Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:HIV‎ | AIDS
Jump to: navigation, search


This archive page covers approximately the dates between 20 June, 2005 and 10 August, 2005

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

A note on style

In some instances the article mentions the "T cell" count instead of the CD4+ count. The distinction is quite essential; not all T cells carry CD4, yet for AIDS it is the most important marker. JFW | T@lk 15:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Question and request for clarification

The article states, "HIV is a retrovirus that destroys the T cells of the immune system, weakening it and rendering it unable to fight off infections and cancer." Is it shown that HIV directly does so, or might it be that HIV causes an autoimmune destruction of the T cells? I ask whether there are studies that show HIV destroying T cells in vitro or in vivo without some complementary mechanism, and references if possible. Whig 16:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well not only does it destroy T cells, but it also tricks the body into destroying health t-cells as well. I don't have a source off the top of my head though, sorry :/ JoeSmack (talk) 16:35, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
If this is correct then we should say both occur. Whig 20:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think this article is interesting [1]:
"In summary, the gp120-mediated autoimmune model asserts that it is the combination of gp120 and antibodies against gp120 which acts to disable T4 cells, not the direct infection of T4 cells by HIV. After initial infection, the concentrations of gp120 and antibody in a person's body slowly rise. HIV continues to infect more cells and spread, shedding more and more gp120, and B cells continue to multiply and produce anti-gp120 antibodies. Finally, the number of T4 cells that are disabled by the gp120 and antibody reaches critical levels, and the immune system starts its collapse."
Whig 20:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is exactly what happens. HIV infected cells attack a healthy T cell first with their gp120, which are those beads surrounding the infected cell. It binds to the CD4 of the healthy cell, then bends over to and binds to the CXCR4 (for a Fusion T helper cell, CCR-5 for a macrophage) which sends commands inside the healthy cell to shut down a load of its functions, allowing the gp41 to pierce the cell and infect it easily.
What is a son of a bitch is those gp120s shed off an infected cell and float around in the blood stream or just break off the infected cell brushing against healthy ones. No infection has to take place; that gp120 just has to hit a healthy cell and it not only disables the cells' functioning (immunity suppression), but it also marks it for death for T killer cells as well(our own bodies killing our immune system)! JoeSmack (talk) 15:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Fascinating. So this would support the idea that AIDS is largely (if not entirely) an autoimmune disorder (presumably initiated by HIV infection) and not strictly a disabled immune system (though hyperactive autoimmunity can cause such disablement). This hypothesis explains as well the long latencies that are observed with the HIV model. I think there may be significant reason to think new treatment modalities addressing this mechanism might work better than the present antiretroviral approach, though I pass no judgment on the particular vaccine proposed by the group cited above. The fact that they seem to be focused on raising funding for their approach puts them in some question, but it may be that other groups are proceeding with similar studies. Whig 17:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As HIV brings the CD4+ count down more and more, the latent HIV infected cells activate more and more. In the beginning it is largely autoimmune, but towards the end you get tons of cells lycing - litterally exploding from all the HIV virons it is producing, leaving a gutted cell behind. And, towards the very end, and what makes AIDS so debilitating, is the opportunistic infections that ravage the body due to no immune system to stave them off.
There are some gp120 style appraoches to treatment, but they are pretty underdeveloped as of now I believe. JoeSmack (talk) 17:35, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Further consideration of this hypothesis with respect to the effectiveness of antiretrovirals would suggest that their principal benefit is in fact due to their suppression of the immune system (reducing autoimmunity) rather than destruction of HIV itself. A person might have a prior infection with HIV which, even if successfully "cured", leaves the autoimmune progression to continue its destructive course. This would also explain why we would find it hard to isolate active HIV from AIDS patients. Whig 17:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, anti-retrovirals work by stopping HIV in one of its steps for replication. Right now we have reverse transcriptase inhibitors (stops RNA-->DNA replication) and protease inhibitors (stops HIV from producing proteins to asemble more copies of HIV virons). It doesn't suppress the immune system per se, but it does allow less HIV in the body to replicate thus letter the immune system build back up for a time.
If magically we could cure someone with HIV, there would still be gp120 floating around for a time making their immune system attack itself - but it would subside after a time. gp120 does suck, don't ge me wrong, but HIV is the thing that keeps its production up. JoeSmack (talk) 17:35, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Suppose that HAART were used for a brief high dose (i.e., chemotherapeutic) course followed by anti-gp120 (antioxidant) therapy — we know that long term use of HAART has its own problems, and this might be an effective approach to be explored, if it isn't already being explored. I'd like to see if studies exist for this. Whig 17:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fuzeon is another new and upcoming treatment you might be interested in. Here [2] is a little guide about it, although this particular link comes off more like an ad than a study :/ . Fusion inhibitors work by keeping the gp120 from interaction with CXCR4 on T helper cells, thus keeping the HIV viron from shutting down the cell's functions. If it can't disable the cell it can't pierce the cell membrane with gp41 and enter/infect it. Cool stuff, shows promise. JoeSmack (talk) 22:11, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Looks really nasty, actually, or at least doesn't look like any sort of improvement over the existing regimens. As monotherapy, it fails completely, and apparently it's used for end-stage cases where all other therapies have failed (i.e., drug resistant AIDS). Whig 01:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

