Talk:Misconceptions about HIV/AIDS
|This page was nominated for deletion on 24 June 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This page was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was Keep.|
|This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
- 1 Untitled comments
- 2 The Western Myth of the African Myth of Virgin Sex
- 3 Oral Sex
- 4 gay disease section
- 5 Religious angle
- 6 Neutrality and factual inaccuracy?
- 7 Page move/Rename
- 8 Encyclopedic Nature
- 9 Duesberg hypothesis
- 10 Myth or Reality???
- 11 Format
- 12 The titles in the article are really long because they summarize the entire argument of each section rather than providing a brief outline of what follows
- 13 Genetic tendancy towards AIDS amongst Black people?
- 14 format of citations
- 15 Name of the Page
- 16 AIDs and cancer
- 17 The African-American community *is* particularly affected by HIV/AIDS. This is not a misconception, so I am removing it from the list.
- 18 Feel free to use the "Myths" page as a resource for debunking HIV/AIDS myths/misconceptions
- 19 Further explanation of the non-hetero theory
- 20 Reference?
- 21 Syringes
- 22 HIV Survival Outside the Body
- 23 Priests dying of AIDS
- 24 risks of oral sex: does it need re-phrasing?
- 25 pregnancy with aids
- 26 Absence of Human Creation Myths??
- 27 Showers cannot reduce chances of contracting HIV?
- 28 Albinos
- 29 Translation to simple English
- 30 Reverting misinformation
- 31 Some discrepancy in section "HIV survives for only a short time outside the body"
- 32 Table of contents too long
- 33 Two healthy people having sex creates HIV
- 34 Invidiousness of characterization
- 35 Wikiproject/Alternative Views bot assessment is odd
- 36 Monkey Love Coitus
- 37 External links modified
"Perhaps some of these myths serve as a psychological mechanism..." ... or perhaps some of them, like Patient Zero, were solemnly fed us as Truth by the idiot media at one point in time. Kwantus 07:17, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
It is definetly wrong that dengue, malaria, yellow fever or West Nile are "mosquito-borne" diseases! See all the special articles! The mosquitos are only Vectors for these deseases. 220.127.116.11 01:18, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)--
The Western Myth of the African Myth of Virgin Sex
" An urban legend, common in some parts of Africa, claims that having sexual intercourse with a virgin will cure AIDS. Doing so does not cure the infected person. Rather, it exposes the victim to the risk of HIV infection and likely leads to further spread of the disease. This myth has gained considerable notoriety, having been seen at the center of certain recent stories involving sexual abuse and child rape. "
Actually, the (racist, Western, including South African) myth is that Black people believe that HIV infection can be cured by having sex with a virgin.
- Actually, a man was put to death in the recent past, as I recall, for raping a baby to cure himself of AIDS. It was international news. JDoorjam 23:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
The purpose of this myth is to explain away the frequent incidences of "HIV positive" children being born to "HIV negative" parents. Rather than admit that the tests used are unreliable in Africa, they will claim that Black people are child rapists, which apparently is the more comfortable explanation.
- This is not common to only Africa, but also other contries and continents. I have updated the page and included references.--Grcampbell 18:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Oprah Winfrey had a show where she claimed that people in South Africa used glass from a broken bottle in order to cut the genitals of a baby girl, in order to enlarge them to allow for multiple HIV infected men to rape her so as to cure themselves of the disease. This "myth" is common in South Africa amongst rural, uneducated people (who statically, tend not to be white). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Questions about the reliability of HIV tests in Africa have been raised wide and far. There are around 60 factors that can create false positive results, especially when using single screening tests called ELISA. Many of these only or mainly occur in Africa - malaria, tubercuolosis, leprosy, and their antibodies will cause false positives on the allegedly HIV-specific HIV tests. Another factor is pregnancy, which is why surveys based on pregnant women at antenatal clinics (ANCs) alway create these huge national infection rates (25%, 33%, etc.).
