the same thing", which seems to me to miss the point. Anyway, I have reverted them a second time, and suggested they take it up here. If anyone else has a different view, please raise it. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to make a section. As we all know some people out there aren't adherents of the scholar consensus of origins of HIV/AIDS. Even the Soviets themselves weren't believers of the scholarly consensus. I simply added some information in front of that to go along with that part and no citation was needed because one is already there to substantiate my sentence that says "Surveys show that a significant number of people believed – and continue to believe – in such claims." which affirms my editorial about how some people dispute the scholar consensus of HIV/AIDS. ShawntheGod (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The edit in that location does not make sense, and a new section would represent undue weight on fringe views. But you could post a proposal here and see what others think. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

How does it not make sense? Seems completely harmonious with the conspiracy section. ShawntheGod (talk) 07:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The edit in question is ungrammatical and a little vague, but it does raise the issue that this article does not discuss or link to Discredited HIV/AIDS origins theories, as distinct from AIDS denialism. Based on that article, there have been multiple conspiracy theories independent of the Soviet propaganda. Perhaps the section hatnote should be changed to
and a short summary sentence could be added before the sentence about INFEKTION, something along the lines of "Several discredited conspiracy theories have held that HIV was created by scientists, either inadvertently or deliberately." Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 10:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Come to think of it, the survey mentioned at the end of HIV/AIDS#Denial, conspiracies concerns conspiracies, not denial. It might be clearer to split the section into two paragraphs – the first about denial, the second about conspiracies. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 11:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Happy with Adrian's suggestion. People do not believe all sorts of stuff. Not sure the extra text is due weight on this page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

"concerns conspiracies, not denial."

Seems like it could be focusing on both, the denial of HIV's true genesis and a belief against the scholar consensus, a conspiracy theory belief or whatever. I think it's not necessary to split the denials and conspiracy theories into two separate sections because they can kinda be quite cognate with one another. ShawntheGod (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm suggesting two short paragraphs within one section. It would look like this:
Extended content

Denial, conspiracies

A small group of individuals continue to dispute the connection between HIV and AIDS,[6] the existence of HIV itself, or the validity of HIV testing and treatment methods.[7][8] These claims, known as AIDS denialism, have been examined and rejected by the scientific community.[9] However, they have had a significant political impact, particularly in South Africa, where the government's official embrace of AIDS denialism (1999–2005) was responsible for its ineffective response to that country's AIDS epidemic, and has been blamed for hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths and HIV infections.[10][11][12]

Several discredited conspiracy theories have held that HIV was created by scientists, either inadvertently or deliberately. Operation INFEKTION was a worldwide Soviet active measures operation to spread the claim that the United States had created HIV/AIDS. Surveys show that a significant number of people believed – and continue to believe – in such claims.[13]

Denialism and conspiracy theories are certainly related, but I think this structure makes it clearer that the examples we mention have distinct foundations. (The South African deaths were the result of denial that HIV causes AIDS, whereas INFEKTION concerned HIV's origin, and wouldn't even make sense if HIV did not cause AIDS.) Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 14:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I concur, looks good, no problem here. ShawntheGod (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James and ShawntheGod. I've edited the article accordingly. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 12:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Looks good, likewise, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


I read an interesting book, 'Elephants on Acid: And Other Bizarre Experiments', part of which is given up to the history of transplant, transfusion and hybridization. A great deal of this work was carried out in the early half of the 20th century. Once such case being that of Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov, who saw possible benefits to the creation of a human / ape hybrid. The alleged date and location of his attempts to create his hybrid correspond relatively well with those identified as the origin of SIV's crossover into humans. With crossover being so unlikely from the consumption of SIV infected meat alone, there being such a high risk during transfusion, the level of interest in transfusion and lack of knowledge regarding it during this period, it seems at least plausible that crossover may have occurred as the result of such research efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Perhaps, but please be aware that Wikipedia cannot publish original research. (New threads go down the bottom of the page.) Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 22:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Format of references

In a recent edit, Boghog changed data within a large number of citations well beyond what he claimed in his edit summary. The substitution of {{Cite pmid}} and {{Cite doi}} for the contents of their respective {{cite journal}} which were automatically built and are contained in the Template:Cite pmid and Template:Cite doi page hierarchy. In total there were 3 {{Cite pmid}} and 1 {{Cite doi}} in this article. I don't have a problem with the substitution of those templates. In fact, I support it and have re-inserted those substitutions without loss of any data already contained in them.