gp120 toxicity model

Some links I'm starting to collect, please comment or add others if you think these merit any useful mention in the article. Whig 17:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think if pumping a person with AIDS full of vitamin C had a significant effect, it would have be perscribed to every HIV patient worldwide. It's cheap and it's plentiful. This study doesn't appear to have any live human trials - it's main falling. :/ JoeSmack (talk) 17:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately AIDS research isn't overpoliticized or anything. :-P [3] Whig 18:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think most of the wish-wash in there is related to AIDSVAX, a vaccine trial that took place in Thailand that flopped terribly. It showed nothing after the trials. The trials were allowed to happen even though their data wasn't so supportive before hand, and some say a little doctored. Most of the weight thrown around sounds like an attempt not to dump $119 million on another AIDSVAX. JoeSmack (talk) 18:35, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Irrespective of the merits of the particular study, what this appears to be is one group of people who get AIDS funding complaining that they'd rather have the money than some other group of people who were given AIDS funding. Just a big political football. Whig 20:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jaap Goudsmit bit in Origins

I removed the copy/paste job from - i suppose it could go in there but maybe a small paragraph summary would be more appropriate. If you want to add 1 or 2 pages to this article, maybe give Mr. Goudsmit his own wikipedia article. JoeSmack (talk) 16:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Prevention section

I kinda don't like how the prevention section is winding up. Although odds for infection are worst for blood transfusions and injection drugs, the odds for all the sex is quite low. I know that this is accurate as it came from the CDC, but if as a guy my chances of catching HIV is 1 in 2,000 if i am hetero, then i'm not gonna care if i wear a condom or not, ya know? (i mean, i'd feel lucky if i got laid 1,000 times in my lifetime) I want to be NPOV, but it can be a lot more dangerous than that, especially with other STDS present/co-infections.JoeSmack (talk) 18:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

It should come as no surprise that 450 ml of HIV tainted fluid (one unit of blood) injected directly into the bloodstream carries a higher risk than 10 ml of HIV tainted semen deposited elsewhere! If you wanted to "even" out the statistics, you'd calculate risk per ml rather than risk per exposure—but that would not be a particularly useful statistic. - Nunh-huh 02:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Condoms do more than protect against AIDS, you know? Anyhow, we don't need to try to spike the data to promote condom usage, it would be strictly improper to do so. Whig 21:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I didn't want to fudge any data...just seems like sex is such a, well, insignificant risk comparitively. i suppose the HIV infected populations who are high yet don't exhange blood are high because we have sex a lot more in our lives than we have blood transfusions. JoeSmack (talk) 15:35, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Well, as I understand it much of the early disease spread among homosexuals followed a culture of really promiscuous sexual activity, far exceeding the mainstream, perhaps many hundreds of times per year with dozens or more partners each. This is quite an environment for disease spread, and indeed a great deal of other sexually transmitted disease shows up in these subpopulations. Frankly, I think that condom use is far less of a safety measure than having stable monogamous relationships. Whig 21:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Current status and Global Epidemic sections