- I'm sorry, you're arguing that there isn't an AIDS problem in Africa? JDoorjam
List of causes for false positive ELISA screening tests, with sources:
Factors Known to Cause False-Positive HIV Antibody Test Results
Anti-carbohydrate antibodies (52, 19, 13) Naturally-occurring antibodies (5, 19) Passive immunization: receipt of gamma globulin or immune globulin (as prophylaxis against infection which contains antibodies)(18, 26, 60, 4, 22, 42, 43, 13) Leprosy (2, 25) Tuberculosis (25) Mycobacterium avium (25) Systemic lupus erythematosus (15, 23) Renal (kidney) failure (48, 23, 13) Hemodialysis/renal failure (56, 16, 41, 10, 49) Alpha interferon therapy in hemodialysis patients (54) Flu (36) Flu vaccination (30, 11, 3, 20, 13, 43) Herpes simplex I (27) Herpes simplex II (11) Upper respiratory tract infection (cold or flu)(11) Recent viral infection or exposure to viral vaccines (11) Pregnancy in multiparous women (58, 53, 13, 43, 36) Malaria (6, 12) High levels of circulating immune complexes (6, 33) Hypergammaglobulinemia (high levels of antibodies) (40, 33) False positives on other tests, including RPR (rapid plasma reagent) test for syphilis (17, 48, 33, 10, 49) Rheumatoid arthritis (36) Hepatitis B vaccination (28, 21, 40, 43) Tetanus vaccination (40) Organ transplantation (1, 36) Renal transplantation (35, 9, 48, 13, 56) Anti-lymphocyte antibodies (56, 31) Anti-collagen antibodies (found in gay men, haemophiliacs, Africans of both sexes and people with leprosy)(31) Serum-positive for rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibody (both found in rheumatoid arthritis and other autoantibodies)(14, 62, 53) Autoimmune diseases (44, 29, 10, 40, 49, 43): Systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma, connective tissue disease, dermatomyositis Acute viral infections, DNA viral infections (59, 48, 43, 53, 40, 13) Malignant neoplasms (cancers)(40) Alcoholic hepatitis/alcoholic liver disease (32, 48, 40,10,13, 49, 43, 53) Primary sclerosing cholangitis (48, 53) Hepatitis (54) "Sticky" blood (in Africans) (38, 34, 40) Antibodies with a high affinity for polystyrene (used in the test kits)(62, 40, 3) Blood transfusions, multiple blood transfusions (63, 36,13, 49, 43, 41) Multiple myeloma (10, 43, 53) HLA antibodies (to Class I and II leukocyte antigens)(7, 46, 63, 48, 10, 13, 49, 43, 53) Anti-smooth muscle antibody (48) Anti-parietal cell antibody (48) Anti-hepatitis A IgM (antibody)(48) Anti-Hbc IgM (48) Administration of human immunoglobulin preparations pooled before 1985 (10) Haemophilia (10, 49) Haematologic malignant disorders/lymphoma (43, 53, 9, 48, 13) Primary biliary cirrhosis (43, 53, 13, 48) Stevens-Johnson syndrome9, (48, 13) Q-fever with associated hepatitis (61) Heat-treated specimens (51, 57, 24, 49, 48) Lipemic serum (blood with high levels of fat or lipids)(49) Haemolyzed serum (blood where haemoglobin is separated from the red cells)(49) Hyperbilirubinemia (10, 13) Globulins produced during polyclonal gammopathies (which are seen in AIDS risk groups)(10, 13, 48) Healthy individuals as a result of poorly-understood cross-reactions (10) Normal human ribonucleoproteins (48,13) Other retroviruses (8, 55, 14, 48, 13) Anti-mitochondrial antibodies (48, 13) Anti-nuclear antibodies (48, 13, 53) Anti-microsomal antibodies (34) T-cell leukocyte antigen antibodies (48, 13) Proteins on the filter paper (13) Epstein-Barr virus (37) Visceral leishmaniasis (45) Receptive anal sex (39, 64) References
1. Agbalika F, Ferchal F, Garnier J-P, et al. 1992. False-positive antigens related to emergence of a 25-30 kD protein detected in organ recipients. AIDS. 6:959-962.
2. Andrade V, Avelleira JC, Marques A, et al. 1991. Leprosy as a cause of false-positive results in serological assays for the detection of antibodies to HIV-1. Intl. J. Leprosy. 59:125.
3. Arnold NL, Slade RA, Jones MM, et al. 1994. Donor follow up of influenza vaccine-related multiple viral enzyme immunoassay reactivity. Vox Sanguinis. 67:191.
4. Ascher D, Roberts C. 1993. Determination of the etiology of seroreversals in HIV testing by antibody fingerprinting. AIDS. 6:241.
5. Barbacid M, Bolgnesi D, Aaronson S. 1980. Humans have antibodies capable of recognizing oncoviral glycoproteins: Demonstration that these antibodies are formed in response to cellular modification of glycoproteins rather than as consequence of exposure to virus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 77:1617-1621.
6. Biggar R, Melbye M, Sarin P, et al. 1985. ELISA HTLV retrovirus antibody reactivity associated with malaria and immune complexes in healthy Africans. Lancet. ii:520-543.
7. Blanton M, Balakrishnan K, Dumaswala U, et al. 1987. HLA antibodies in blood donors with reactive screening tests for antibody to the immunodeficiency virus. Transfusion. 27(1):118.