The problem is that under the color of the authority of that consensus, and in the same edit, Boghog changed the format of many other references. His edit summary claimed two additional things. The first was that he was replacing the deprecated |coauthors=. I also agree that is a good idea, there is a bot which is going through and doing that. I have implemented that change.

In addition, he claimed "per WP:CITEVAR restored originally established style". As best I can determine, that is a complete fabrication. In reality, it appears he was taking the opportunity to change the citation style to his preferred Vancouver system under the color of saying that it was because of a consensus for change. At the same time he took many references which were separated out into individual parameters for each author and combined them all into a single |author=. This has the detrimental effect of corrupting the COinS reference data generated by the citation templates. In the process he discarded all first name information leaving only the first and middle initial and changed any such initials which already existed from "A. B." to "AB".

There is an issue that the citations on this page are not in a uniform format. Do we want to address this at this time?

Because the guidelines are that we should retain the original format unless there is consensus for change, I did some research in the page history to find out what was initially used. What was actually first used for references in this article was a separate page of references. That page is preserved at Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 14. These appear, even in the first version, to be in a somewhat mixed format, but none of them are in Vancouver system. In looking through the history of this page, I did not see any citations on the page until they began to be inserted in parenthetical style at 22:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC). This was relatively rapidly changed away from parenthetical style and has existed as normal citations for the last 8, or so, years. I did not make a detailed study of it, but it appears that there has never been complete uniformity in reference style in this article.

The question is should we change all the references to one format? If so, which one?