I combined them because they described the same thing. The first couple of paragraphs of the new "Current status" though could use some judicious trimming because they're pretty redundant with a lot of facts. ✈ James C. 19:22, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

I like the new flow a lot better - good job. JoeSmack (talk) 20:46, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Origins Section

The earliest journaled death more lenient to the West- in due to AIDS, is attributed to Dr. Grethe Rask who was a Danish surgeon in the early 1970s of Congo -- Can someone please turn this into a coherent sentence? I would, but I've no idea what it's supposed to say.

I'm working on a rewrite and a sourcing of the "Origis" section. I'll make sure and ungarble that bit. Carl Henderson 01:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good work. That's much, much better. --
Thank you. Carl Henderson 15:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Section debunking existence of Super AIDS needed

Someone redirected Super AIDS here. I think it would be good to add a small section debunking the myth of Super AIDS. Here's a good article about the myth:

since this seems to be a sensitive article, and since I'm not an expert in any respect, I will leave it to you guys. Themindset 22:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a good example of why not to use news reports as references! Dr. David Ho, of now discredited HAART and viral load fame has once again grabbed the media spotlight. Dr. Robert Gallo, co-discoverer of the virus that causes AIDS condemned these conclusions as "scientifically, completely invalid, without a shred of evidence." Sci guy 16:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not "a good example of why not to use news reports as references". News reports are appropriate when they are clearly labeled as new developments with unresolved issues. This article summarizes the current state of knowledge about AIDS, and the "super AIDS" story is widespread enough that it would be irresponsible for us not to acknowledge it and, now, acknowledge the evidence against it. Also, trying to turn this into a grudge match between David Ho and Robert Gallo is just odd, and I have no idea what you mean by "now discredited HAART and viral load fame". Ho's public comment on this case was "it is prudent to closely watch for any additional possible cases while continuing to emphasize the importance of reducing HIV risk behavior" - a sensible statement and hardly "grabbing the spotlight". Hob 18:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Heterosexual transmission

Thirteen human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections in young women who reported sexual contact with the same HIV-infected man were detected in a rural county in upstate New York. [4]

These 13 women were identified from 47 women who reportedly had had vaginal sex with the same HIV-infected man. The median number of vaginal sexual exposures to the same HIV-infected man was higher, although not significantly, for the HIV-infected women (six exposures; range: two-190 exposures) than for the uninfected women (three exposures; range: one-90 exposures) (Wilcoxon rank sum test, p=0.07). Median ages at first exposure to the putative index case-patient were similar for HIV-infected women (17.8 years; range: 13-22 years) (data were missing for one) and uninfected women (17.7 years; range: 14-24 years).

This should help clarify the issue. It is not a question of homosexual or heterosexual. AIDS is acquired from a HIV-infected person. Sci guy 13:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

AIDS or Aids?