8. Blomberg J, Vincic E, Jonsson C, et al. 1990. Identification of regions of HIV-1 p24 reactive with sera which give "indeterminate" results in electrophoretic immunoblots with the help of long synthetic peptides. AIDS Res. Hum. Retro. 6:1363.
9. Burkhardt U, Mertens T, Eggers H. 1987. Comparison of two commercially available anti-HIV ELISA's: Abbott HTLV-III ELA and DuPont HTLV-III ELISA. J. Med. Vir. 23:217.
10. Bylund D, Ziegner U, Hooper D. 1992 Review of testing for human immunodeficiency virus. Clin. Lab. Med. 12:305-333.
11. Challakere K, Rapaport M. 1993. False-positive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 ELISA results in low-risk subjects. West. J. Med. 159(2):214-215.
12. Charmot G, Simon F. 1990. HIV infection and malaria. Revue du practicien. 40:2141.
13. Cordes R, Ryan M. 1995. Pitfalls in HIV testing. Postgraduate Medicine. 98:177.
14. Dock N, Lamberson H, O'Brien T, et al. 1988. Evaluation of atypical human immunodeficiency virus immunoblot reactivity in blood donors. Transfusion. 28:142.
15. Esteva M, Blasini A, Ogly D, et al. 1992. False positive results for antibody to HIV in two men with systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 51:1071-1073.
16. Fassbinder W, Kuhni P, Neumayer H. et al. 1986. Prevalence of antibodies against LAV/HTLV-III [HIV] in patients with terminal renal insufficiency treated with hemodialysis and following renal transplantation. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift. 111:1087.
17. Fleming D, Cochi S, Steece R. et al. 1987. Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in low-incidence areas. JAMA. 258(6):785.
18. Gill MJ, Rachlis A, Anand C. 1991. Five cases of erroneously diagnosed HIV infection. Can. Med. Asso. J. 145(12):1593.
19. Healey D, Bolton W. 1993. Apparent HIV-1 glycoprotein reactivity on Western blot in uninfected blood donors. AIDS. 7:655-658.
20. Hisa J. 1993. False-positive ELISA for human immunodeficiency virus after influenza vaccination. JID. 167:989.
21. Isaacman S. 1989. Positive HIV antibody test results after treatment with hepatitis B immune globulin. JAMA. 262:209.
22. Jackson G, Rubenis M, Knigge M, et al. 1988. Passive immunoneutralisation of human immunodeficiency virus in patients with advanced AIDS. Lancet, Sept. 17:647.
23. Jindal R, Solomon M, Burrows L. 1993. False positive tests for HIV in a woman with lupus and renal failure. NEJM. 328:1281-1282.
24. Jungkind D, DiRenzo S, Young S. 1986. Effect of using heat-inactivated serum with the Abbott human T-cell lymphotropic virus type III [HIV] antibody test. J. Clin. Micro. 23:381.
25. Kashala O, Marlink R, Ilunga M. et al. 1994. Infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and human T-cell lymphotropic viruses among leprosy patients and contacts: correlation between HIV-1 cross-reactivity and antibodies to lipoarabionomanna. J. Infect. Dis. 169:296-304.
26. Lai-Goldman M, McBride J, Howanitz P, et al. 1987. Presence of HTLV-III [HIV] antibodies in immune serum globulin preparations. Am. J. Clin. Path. 87:635.
27. Langedijk J, Vos W, Doornum G, et al. 1992. Identification of cross-reactive epitopes recognized by HIV-1 false-positive sera. AIDS. 6:1547-1548.
28. Lee D, Eby W, Molinaro G. 1992. HIV false positivity after hepatitis B vaccination. Lancet. 339:1060.
29. Leo-Amador G, Ramirez-Rodriguez J, Galvan-Villegas F, et al. 1990. Antibodies against human immunodeficiency virus in generalized lupus erythematosus. Salud Publica de Mexico. 32:15.
30. Mackenzie W, Davis J, Peterson D. et al. 1992. Multiple false-positive serologic tests for HIV, HTLV-1 and hepatitis C following influenza vaccination, 1991. JAMA. 268:1015-1017.
31. Mathe G. 1992. Is the AIDS virus responsible for the disease? Biomed & Pharmacother. 46:1-2.
32. Mendenhall C, Roselle G, Grossman C, et al. 1986. False-positive tests for HTLV-III [HIV] antibodies in alcoholic patients with hepatitis. NEJM. 314:921.
33. Moore J, Cone E, Alexander S. 1986. HTLV-III [HIV] seropositivity in 1971-1972 parenteral drug abusers - a case of false-positives or evidence of viral exposure? NEJM. 314:1387-1388.
34. Mortimer P, Mortimer J, Parry J. 1985. Which anti-HTLV-III/LAV [HIV] assays for screening and comfirmatory testing? Lancet. Oct. 19, p873.