[As a side note: I have replaced all instances of the deprecated |coauthors= parameter with the appropriate numbered authors parameter. This was done to head-off it being done by the bot which is going around doing so. I understand that this discussion may result in needing to change these parameters to some other format and I accept that my making this change commits me to implementing any such consensus based change on those citations if it is not done in the general implementation of any such consensus based change.]— Makyen (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the easiest option for a uniform style is the default formatting of the CS1 templates (e.g. {{cite journal}}, {tl|cite news}}, {{cite web}}, etc.). Other formats are, of course, acceptable. However, anything other than the default will require constant changes on the part of editors watching the page as new citations are entered without specifying the non-default usage.
If something other than the default CS1 style is used, my personal preference is for not the Vancouver system. I dislike loosing the existing data of full first names already existing in many citations. I dislike having the initials stated as "AB" instead of "A. B.". While I think that mashing the first initials together is an issue for the citations being accessible and understandable by the predominantly lay people reading Wikipedia, my main objection to the Vancouver system is the insistence on highly abbreviated journal names. I believe that having the journal names in a format which is basically incomprehensible to the uninitiated severely reduces how accessible articles are to our readership. The primary justification for doing so in paper-based medical and technical journals is to reduce the space required by references and thus the cost of printing the journal. We do not have the issue of increase cost to provide full names for journals and authors. Admittedly, this is not as significant an issue when a link exists to click through to the actual cited article.
I am not arguing that we should go through and determine full names for all authors where they do not already exist on the page. I do object to tossing out information which already exists in the article. — Makyen (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC); brief re-look striking text which does not assume good faith. 17:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
As long as we replace cite doi and cite pmid with cite journal I do not care. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The {{cite pmid}} and {{cite doi}} templates have been replaced.
I believe a wholesale change to the Vancouver system would make the references less accessible to people not already familiar with the conventions. Thus, I oppose doing so. — Makyen (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
@Makyen: "As best I can determine, that is a complete fabrication.". Below is a list of key citation format changes in history of this article:
Extended content
  • The first contributor to journal citations that included author names used the Vancouver system on 16 June 2005: diff
  • Additional references were added that included first name author initials with periods on 29 June 2005: diff
  • Non-inline references were moved to separate template on 29 September 2005, almost all references used first name initials: diff
  • References moved back to main article from template and parenthetical referencing used on 7 December 2005: diff
  • References linked using the now obsolete {{Ref}} templates on 12 January 2006: diff
  • References converted to {{journal reference}} templates with a single author parameter on 8 February 2006: diff
  • {{journal reference}} replaced with {{cite journal}} templates maintaining single author parameter on 12 February 2006: diff
  • Replaced "id={{PMID}}" with "pmid" parameters on 14 January 2008: diff
  • Standardized using Vancouver author format on 10 March 2008: diff
  • Vancouver author format still the predominate style on 9 May 2012
  • May 2012 → present: gradual introduction of "first, last, coauthor" parameters using RefToolbar.
In summary, the Vancouver style authors was established by the first major contributor to journal citations that included authors in June of 2005. From September 2005 to at least May 2012, initials were used for authors first and middle names. From February 2006 to at least May 2012, a single author parameter was used in a large majority of the references. From March 2008 to at least May 2012, Vancouver style authors were used in a large majority of the references.
@Makyen: "I do object to tossing out information which already exists in the article" – Spelled out first names of authors is not essential information. The vast majority of Wikipedia readers are not familiar with the authors of these papers in the first place, hence having the full name spelled out adds very little value. Those that are familiar with the literature would immediately recognize authors with or without the first name spelled out. In almost all cases links to the original articles are provided if someone has a burning urge to know an author's first name. In addition, Vancouver style authors IMHO are cleaner and easier to read. Finally WP:CITEVAR encourages consistent formatting within the same article. My edits restored a consistent citation style that was established in June 2005 and re-established in March of 2008 and maintained to at least May 2012. Hence my edits are completely consistent with WP:CITEVAR. Boghog (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
@Makyen: "This has the detrimental effect of corrupting the COinS reference data generated by the citation templates.": Why clutter up articles with "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." parameter bloat? To generate metadata that no one uses? If a citation has many authors, it is unreasonable to force an editor to add each author to a separate author fields in GUIs such as the RefToolbar. It is much more practical to use a single author parameter.
The main reason that has been used to justify generation of metadata is so that citation can be reused. However I think it is also important to keep in mind:

[Wikipedia] may not consistently be reliable because work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone.