I just saw this discussion in archive 3 after changing a number of links from Aids to AIDS. AIDS is supposed to be an acronym and therefore I would think the proper encyclopedic way to deal with it is to make it AIDS unless it is specifically being quoted from someone or some organization as Aids. Aids is just a common spelling because Aid is a common word so it looks natural. I am just posting to state that I have done that so if people have objections... well, I didn't know it had been discussed already, pardon. gren 14:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right that we're using AIDS as a consensus spelling in Wikipedia, but you're wrong about the reason for the "Aids" spelling. It's been a common practice in British newspapers and magazines (less so these days) to use lowercase letters for acronyms that are pronounced as words (Aids, Nato, Nafta) as opposed to initialisms that aren't (HIV, FBI). This was already explained in the talk archive, but the question inevitably comes up again once in a while. Hob 18:37, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Revision of Paragraph 3 of Introduction

The section of paragraph three of the Introduction dealing with transmission of HIV has raised some questions. Below I'd like to propose a rewrite (with references):

The World Health Organization estimated that, worldwide, between 2.8 and 3.5 million people with AIDS died in 2004. [5] HIV is primarily passed on via four vectors: unprotected sexual intercourse (both homosexual and heterosexual), sharing of needles by IV drug users, medical procedures using HIV-contaminated blood or equipment, and mother-to-child transmission. Predominant modes of HIV transmission vary by region, and different HIV subtypes seem to be more strongly associated with some transmission routes than others. [6]
In the US and Western Europe, homosexual intercourse and IV drug use lead to the majority of new infections. But in sub-Saharan Africa (where ~ 70% of people with AIDS live [7]) unscreened blood transfusions, poorly cleaned medical equipment [8], and heterosexual intercourse [9] are the primary HIV vectors.
  • Marais, H., Stanecki, K., et al. (2004). AIDS epidemic update: 2004 United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and World Health Organization (WHO).
  • Copson, R. W. (2003). AIDS in Africa Congressional Research Service.
  • Marais, H., Stanecki, K., et al. (2004). AIDS epidemic update: 2004 United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and World Health Organization (WHO).

Carl Henderson 23:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The "Safe Sex" subtitle was placed strangly so I finally got it to move down a little. As to the new 3rd Paragraph idea I prefere the old one, although I do like the good citing. This new paragraph seems to be more about transmition(which is eplained later and therefore is redundant) than a general overview of AIDs, which the intro should be. Voice of All(MTG) 22:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Unravelling the AIDS paradox

In 1985 AIDS was an unusual disease of several thousand sexually promiscuous, drug using, white, gay men in California and New York. Twenty years later AIDS has been redefined as a disease of millions of monogamous, married women in Africa. The emphasis has shifted from explaining unexpected cases of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and Kaposi's sarcoma in apparently healthy young men in the United States to interpreting the meaning of HIV antibodies in pregnant women in Africa. Along the way, about half the original AIDS patients have been reclassified as not having AIDS because they did not have HIV antibodies. Blood donors, who have HIV antibodies detected, are retested a year later and usually no longer have HIV antibodies.

HIV has proved impossible to purify. There are no electron micrographs of purified HIV particles. In the place of facts we are offered artists impressions and pictures of bumps on cell surfaces.

HIV Virus Budding from a Human Cell
HIV virus--Coloured Transmission Electron Micrograph
HIV Viron Budding and Released HIV Viron
Carl Henderson 19:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
These are all pretty pictures, but where is the evidence that HIV was present in any of them? Sci guy 04:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Did you even look at the pictures? Especially the last one which shows a detailed close-up of an HIV viron, and the next-to-last that shows a viron budding. You can even see some of the RNA structure. Carl Henderson 07:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Maybe the last one stating in the picture's description: "A human immunodeficiency viral particle is seen budding from the infected cell surface at the top, with a complete viral particle at bottom in this high magnification electron micrograph." JoeSmack (talk) 04:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I simply asked for the evidence that these particles are HIV. Please do not blame me if there is no evidence. Sci guy 15:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

These facts and many others are not disputed. What is controversial is the many suggested explanations that have been generated and rejected over the twenty years. Sci guy 12:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

This is all stuff that might do better at the AIDS reappraisal talk page.JoeSmack (talk) 16:31, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