35. Neale T, Dagger J, Fong R, et al. 1985. False-positive anti-HTLV-III [HIV] serology. New Zealand Med. J. October 23.
36. Ng V. 1991. Serological diagnosis with recombinant peptides/proteins. Clin. Chem. 37:1667-1668.
37. Ozanne G, Fauvel M. 1988. Perfomance and reliability of five commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits in screening for anti-human immunodeficiency virus antibody in high-risk subjects. J. Clin. Micro. 26:1496.
38. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E. 1988. Reappraisal of AIDS - Is the oxidation induced by the risk factors the primary cause? Med. Hypo. 25:151.
39. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner V, and Papadimitriou J. 1993. Is a positive Western blot proof of HIV infection? Bio/Technology. June 11:696-707.
40. Pearlman ES, Ballas SK. 1994. False-positive human immunodeficiency virus screening test related to rabies vaccination. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 118-805.
41. Peternan T, Lang G, Mikos N, et al. Hemodialysis/renal failure. 1986. JAMA. 255:2324.
42. Piszkewicz D. 1987. HTLV-III [HIV] antibodies after immune globulin. JAMA. 257:316.
43. Profitt MR, Yen-Lieberman B. 1993. Laboratory diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus infection. Inf. Dis. Clin. North Am. 7:203.
44. Ranki A, Kurki P, Reipponen S, et al. 1992. Antibodies to retroviral proteins in autoimmune connective tissue disease. Arthritis and Rheumatism. 35:1483.
45. Ribeiro T, Brites C, Moreira E, et al. 1993. Serologic validation of HIV infection in a tropical area. JAIDS. 6:319.
46. Sayers M, Beatty P, Hansen J. 1986. HLA antibodies as a cause of false-positive reactions in screening enzyme immunoassays for antibodies to human T-lymphotropic virus type III [HIV]. Transfusion. 26(1):114.
47. Sayre KR, Dodd RY, Tegtmeier G, et al. 1996. False-positive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 Western blot tests in non-infected blood donors. Transfusion. 36:45.
48. Schleupner CJ. Detection of HIV-1 infection. In: (Mandell GI, Douglas RG, Bennett JE, eds.) Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 3rd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1990:1092.
49. Schochetman G, George J. 1992. Serologic tests for the detection of human immunodeficiency virus infection. In AIDS Testing Methodology and Management Issues, Springer-Verlag, New York.
50. Simonsen L, Buffington J, Shapiro C, et al. 1995. Multiple false reactions in viral antibody screening assays after influenza vaccination. Am. J. Epidem. 141-1089.
51. Smith D, Dewhurst S, Shepherd S, et al. 1987. False-positive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay reactions for antibody to human immunodeficiency virus in a population of midwestern patients with congenital bleeding disorders. Transfusion. 127:112.
52. Snyder H, Fleissner E. 1980. Specificity of human antibodies to oncovirus glycoproteins; Recognition of antigen by natural antibodies directed against carbohydrate structures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 77:1622-1626.
53. Steckelberg JM, Cockerill F. 1988. Serologic testing for human immunodeficiency virus antibodies. Mayo Clin. Proc. 63:373.
54. Sungar C, Akpolat T, Ozkuyumcu C, et al. Alpha interferon therapy in hemodialysis patients. Nephron. 67:251.
55. Tribe D, Reed D, Lindell P, et al. 1988. Antibodies reactive with human immunodeficiency virus gag-coated antigens (gag reactive only) are a major cause of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay reactivity in a bood donor population. J. Clin. Micro. April:641.
56. Ujhelyi E, Fust G, Illei G, et al. 1989. Different types of false positive anti-HIV reactions in patients on hemodialysis. Immun. Let. 22:35-40.
57. Van Beers D, Duys M, Maes M, et al. Heat inactivation of serum may interfere with tests for antibodies to LAV/HTLV-III [HIV]. J. Vir. Meth. 12:329.
58. Voevodin A. 1992. HIV screening in Russia. Lancet. 339:1548.
59. Weber B, Moshtaghi-Borojeni M, Brunner M, et al. 1995. Evaluation of the reliability of six current anti-HIV-1/HIV-2 enzyme immunoassays. J. Vir. Meth. 55:97.
60. Wood C, Williams A, McNamara J, et al. 1986. Antibody against the human immunodeficiency virus in commercial intravenous gammaglobulin preparations. Ann. Int. Med. 105:536.
61. Yale S, Degroen P, Tooson J, et al. 1994. Unusual aspects of acute Q fever-associated hepatitis. Mayo Clin. Proc. 69:769.