This includes citations. Reusing citations that may have been vandalized or contain honest mistakes is a bad idea. It is better to reload them fresh from reliable external databases such as PubMed. For this, the only metadata that is required an identifier such as a PMID, doi, etc.
Per WP:CITESTYLE, there is no such thing as a house WP style for citations and the Vancouver system is specifically mentioned as one of several styles that are used in Wikipedia articles. The advantage of Vancouver style authors in a single author parameter is that the resulting cite journal templates are significantly more compact and this compactness does matter. Verbose citation templates makes it harder for editors to read and edit the prose around the citations. That reduces editor productivity which in turn hurts everyone.
The best long term solution may be a modified version of {{vcite2 journal}} (and vcite2 book, etc.) that would produce clean author metadata by parsing the author parameter data (Vancouver system authors are comma delimited and hence trivial to parse) while avoiding "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." parameter clutter. Boghog (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
"my main objection to the Vancouver system is the insistence on highly abbreviated journal names" – I have no objections whatsoever to full journal names. In fact, my edits did not change any of the journal names. If a full journal name was there before my edit, it was still there after my edit. Furthermore it would be a trivial matter to modify my script to replace all journal abbreviations with their full names for citations that have a pmid if there is consensus to do so. Boghog (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed that the Wikipedia template filling tool that was used to generate many of the references in this article (see discussion) has an option to "Use full journal title". We could change that from an option to the default. Boghog (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Boghog, I appreciate the detailed response. In order to reasonably respond to you I need to take more time to re-read your response and the associated links in detail and do more looking around at the history of this article beyond the time I have already spent prior to my first post here. Unfortunately, I need to be doing other things in real life today. However, it is clear that how I worded my original post did not do a good job of assuming good faith. I have struck a portion of my original post. In part, the reduction in my assuming good faith was because:
  1. It appeared from your contributions that you were doing this across multiple articles making similar changes;
  2. You are in the bot approval process for doing at least a part of the edits which you made. It was unclear if these were the actions of that bot, or just assisted based on the code for that bot. Although obviously, they were not performed from your bot account.
  3. The consensus you cited in your edit summaries explicitly states that it "Probably not a good idea to address the author issue" at the same time as the edits to replace {{cite pmid}}, {{cite doi}}, and {{cite isbn}} as this will require more discussion and is a separate issue. thus, it was explicitly stated that conflating substituting the above templates and changing authors should not be done at the same time.
  4. There are ongoing discussions at Help talk:Citation Style 1, in which both of us are/have participated, where such changes are being discussed, including objections to such edits by other authors. Although those have stalled for the last 10–11 days.
  5. I had assumed that there would be a hold placed on edits which remove reference information from articles while such discussions continued due to it being much easier to remove such information than to recover it once removed.
From the discussions at Help talk:Citation Style 1 it is clear that there is opposition to making such changes from multiple editors. Those discussions imply that there has been at least one other discussion about such changes on another article talk page. Given all that, it appeared clear that making such edits was contentious, particularly across multiple articles. Doing so at the same time as substituting in the {{cite pmid}}, {{cite doi}}, and {{cite isbn}} templates was specifically against the consensus you cited in your edit summary. — Makyen (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Makyen, thank you for your calm, constructive response. A couple of additional points:
"use whatever author format is already present" – I assume this means the predominate citation style used in the article (or more properly the first established citation style) and not necessarily the style used by the {{cite pmid}} template. Correct? Boghog (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • This is perhaps a subtle point, but my edit summary stated "per consensus, substituted cite doi and pmid templates; replaced deprecated coauthor parameter; per WP:CITEVAR restored originally established style". This summary was divided into three parts, each separated by a semicolon and each independently justified. In the first part, I was using the consensus discussion to justify the substitution of the cite templates and in the third part, using CITEVAR to justify the restoration of the originally established citation style.
  • In the discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1, most editors seemed to be more concerned about abbreviated journal names rather than the Vancouver style author format. And as I stated there and above, I have no problem with full journal names.
  • The only references were I have replaced author first names with initials are references where there is also a pmid. PubMed generally also stores the full author names as supplied by the journals. Hence if it is absolutely required at some point to retrieve the full author names for use in Wikipedia citations, a bot could easily do this by calling PubMed E-utilities. Again, IMHO spelled out author first names are of limited if any value to readers. Also is it really necessary to clone external databases like PubMed within Wikipedia? Basic bibliographic information along with links to the corresponding entries in external citation databases as well as links to the original source if available should be sufficient.
Boghog (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

First sentence

I think it is better not to confuse HIV and AIDS, and to explain it clearly in the first sentence. Rather than "Human immunodeficiency virus infection / acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) is a disease of the human immune system caused by infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).", I suggest "The acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is a disease of the human immune system caused by infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)." to make it shorter and clearer. Coreyemotela (talk) 04:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC).