HIV transmission

I think it has been well established for over a decade, that at least some recently HIV infected people are highly infectious. This group of HIV negative people may infect 10% to 30% of people they have sex with and account for half the new HIV infections. Compared to the lower rates of transmision for HIV positive people with established infection of between 1 and 50 per 10,0000 exposures - the relative risks of anal and oral become insignificant Sci guy 17:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are right, people are more infectious if recently infected. Quantifying that into the exposure/infection numbers of general populations is a much more difficult task however. Do you know of a study that gives a solid, tested percentage of how much more infectious someone is soon after they are infected themselves? If so, we can added at the end of the HIV infection rates for vaginal/anal/oral something like "it however has been shown that after XX weeks initial infection, a person is XX% more likely to infect their partner." JoeSmack (talk) 18:00, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
P.S. No one man studies though, if you please. JoeSmack (talk) 18:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
I thought this CDC cluster was about 42 women, of whom 31% were infected with the same HIV. If you apply your "one man" rule, then most of HIV science goes down the drain. All HIV tests are based on samples from one man in France, which Gallo and Weiss were given by the Pasteur Institute. The origin from Chimpanzee case is based on samples from one laboratory animal in the USA. Sci guy 05:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
In empirical science we try to not base things off just one example. The HIV tests may have been, but they've been widely proved/developed with more samples since. The chimpanzee case isn't the best, which is why we are still for the most part formulating just base theories on the origins of HIV. Here we have the option not to have to rely on 'one man data', and we even have other studies that take populations into account from the CDC (look at the table we have for infection rates). So please, something better than that. JoeSmack (talk) 18:48, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Without the New York cluster from the CDC, where is the evidence that heterosexual transmisison of AIDS is possible? Millions of HIV infections depend on on credible explanation for heterosexual transmisson. Find a better study on heterosexual tramsission if you can, but until then this is better than nothing. Sci guy 06:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I bet you wouldn't be willing to have heterosexual sex with an HIV positive partner. Failing that there are plenty of HIV transmision studies that incorportate heterosexual populations. Look around, I'm sure you won't have to go far. JoeSmack (talk) 23:29, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Twenty fold increase

"the likelihood of sexual transmission from a given man to a given woman would be increased about 20-fold during Primary HIV infection as compared with the same couple having the same sex act 4 months later." [10] see full quote below Sci guy 04:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

A third reason that PHI may represent real opportunity is that it is a time of heightened infectiousness, during which identification of infected patients can open up the possibility of preventing secondary infections. The Duke UNC Emory group in collaboration with Swiss colleagues (Abstract 366-M) presented data on paired semen and blood HIV viral load concentrations measured at baseline (prior to initiating HAART) in a group of 30 men with PHI. By displaying these levels as a function of estimated time from infection, investigators showed that viral loads appear to be highest in semen at the precise time that they are highest in blood, and that changes over time in viral loads appear to occur in parallel in the two compartments. They then used a series of calculations to estimate that the likelihood of sexual transmission from a given man to a given woman would be increased about 20-fold during PHI as compared with the same couple having the same sex act 4 months later. These observations suggest that changes in semen viral load are significant during PHI and may put sexual partners at truly high risk-emphasizing the public health opportunity PHI represents.

I agree. I have no problem with something like that going in somewhere. JoeSmack (talk) 18:48, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sci-guy reverting the introduction (again)

Sciguy is again reverting the introduction to his less accessible, less descriptive, less well written, less informative version. At first he reverted for the the (laughable) reason that calling AIDS a disease and saying it has no cure has to be referenced. I'm sorry, but that's a bit, erm, pedantic. It's like asking someone to cite a source for the claim that the United States is in North America. However, suffice it to say, I did add references. Did that stop his reverting? No.