62. Yoshida T, Matsui T, Kobayashi M, et al. 1987. Evaluation of passive particle agglutination test for antibody to human immunodeficiency virus. J. Clin. Micro. Aug:1433.
63. Yu S, Fong C, Landry M, et al. 1989. A false positive HIV antibody reaction due to transfusion-induced HLA-DR4 sensitization. NEJM.320:1495.
64. National Institue of Justice, AIDS Bulletin. Oct. 1988.
- This source doesn't even seem to know the correct terminology (you are talking about 'specificity') which has been very well established for the HIV tests most commonly used. Obviously no test of perfect and there may be many potential sources of error but that doesn't change the overall specificity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipthegreat88 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
^^^ Basically all of what was written above refers to cross reactive antibodies causing false positives antibody testing - both Western Blot and ELISA techniques can be affected by this, however when positive these tests are confirmed by viral PCR testing which is a genetic rather than serological method and is ABSOLUTELY NOT affected by antibody cross re-activity. The WB and ELISA methods are highly sensitive however have lower specificity, the converse is true of PCR based methods. Both are required to diagnose HIV infection. Read up on the terms sensitivity and specificity, window period,the principles of the tests involved and the HIV virus itself before commenting with such disingenuous HIV denial propaganda, citing references so far out of context I don't know where to even begin. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
HIV can be transmitted through both insertive and receptive oral sex. There is definitely a risk, if someone is "drinking" sperm or vaginal fluid. Is there another way of oral transmission? 126.96.36.199 11:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. At any given time, countless tiny, undetectable open sores or cuts can be present in a person's mouth, lips, gums, and tongue. Any one of these breaches can expose the person performing the act on the other. It only takes one instance of the virus to expose the other party, so even the "pre-cum" or the small amount of vaginal fluid transferred by a non-ejaculating female is enough to expose the performer. Additionally, it there is uncertainty as to whether these tiny breaches on the performer's lips or tongue could expose the receiver of the sex act via similar breaches on the penis or vagina/surrounding area. And, while the risk is subtantially less than with unprotected vaginal or anal sex involving insertion/ejaculation, the risk indeed real and not, as some would claim, statistically insignificant. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 21:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Updated and referenced. To date, I believe there are at least 38 documented cases of transmission through this route. --Grcampbell 18:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
gay disease section
Cut from article:
- A common myth that originated in the 1980s is that AIDS is a "gay plague". Variants of this myth include the misconception that only gays can get AIDS, and the incorrect perception that gays brought AIDS to the world, or to North America. During the early 1980s, the disease's disproportionate occurrence within the gay community led some Christian fundamentalists to brand AIDS the "gay plague", a device used by God to show his "displeasure" with homosexual behaviour. This view was based upon a traditional Biblical interpretation that homosexual activity is a sin. Conservative religious spokespersons such as Jerry Falwell touched off considerable controversy when they described AIDS as God's way of punishing homosexuals. Opponents argued that, if this were true, hemophilia would be a sin and God would love lesbians (who have a lower incidence of AIDS than either gay men or heterosexuals of either sex).
This section argues that AIDS should not be called gay disease or gay plague because:
- it is not true that the disease ever afflicted mainly homosexuals; and/or
- it is not true that AIDS was God's punishment for homosexuals.
The first reason is untrue. Researchers at first correctly noted that AIDS was primarily found among male homosexuals. It was many years before significant non-homosexual transmission was proved.
The second reason is a POV. Wikipedia is not supposed to say that any POV is false. So dubbing it a myth or urban legend would be advocacy.
Better to handle this by saying that certain advocates object to the terms gay plague or gay disease. And then describe the objections these advocates give. Something like:
- Even though many medical researchers (including some physicians who were themselves self-proclaimed, out of the closet, homosexuals) called AIDS a "gay disease" during the years before HIV was found as the cause, a numbeer of advocates heartily dislike the term.
We could explain the views of various gay rights organizations, and summarize their public relations campaigns. Off the top of my head, the main arguments were:
- We don't want to associate gay sex with death - because we think homosexuality isn't anything bad or shameful.
- We don't want people to think that having sex with a homosexual is likely to be give them a deadly disease - because we don't want people to stop engaging in gay sex.
- We want to promote the idea that "AIDS can affect anyone" - because if we don't then we won't get funding for vaccines or cures, and then we ourselves might have to stop engaging in gay sex.
I'm not sure I've worded the 3 reasons neutrally enough, but I'm fairly sure I've hit close to the mark. Uncle Ed 22:33, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Your statement "then we ourselves might have to stop engaging in gay sex" implies that if gays stopped having sex, HIV/AIDS would simply stop. That is an amazingly uninformed point of view. More heteroseuals than gays are infected, and if every gay person was perfectly abstainant, the disease would still rage on. Outlander 14:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Really, this statement makes it sound like the most important point is that gay sex is not dangerous. What should be emphasized is that both gay and straight sex can transmit HIV.