This article is not just about AIDS. Thus your suggested changes introduce an error. The disease we are discussing is a spectrum from 1) acute HIV infection 2) HIV infection 3) AIDS. All three of these are referred to as HIV/AIDS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Was discussed here [7] and before Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
My suggestion does not introduce errors. It simply simplifies the first sentence. I do think that most people arriving on this page are looking forward to information about AIDS, more than about early acute HIV infection symptoms. It is not a problem to keep the introduction very broad, but it is likely to be less clear. Coreyemotela (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC).
I really have no objection to the current intro, but given that this has come up more than once, it may be useful to address it. It's difficult to be both concise and accurate, but perhaps something like: "The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) causes a disease of the human immune system that has been divided into two clinical stages, the first described simply as HIV infection, and the second as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). The disease is often now referred to as HIV/AIDS in order to include the entire spectrum of pathology caused by HIV without specifying the clinical stage of the disease." - Nunh-huh 07:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
HIV/AIDS is a single spectrum of disease. Rather than two separate diseases. We see this in many conditions. You have sepsis and septic shock, you have dengue fever and severe dengue fever (new name for dengue hemorrhagic fever) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Added the line "The term HIV/AIDS represents the entire range of disease cause by the HIV virus from early infection to late stage symptoms." More detail is found in the body of the article on this topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I still think that the first sentence need to be improved as Nunh-huh or I suggested. User:Jmh649, could you suggest something else if you think that our suggestions are not good enough? Coreyemotela (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC).
The first sentence is correct to the my best understanding of the literature. A name of a disease is allowed to have the name of the infectious agent within it. For example dengue fever is caused by dengue virus.
This name is a little more complicated than usual as the article is about a spectrum of disease. This spectrum of disease is usually called HIV/AIDS. This was determined after I read 100s if not 1000s of pages of text on this topic over a number of months.
So what we need to even consider changing this sentence is for those who wish it to be changed to gather some high quality sources that support the change. I can gather more high quality sources to support what we have now and we can have a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Lancet seminar

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60164-1 JFW | T@lk 19:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Image added to stigma section

"Know AIDS - No AIDs" Roadside sign in Nubra Valley, Ladakh, India

I do not think this image adds anything. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope, when I first saw it in the dif, My thoughts where "what is this? Is this aids denier propaganda?" So I think the image would cause confusion to any reader. 09:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanWubs (talkcontribs)
Ditto. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I actually can't discern the meaning of the sign. Is it saying people with AIDS should not enter? Or promoting knowledge as a way to defeat AIDS? The words suggest the latter but the placement suggests the former.
If the image is to be used at all, perhaps at Discrimination against people with HIV/AIDS, it should be cropped so it's easier to read. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 14:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I found out the meaning. Its a slogan phrase of this group that is about spreading knowledge against aids. The slogan is suppose to say. Know aids for no aids. But I guess this sign is just not the best example. I still see no reason for inclusion though. If something would be included maybe it would be better to find a free imagine from the group that is the full sentence. NathanWubs (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the sign means that people who "know (the causes of) AIDS" will be able to take steps to take actions which result in them getting "no AIDS". This is not a sign about stigma, but a popular and positive health message which is posted throughout North India and can be read and understood even by people with limited ability to read English. I do not object to this picture being used in this article as an example of a health campaign in India but it should not be in the stigma section since it is an earnest and helpful message. Wordplay of this sort is ubiquitous in India and seems to be accepted locally, despite confusing non-Indians. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I added the image to HIV/AIDS in India. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Mississippi Baby

Another reason why we DO NOT allow the popular press as a reference. So much press when the baby was "cured". But is their any popular press now that it turns out the baby was not? [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


In the alternative section, maybe a mention should be made of this Tibetan herbal doctor

who claimed to have successfully treated AIDS patients. Of course no evidence was presented. (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Not notable for this page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Mother-to-child transmission greatly reduced by short-term medication, need more facts, specifics and references.

Just to lay it out there. I AM NOT A PHYSICIAN. I am a pretty good health researcher and try to accurately summarize references. I have a couple of questions.

We say:

"With appropriate treatment the risk of mother-to-child infection can be reduced to about 1%.[55]" Are we talking about what's theoretically achievable? Or what's currently achieved given limitations in finances, the fact that patients following instructions is often good but not perfect, realities in access, etc.? And I think sometimes medical publications talk about this distinction.

We say:

"Preventive treatment involves the mother taking antiretroviral during pregnancy and delivery, an elective caesarean section, avoiding breastfeeding, and administering antiretroviral drugs to the newborn.[57] Many of these measures are however not available in the developing world."

I distinctly remember that WHO recommended that HIV+ moms continue to breastfeed their children as both mom and child take the antiviral medication. And the reasoning was that continued breastfeeding put the overall odds more in the baby's favor, greater nutrition and less chance of diarrheal diseases from questionable water, and this is especially the case for women and children from resource-limited countries.