Second, and more important: Wikipedia:Lead section - The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text is accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. Now, please tell me which version is more accessible to someone who doesn't know much/anything about AIDS? →Raul654 03:28, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I quite honestly like Raul's better. It's more accessable and gives more references for those not looking for a 10 page explaination, and summarizes it better.
I do not think it is correct to say that all HIV infects all T helper cells. My recollection is that only a very small percentage of T helper cells are infected with HIV. As I recall the number of T helper cells killed by HIV each day is about the same number you would loose when shaving. Either way the decline in T helper cell numbers takes several years, which is much longer than the average life of a T cell. An then there are all the people who develop AIDS defining illnesses while their T cell number are within normal range. Are we presenting popular prejudice or the current state of knowledge? Most of the quoted sources are more skeptical than the current article. Sci guy 16:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
He never said that all t helper cells are infected, he just said that t helper cells are infected. And the initial onset of HIV doesn't kill many T helper cells, especially directly (i.e. cell lysing). But later in the progression of the disease, latent HIV cells activate and produce mass amounts of the virus and lyse the cell, destroying them and infecting others and doing the same. More than shaving. Lots more. Plus, your own immune system rolls around killing your own t helper cells because they are infected, even disabled ones hit with rouge gp120 viron particles. This isn't some 'popular belief', it has been studied and proven. As for HIV longterm non-progressors, that is a very very small percentage of the population who's t-cells don't drop yet have AIDS defining illnesses. That is a whole other can of worms. JoeSmack (talk) 17:41, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
On another streak of honesty, Sci Guy, it's really getting tiring to hear frivolous claims of things like "HIV destroys T cells has not been established...HIV has proved impossible to purify...There are no electron micrographs of purified HIV particles." - Please, this stuff has been proven again and again [11] [12]. Stop throwing changes into the article, even almost sneaking them in, because they radically change the message/information of the article. Such significant changes deserve discussion here first before implementation. JoeSmack (talk) 04:02, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Would prefer this quote

We still do not understand the origin of the AIDS epidemic; the slow destruction of the immune system by factors in addition to HIV infection of CD4+ T cells; the importance of cofactors in AIDS progression and virus transmission; and the nature of the HIV reservoir that resists triple drug therapy. The next wave of advances in the fight against this worldwide scourge will require the contribution and energy of us all. Luc Montagnier 2002 in A History of HIV Discovery Sci guy 16:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Lets be bold and use something maybe less vauge and less dated.JoeSmack (talk) 17:46, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


is it possible that the editor who tried to say that aids " is commonly the result of being infected with HIV" might have meant something li,e this ""AIDS is a disease which is commonlny the result of direct infection wwith HIV, but can sometimes be causefcd by tainted needles and bad blood transfusions"

just wondering. Gabrielsimon 23:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that said that AIDS often results from HIV (implying that there are times when AIDS does not result from HIV, which is flatly wrong); I suspect he meant to say that HIV often results in AIDS (implying that there are times when HIV does not result in AIDS, which is true - the long term nonprogresssors). →Raul654 23:43, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
It was me. I meant the later spoken of by Raul. Speaking of which will someone put something in about HIV longterm non-progressors? I feel like it used to be in here but isn't anymore. JoeSmack (talk) 23:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've just made some substantial changes, but I think they significantly improve the introduction. What do you think? →Raul654 00:10, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I have restored the version by Raul654 that I prefer. Sci guy 14:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

agreement with cited references

I consider it to be important for the text of the article to agree with the cited reference. If you want to change the text to present a different opinion, then a different reference is required.

I understand that the ideas expressed by CDC, WHO, UNAIDS, and experts like Luc Montagnier , Robert Gallo, Fauci and Weiss are very different from many popular misconceptions about AIDS.