Also, regarding the "gay disease" ideas, from what I understand anal sex is more likely to spread HIV than vaginal or oral sex. This does make it more likely to occurr among homosexuals. The problem is that, while anal is most dangerous, any form of sex may spread HIV regardless of gender or sexual orientation. 188.8.131.52 08:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I would be amused if I weren't so disgusted. Ed, if you wish to contribute to this or similar articles, I suggest that you first do a large amount of background preparation. Your choice of terms and phrasing directly contradicts our guidelines for such topics, and your known distaste for topics related to homosexuality makes me and many others suspicious of your motives. What you're doing here is promoting misinformation in the guise of neutrality.
- First, the terms "gay plague" and "gay disease" were abandoned nearly as soon as they began to be used. The fact that HIV was first observed in Californian gay men does not suggest that it was brought to North America by gay men or that gay men were solely responsible for its spread. Similarly, we don't have to give any credence to claims that AIDS is punishment from god because we only deal here with known facts; just because some people believe it doesn't make it true.
- I see nothing wrong with the removed paragraph as it stands, and unless you can provide some compelling reason to leave it out I'm going to restore it.
- Exploding Boy 18:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I forget to mention the tangled up thing about the religious point of view. Wikipedia should not say that Falwell or anyone is wrong to depict AIDS as God's punishment; it also should not assert that they are right to do so. Our articles should merely note that these religious leaders made whatever statements they made, without branding those statements as right or wrong. Uncle Ed 22:35, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
- right, because unlike all the other black and white political assertions made here on wiki, these deserve some serious respect, I suggest we lobby the drug companies to stop selling protease inhibitors and all else, they're just making jesus angry--184.108.40.206 05:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- the previous poster forgot to say that being a secular humanist liberal makes him uniquely able to "not see the world in black and white"... NOT! LOL, the stupidity of some "enlightened" and "scientifically minded" folks nowadays is just beyond belief. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Neutrality and factual inaccuracy?
Let's get the tags off this page -- what needs to be changed to make parties satisfied that it's NPOV? Arguing is step one, and yes, you do have a list of potential causes of false positives, but what is language you want to use to make this article neutral? JDoorjam 23:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, on second thought, the link posted here, virusmyth.net, is completely absurd and well outside what the entire scientific community has learned about HIV and AIDS over the past couple of decades. Unless someone posts documented reasons as to why these tags should be on the article, I'm taking them off in 48 hours. JDoorjam 23:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, it's so obviously completely absurd...it has what...links to dozens if not hundreds of articles published in the scientific literature. It has the opinions and conclusions of hundreds of Ph.D.'s and M.D.s. It contains lists of documentation to claims and sources that one can go to (where do the think the list of 60-some citations above came from??). But yes, it's obviously completely absurd and deserves absolutely no place (not even a link) here. Revolver 07:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- I took the NPOV tag off, plus I added a little more detail and references. I also don't think that the article should be deleted, as it now presents the facts in a non-biased light. The consensus opinion of the scientific community is that HIV causes AIDS. I was under the impression that Wikipedia is a place for facts. Sure, the minority opinion should also be aired (and it is an extreme minority), but they have their place in 4 or 5 other articles, and their theories have been debunked on more than one occasion. --Grcampbell 00:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
"The CDC estimates that 30 percent of new HIV infections in the United States in 1998 were in women." "Women are 12 times more likely than men to contract AIDS, and the fastest-growing group of people with HIV in the U.S. is black women."
These figures are unlikely to both be correct. One states that women are ~1/3 as likely as men to contract HIV while the other suggests they are 12 times more likely to contract to AIDs then men. 18.104.22.168 14:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Guest
- Not quite...without vetting the sources, it's common knowledge that until recently, HIV/AIDS was a disease that infected homosexual men to a great extent more than any other group, meaning that men in general had far more infected individuals than women. What these seemingly contradictory statements are saying is there's been a profound paradigm shift in the pattern of infection: heterosexual sexual contact is now a common infection pathway and women are catching up to men (in the US) in numbers of infected because heterosexual sex is a more common pathway and they've a larger chance of catching the virus in any such contact than men because their physical nature allows higher infection probability.