Let's please check this reference one more time to see if we're doing a good job summarizing and/or let's be open to references which take the other side of the breastfeeding question.

The following reference may not directly address either of the above, but it looks interesting and I don't want to lose it:

J.A. Stockman. (2012) Antiretroviral Treatment for Children with Peripartum Nevirapine Exposure. Yearbook of Pediatrics 2012, 274-276.

posted by Cool Nerd (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the 2013 WHO recommendations are that HIV+ mothers in high income nations not breast feed their children, but that HIV+ mothers in low and middle income nations should breastfeed their children and continue on antiretroviral therapy at least until the children are weaned (and longer if economically feasible). There's an overview of the history of the changing recommendations on the AVERT breastfeeding page, and the references there would be useful for anyone who feels moved to rewrite the pertinent sections of this article. - Nunh-huh 04:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the lead, although I'm working through another reference right now. And yes, if this is the current recommendation, I think we should include it. Cool Nerd (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^ Duesberg, P. H. (1988). "HIV is not the cause of AIDS". Science. 241 (4865): 514, 517. Bibcode:1988Sci...241..514D. doi:10.1126/science.3399880. PMID 3399880. Cohen, J. (1994). "The Controversy over HIV and AIDS" (PDF). Science. 266 (5191): 1642–1649. Bibcode:1994Sci...266.1642C. doi:10.1126/science.7992043. PMID 7992043. Retrieved 2009-03-31. 
  7. ^ Kalichman, Seth (2009). Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy. New York: Copernicus Books (Springer Science+Business Media). ISBN 978-0-387-79475-4. 
  8. ^ Smith TC, Novella SP (August 2007). "HIV Denial in the Internet Era". PLoS Med. 4 (8): e256. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256. PMC 1949841Freely accessible. PMID 17713982. Retrieved 2009-11-07. 
  9. ^ Various (Last updated January 14, 2010). "Resources and Links, HIV-AIDS Connection". National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Retrieved 2009-02-22.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. ^ Watson J (2006). "Scientists, activists sue South Africa's AIDS 'denialists'". Nat. Med. 12 (1): 6. doi:10.1038/nm0106-6a. PMID 16397537. 
  11. ^ Baleta A (2003). "S Africa's AIDS activists accuse government of murder". Lancet. 361 (9363): 1105. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(03)12909-1. PMID 12672319. 
  12. ^ Cohen J (2000). "South Africa's new enemy". Science. 288 (5474): 2168–70. doi:10.1126/science.288.5474.2168. PMID 10896606. 
  13. ^ Boghardt, Thomas (2009). "Operation INFEKTION Soviet Bloc Intelligence and Its AIDS Disinformation Campaign". Central Intelligence Agency. 
  14. ^ "WHO HIV and Infant Feeding Technical Consultation Held on behalf of the Inter-agency Task Team (IATT) on Prevention of HIV – Infections in Pregnant Women, Mothers and their Infants – Consensus statement" (PDF). October 25–27, 2006. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 9, 2008. Retrieved March 12, 2008. 

• "Exclusive breastfeeding for up to six months was associated with a three to four fold decreased risk of transmission of HIV compared to non-exclusive breastfeeding[7] in three large cohort studies conducted in Côte d’Ivoire, South Africa and Zimbabwe."

• "In settings where antiretroviral prophylaxis and free infant formula were provided, the combined risk of HIV infection and death by 18 months of age was similar in infants who were replacement fed from birth and infants breastfed for 3 to 6 months (Botswana and Côte d'Ivoire).

• "Early cessation of breastfeeding (before 6 months) was associated with an increased risk of infant morbidity (especially diarrhoea) and mortality in HIV-exposed children[8] in completed (Malawi) and ongoing studies (Kenya, Uganda and Zambia)."

• "Exclusive breastfeeding is recommended for HIV-infected women for the first 6 months of life unless replacement feeding is acceptable, feasible, affordable, sustainable and safe for them and their infants before that time.