The Biology Project at The University of Arizona [13] actually states that many models have been proposed to explain why are CD4+ T cells depleted by HIV. The "Destruction of immune system" is actually part of a figure taken from Nature Medicine 9, 839 (2003). This Nature paper apparently claims that "There is a rapid turnover of CD4+ T cells that ultimately leads to their destruction and to a change in lymphoid tissues that prevent immune responses." I suggest you read the Nature paper before citing it as a reference. Sci guy 16:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If you really have a beef with that sentence or two, then just change that sentence. JoeSmack (talk) 16:31, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
You may be able to read a pdf file of the Nature paper There may be a html version we can link to? Sci guy 16:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Listen. Your revert changes far more than what you have issue with, which I assume you do on purpose. Not only this, but the VERY next line in the Biology Project source to "Many models have been proposed." is "The most recent ideas center around the fact that CD4 and CCR5 are co-receptors for HIV." This cite comes from 2000, and five years later you look around and tell me which is the most popular still.
Also your direct quote of "Many models have been proposed to explain why the body's T helper cells are depleted by HIV. The progression of HIV infection to AIDS probably depends on how well our body can replace cells destroyed by virus." is weakly phrased and copied. Find your own voice.
Just because you randomly quote things and say 'it agrees more with the cite" doesn't make it so. JoeSmack (talk) 17:08, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

3RR warning

Joe and Sci Guy, I've left notes on both of your talk pages about the WP:3RR. You're both veeeeeery close to getting blocked. Please remember the five pillars and work together on an acceptable version instead of just blindly reverting. - jredmond 17:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

All reverts are not equal, and "working together" only works if both all parties have the same goal. That's not the case here. JoeSmack is trying to put together a well-referenced accurate AIDS article; SciGuy is involved in a form of passive-aggressive article vandalism. SciGuy does a decent job of obfuscating what he's doing, but to anyone who's watched the edits here for long, it's obvious. His modus operandi consists of:
  • Making tiny changes so as to weaken unequivocally true statements,
  • Replace clear language with obtuse--but scientifically correct--technobabble so as to hide important points from the casual reader,
  • Citing sections from sources out-of-context, then claiming the source supports his point of view,
  • Slipping critical changes in the middle of a host of small changes (usually with no annotation of what the change is on the revisions page), and
  • Demanding standards of proof that are not possible in any field of science, or demanding specific evidence, and then moving the goalposts when such evidence is presented.
I think (but can't be sure) that viewpoint he's pushing is "HIV doesn't cause AIDS." That's fine--there is a page on Wikipedia for that (and other AIDS dissident views). He needs to go there, and stop making life harder for people who are only trying to create a good, well-referenced, and complete article on AIDS.
Your criticism of JoeSmack is unwarranted.
Carl Henderson 19:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Please go read WP:3RR… it applies to every editor, period, whether or not their goals are noble. - jredmond 19:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

(Speaking as the person who wrote the 3 revert rule enforcement guideline which Jimbo then proposed) The three revert rule is not intended as a invitation for people to start pushing agendas, which as Carl accurately describes, is exactly what Sciguy has been doing. Nor is it indended to be applied mechanically, without good judgement from administrators. Sci Guy is good at quashing factual inaccuracies when they crop up (such as my erronious statement saying that HIV directly kills T-cells), but 95% of the work he does here consists of obfuscating or otherwise whitewashing certain aspects of HIV/AIDS. →Raul654 19:37, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I couldn't have put it better myself. JoeSmack (talk) 20:11, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

The policy also states, "In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally.". If Sci Guy is pushing a POV or refusing to cooperate, then Joe should not be the only one reverting; a request for page protection may be more appropriate, as might an RfC, but a revert war is counterproductive for all those involved. - jredmond 20:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This is where lines get blurry so I'll say that Jredmond you've done what you should. Best to air on the side of caution. I will not revert for another 24hrs. The motives and edits of Sci guy however are accurate to how Raul654 and Carl Henderson have described. Unfortunately. JoeSmack (talk) 20:53, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Factual errors

Recent changes have introduced several factual errors. No references are cited to support these changes:

  • AIDS was not formerly known as GRIDS. GRID was was initially proposed as the name for clusters of Kaposi's sarcoma and Pneumocycstis pneumonia among gay, male, drug users in California and New York City. But later testing showed that half this group were not infected with HIV. see Shilts R, And the Band Played On. 1987.
Might you have a journal reference for the testing that showed half of this group were not infected? I like those better. I believe And the Band Played On is a book (and a rather poor movie too :-/ ...). Also, when talked about in the article here the cite [14] refers to it as "gay-related immunodeficiency disease", notice the "immunodeficiency". Anyone know for sure?
I agree that journal references are better, but the CDC rarely publishes in peer reviewed journals. The CDC revised the original number of reported AIDS cases based on HIV antibody testing. As to the New York Times story, this is exactly why newspaper stories are not good sources. They do not have a good track record in correctly reporting AIDS stories Sci guy 16:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The claim that "HIV can be transmitted in numeraous ways" seems misleading. HIV is actually very difficult to transmit, requiring direct exposue to infected blood or semen (both of which may occur during oral sex).
How is it misleading? It may be difficult to contract statistically, especially compared to diseases like Hepatitis, but it can still be 'transmitted in numerous ways'. There isn't anything ambiguous about that.
Frankly, there are very few ways to be exposed to HIV infected blood or semen. This may explain why HIV is so difficult to transmit - and so easy to prevent by using a coindom. The more important point is that half the new sexually acquired HIV infections are thought to be acquired from people who were recently infected with HIV and would test HIV negative. Sci guy 16:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
HIV is actually relatively easy to transmit, look to Africa to see this. --Grcampbell 19:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Who claims that "A very small portion of people infected with HIV never develop AIDS."? Many definitions of HIV longterm non-progressors have been proposed, generally six years without an AIDS diagnosis or retroviral therapy is accepted. I think terms like "a very small portion" and "never" are controversial enough to require a reference.
This definition has been sitting in my talk page under 'unused sources'. It states 7-12 years.
* AIDSinfo (2002). The Glossary of HIV/AIDS-Related Terms, 4th Edition (Long-Term Nonprogressor). Retrieved July 22, 2005.
Definitions of what constitutes RP, LTNP and LTS vary between studies and cohorts. In Uganda we have defined an LTS (long term survivor) as a person who has a CD4 count greater than 500 cells/mm3 six or more years post-infection, whilst a RP is a person who died or progressed to a CD4 count less than 200 cells/mm3 within 5 years of sero-conversion. LTNP is someone who has a CD4 count greater than 500 cells/mm3 12 or more years post-infection. This, we have published in medical journals such as JBC and AIDS. However, one must be careful as to the definitions of this as the date of seroconversion is always an estimate, and thus it is very difficult to know when one has become infected, also, the mode of infection can play a role in this, as the initial viral dose can play a large role. Personally, I feel that the term LTNP is a misnomer, and I know I'm not alone in this POV, as these poor individuals will eventually progress to AIDS, albeit over a longer time period. --Grcampbell 19:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Why have "health care settings" been removed from the UNAIDS list?
This hasn't been removed from the article. It's still there, look for yourself.
  • Statements like "Over a period lasting years, the immune system becomes gradually weaker. Eventually, the patient dies from "opportunistic diseases" - diseases which the immune system would normally destroy but cannot due to weakness from HIV." belong to the pre 1993 definition of AIDS.
Care to give a cite for that? If it is copied word for word I'd say it's bad, but even if it came from a pre 1993 definition of AIDS, it's still accurate today.

Correction of these factual erors is required Sci guy 08:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Good points all around. I've modified the Long term nonprogressors section accordingly - give me a day or two to get to the rest. →Raul654 08:24, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Erm, but about the last point - I'm not describiing that so as to define AIDS, but to characterize it. That is what AIDS patients die from. →Raul654 08:27, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Why include a statement about the 1% Long term nonprogressors? Is this important enough for the introduction? Fred2005 11:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

some people may consider living a long time with HIV being important --Grcampbell 19:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)