- So, the sources are saying that "30 percent of new HIV infections in the United States in 1998 were in women" which is a much higher rate than ever before, and that's because "Women are 12 times more likely than men to contract AIDS". — Scientizzle 14:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
What about a move/rename to a title that isn't as flaming? Such as "Common misconceptions about HIV/AIDS"? --Grcampbell 22:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- As there were no objections, page moved September 9,2005 --Grcampbell 00:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Some of the things listed in this article ("Some people have many symptoms associated with AIDS but do not have HIV infection" to name one) are debatable topics. It seems improper for wikipedia to carry articles that flat out say one side is wrong, some of these myths are not debatable (the oral sex one, the having sex with a virgin one, etc.) and belong under this topic. I think this page needs an overhaul to clear it of bias subjects, or at the least present all sides (which wouldn't really fit under the title of this page).
An edit, recently introduced by 22.214.171.124 in the "AZT causes AIDS" section, was heavily biased in favour of the Duesberg hypothesis. I reverted it because the Duesberg hypothesis, although it has a few credible supporters, cannot be presented as fact because it is not widely accepted. It deserves mention, however, so I'm opening up the debate here. Should we: a) reorganize the section to outline evidence on both sides, or b) mention the Duesberg hypothesis only in passing due to it being by far a minority view? --Nephtes 16:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- I came specifically looking for this hypothesis and I think any question or note of its lack of following could be noted in its entry on the main screen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs)
Myth or Reality???
Is it possible that HIV can transmit through a cook who cut his finger while cutting salad and then the salad is eaten by someone? Is it true that HIV is oxidised when exposed to air? Puneit 08:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure wether it's oxidised (proteins being denatured is more likely), but HIV only survives for a very short time (minutes) outside the body, so the virus would probably not be alive when it's eaten (assuming the quantities of blood are small enough not to repel the consumer). Secondly, if the consumer doesn't have wounds in his mouth or oesophagus, the chance of getting infected is really small.(188.8.131.52 23:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC))
- I'm not sure about how long HIV remains viable outside a living cell, but I think the term "survive", "die", etc, are very innapropriate. Viruses are not living organisms, at least if we do not consider some of the more broad definitions that eventually may be suggested on some phylosophical/theoretical discussion on the definition of life itself, but, anyhow, it does not quite "die" as an usual organism does. What probably happens is some degree of decomposition of the capsid or something like it, which I don't know if renders the genes of the virus really innocuous. For instance, I recall reading about experiments where the genome of tobbaco viruses was extracted, wich first rendered then innefective, but then, they were put together with "empty capsids" or something like it again, and that allowed the infection and consequent production of new, normal virus copies. Not that empty HIV capsids were to be found floating around in order to make the RNA dangerous, but I don't really know. I'm sorry if it sounds somewhat pedantic. --Extremophile 23:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Augh, those are probably the longest section titles on Wikipedia. Any reason for their length? --DevastatorIIC 23:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The titles in the article are really long because they summarize the entire argument of each section rather than providing a brief outline of what follows
Ultra Megatron 04:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Genetic tendancy towards AIDS amongst Black people?
It seems all statistics show that black people have a greater chance (up to 15 times!) more to get AIDs then a white person of European decent. Is this a genetic tendancy or some other reason? Has there been any scientific studies?
I'm not aware of any evidence that people of African descent have a greater genetic vulnerability to HIV than people of other ethnic backgrounds. See the Fact Sheet: HIV/AIDS among African Americans for background on some of the reasons that the rate of HIV prevalence is higher among African Americans than other ethnic groups in America. As for why the HIV prevalence rate in Africa itself is higher than in other continents, there are all kinds of factors that have been proposed to explain that without requiring a "genetic susceptibility" explanation including: HIV originated on that continent so it got a head start there; poverty, illiteracy, and lack of access to condoms; lack of medical treatment for other STDs which can increase the risk of HIV transmission; the practice of "dry" (relatively unlubricated) sex for cultural reasons; a higher rate of rape; war and civil war causing male soldiers to move around, engaging in consensual sex, use of prostitutes, or rape; unsterile ritual circumcisions; "cleansing" rituals for widows involving sex with a male relative; lack of access to ARVs meaning that infected people remain highly infectious due to untreated HIV/AIDS; a larger percentage of the population working as sex workers; a higher HIV infection rate among the sex workers; reuse of needles in health care settings; etc. Note I'm not saying that every one of these theories is in fact correct or that this is a complete list; I'm just providing a partial list of proposed explanations for the high rate of HIV prevalence in Africa. Research is ongoing and more research is clearly needed. AIDSvideos 00:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
format of citations
- by all means, you can implement them if you wish. --Bob 19:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Name of the Page