• "When replacement feeding is acceptable, feasible, affordable, sustainable and safe, avoidance of all breastfeeding by HIV-infected women is recommended."

• "Governments and other stakeholders should re-vitalize breastfeeding protection, promotion and support in the general population. They should also actively support HIV-infected mothers who choose to exclusively breastfeed, and take measures to make replacement feeding safer for HIV-infected women who choose that option."

Distinctions between HIV and AIDS

We need to make an effort to clarify that HIV and AIDS are not one in the same. The opening line (I just corrected the full name of AIDS in this article) is: "Human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) is a disease of the human immune system..." This seems to imply otherwise. While the article is discussing HIV disease (with AIDS being the final stage of HIV disease), an HIV-positive individual has not necessarily progressed to having AIDS. I find that the wording of the opening sentence (and perhaps the opening paragraph at large) should be reconfigured in the interest of both clarity and accuracy. While I fully understand the nature of this particular article, and its intent to discuss the entire range of an HIV infection and the patient's progression to AIDS, I am a proponent of greater clarity. I suspect that, to someone with a limited familiarity with the topic, there may be ambiguity as to whether an HIV-infection is the same thing as AIDS. MichaelKovich (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS is a spectrum of disease. This is the term prefered by UNAID among many others. We make this distinction clear in the article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
MichaelKovich, distinguishing HIV from AIDS has been discussed at this talk page more than once before; see Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 22#Requested move, where I linked to past discussions about this matter. WP:Consensus is against distinguishing them in the way that you propose, except for the existence of the HIV article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the article fails to adequately make the distinction in the lead. It opens with a very awkwardly worded introduction that is hard to correct without a massive rewrite. SInce when is a needle stick by an HIV+ "HIV/.AIDS. It is just lousy writing IMHO. I won't be having it. I don't care if yoiu cite someone using the term that way one time or a hundred there are hu dreds of thousands and it is OR to try to assert that HIV/AIDS as a term neans bare niminimal HIV positive status. It See my edit,thanks. Yes I tagged it. Wikidgood (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
This ref discusses that HIV/AIDS is both HIV infection and AIDS [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
If anyone cares that WP do no harm, please follow the edit warring against my informed, grammatically proper and sWP - compliant edits attempting to modify the horrible lede which implies that HIV positivity is somehow AIDS. It does not overtly equate them but it implies them with the second sentence which is really gratuitous. I have now re-edited it to present the salient truth of the matter for laity. Something can be technically true and correct but be utterly misleading. For example, if an article opened "All gay people have many germs." it would be technically true and one could even cite Reliable Sources to prove it. In a nutshell, the old lede which the Revert-Warrior is trying to preserve is along those lines.
As posted on his Talk Page: Your revert pointlessly stigmatizes HIV+ people with the appellation "HIV/AIDS". It is an unduly circumstantial piece of useless verbiage which harms patients. If you are a medical professional you should be ashamed of yourself for stigmatizing and harming millions of HIV+ people. WP is an encyclopedia not a dictionary and by opening the article with an entirely uneccessary application of the term to the broadest possible category you are mere stating the obvious from a pointlessly destruction POV which sheds no light on the topic. The talk page of the article is seeking a means to do the exact opposite. Shameful. Wikidgood (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No one is claiming that HIV infection is the same as AIDS. How is "stating the obvious" wrong? Sure we can have that AIDS justs refer to the late symptoms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Page number or better yet the relevant "discussion". This is a matter of usage. HIV is not AIDS and like I said above even if a thousand people use the term interchangably it is still rank demagoguery to impose it as Holy Writ. Usage varies around the planet anyway. Buuut if your source actually discusses the matter of usage, and if that has been vetted by some debate and discussion over theusage, it is something lke ethnic slur words, something we have to put up with. But I think that your link wil not actually say what needs to be said to justify the assertion. BTW it is not "obvious" that HIV is AIDS disease, nor is ten pounds overweight obesity and if you think that there is never anything wrong with stating the obvious, you are probably on WP as much as you are because you have no friennds (ONLY JOKING). Realy do you tell your fat friends they look fat? Wikidgood (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes I agree 100% that HIV infection is not AIDS. We never say in this article that HIV infection is AIDS. There however is a term called HIV/AIDS that does refer to the spectrum of disease. HIV infection is all three stages of disease. AIDS is only the last end stage of disease. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Two issues there. First, the WP:RS needs to discuss the term and the usage. If you merely encounter some sources using the term in such and such manner it is WP:OR violation to merely extrapolate. At least in this case where you are stigmatizing millions of people and putting their life at risk by confusing lay readers. But even if SOME RS use the term and even if they justify it with a discussion of the term I would hope there are sources which dispute the use. But it would be the use out of context that would be problematic and the article is really off on a bad footing by launching into a justification for its use because the usage is predicated on professional use of the term and readers will be using it in a different way and many will conflate it. DId you know you have cancer cells in your body right now? It is true. But we don't say you have cancer. Essentially what you are doing is stigmatizing millions of HIV positive people by interjection an uneccessary and confusing bit of verbiage about the use of a term in other contexts.AlAS.\

The deeper flaw, and pardon the auto-indent, is that the [[verbiage] is just that, words about the words. It bmistakes signifier for signified. This is nt an article on Medical nnomenclature or Terminology in the war on AIDSmit is about the phenomena signified by the term. On that basis alone it dpoes not belong. For the same reason, Automobile does not begin with a statement "Automobile can refer to any device which is utilized to transport...." it talks about Cars! Wikidgood (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
New development. You prove my point when you reverted an edit in which someone used a WHO link - which meets your legalistic fix on WP:RS. He was proposing that WHO usage trumps the old usage but you came in with the bald assertion that "CDC" still uses the old usage. Reasonable people can disagree on that, but he is making the same mistake with Ebola VIrus Disease/Ebola Hemoraghic Fever EVD/EHF that you are making with HIV/AIDS - taking bureacratic medicine at the level of international bureacracy {some would rail "world government" but that is not my bag) and making that usage into an object of idolatry and mimicry. Yes they are RS for what they are talking about in the context they are talking. But for lay encyclopedia readers the usage of World Health Org bureacracies is not the ONLY consideration. You yourself dismissed the WHO-cited edit on the [Ebola Virus Disease] page. This proves my point that just because you can cite a usage of a given part of the bureacracies, even if they are basically RS, does not trump the discussion. If it good enough for you to use in dismissing the EHF/EVD edit then I have to ask you not to be so cavalier in your dismissal of my concerns by the easy means of pointing to the UNAID bureacratese. There is a lot more to it and FYI I will be taking this argument to the RS talk page because obviously much of this needs to be worked out on that level. Plese not I am engaging an issue, not making a personal attack and I will ask you to stick to the issues and refrain from edits you are not capable of articulating a rationale for. THank you in advance for your kind consideration hereof. Remaining yours very truly, Wikidgood. Wikidgood (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this edit at in which you yourself dismiss global English language usage of World Health Organization as irrelevant. All I ask is that the same standards apply to HIV and AIDS. I am not some kind of conspiracy theorist who denies that HIV and AiDS are causally linked so please stop tryingto dismiss me as if I were. You yourself discard the international bureacracies when it suits you and so I consider the matter settled by your own de facto admission. I will transpose these insights into the relevant RS guidelines and you are free to discuss or ignore but not to revert withoutdiscussion. Ciao. Wikidgood (talk) 04:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Bottom line: MichaelKovich (talk) made a good point and the current state of the article is much better. A groundwork has been laid for discussion of possible future split. Doc James, while making allegations of bad faith etc. nevertheless made some good points which assisted in focusing the article improvement which Michael pointed out and with which ultimately I think we all concurred. Some good lines of development of WP policy on RS has been suggested. No one has reverted the stuff that counts most in the article despite contentiousness. Hence I personally feel comfortable, and I hope Michael won't object, if I mark this at least, for now, reselved. Michael can remove it if he so wishes.
Resolved: every dispute should end this way
Wikidgood (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)