I think the name for this page needs to be changed, or perhaps more appropriately, this article should be subdivided. For one thing, I think there is a difference between widely held misbeliefs about HIV, ie HIV cannot not spread by oral sex, and alternative theories about AIDS, such as that AZT, not HIV is the sourse of the syndrome. First of all, I do not think the belief that AZT causes AIDS can be called common in any meaningful sense of the word. Secondly, those who do hold this belief tend to know that the hold a minority opinion. And finally, a lot of these misconceptions (particularly the former type) might have been common in 1987, but does anyone-particularly the readership of wikipedia-actually believe that mosquitos can spread HIV anymore? Ggrzw83 03:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the Duesberg Hypothesis is already linked in as the "main article" of the "AZT causes AIDS" section. If you have a proposal as to how to rename the article or break it up (without making the information harder to find), let's hear it! I agree with you that the word "common" is a bit weaselly, for starters. --Nephtes 14:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Many of the misconceptions are still held by some, whether or not they read this wiki is irrelevant, WP:CSB. The page used to be called AIDS myths and urban legends but was changed during an AfD. Some of the sections are also treated in more detail on relevant subarticles. This is a list page with all (almost) misconceptions listed and explained. --Bob 18:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Removed the POV word common. --Bob 02:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Misconceptions about HIV and AIDS would be a far better name, however. Exploding Boy 06:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
AIDs and cancer
I'm curently writing a book, and I'm anal about keeping all story elements accurate, and the question rose , if a person already has Cancer, then conatracts AIDs, will the AIDs cause the current Cancer to worsen at an accellerated rate? I've spent hours on multiple Wikipedia AIDs pages, and I've found much information about contracting AIDs, then Cancer, though none about the other way around. I would very much appreciate any information on this subject on that you have.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
Reason would suggest that by weakening the body's immune system, HIV infection might accelerate the development of at least some kinds of preexisting cancer. I seem to recall reading that HIV infection accelerates the development of cervical cancer. I can't say that I specifically recall reading about statements regarding the effect of HIV infection on existing cervical cancers at time of HIV infection vs. HIV infection increasing the risk of new cervical cancers occurring, but that would be one lead for you to investigate. (Note for the record that I have no medical training of any kind.) AIDSvideos 00:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The African-American community *is* particularly affected by HIV/AIDS. This is not a misconception, so I am removing it from the list.
I am concerned that this page asserts that "The African-American community is particularly affected by AIDS" is a misconception. That's not a misconception. Unfortunately, it's a tragic reality. Here are the facts. Fact Sheet: HIV/AIDS Among African Americans notes that: (1) "In the United States, the HIV/AIDS epidemic is a health crisis for African Americans. At all stages of HIV/AIDS—from infection with HIV to death with AIDS—blacks (including African Americans) are disproportionately affected compared with members of other races and ethnicities" (2) "blacks make up approximately 13% of the US population. However, in 2005, blacks accounted for 18,121 (49%) of the estimated 37,331 new HIV/AIDS diagnoses in the United States in the 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting" (3) "Of the estimated 141 infants perinatally infected with HIV, 91 (65%) were black" (4) "Of the estimated 18,849 people under the age of 25 whose diagnosis of HIV/AIDS was made during 2001–2004 in the 33 states with HIV reporting, 11,554 (61%) were black" (5) In 2005, "Blacks accounted for 20,187 (50%) of the estimated 40,608 AIDS cases diagnosed in the 50 states and the District of Columbia" (6) "The rate of AIDS diagnoses for black adults and adolescents was 10 times the rate for whites and nearly 3 times the rate for Hispanics. The rate of AIDS diagnoses for black women was nearly 23 times the rate for white women. The rate of AIDS diagnoses for black men was 8 times the rate for white men" (7) "Of persons whose diagnosis of AIDS had been made during 1997–2004, a smaller proportion of blacks (66%) were alive after 9 years compared with American Indians and Alaska Natives (67%), Hispanics (74%), whites (75%), and Asians and Pacific Islanders (81%)" (8) "In a recent study of MSM in 5 cities participating in CDC’s National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System, 46% of the black MSM were HIV-positive, compared with 21% of the white MSM and 17% of the Hispanic MSM."
The unfortunate, tragic reality is that "At all stages of HIV/AIDS—from infection with HIV to death with AIDS—blacks (including African Americans) are disproportionately affected compared with members of other races and ethnicities" as demonstrated by the statistics above. We can debate why that's the case, we can debate the best ways to address this problem, etc. but the fact is indisputable. As a result, I am removing the statement "The African-American community *is* particularly affected by HIV/AIDS" from the list of misconceptions because it simply shouldn't be there. Anyone who wishes to restore it to the list has an obligation to provide substantiating evidence (adequate to overcome the previously listed statistics from the CDC) demonstrating that the African-American community isn't particularly affected by HIV/AIDS. AIDSvideos 23:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Note: Underneath the just-deleted entry "The African-American community is particularly affected by HIV," there were several sentences which all provided evidence to the contrary, and then a single sentence that actually addressed a different issue: "Nonetheless, there is no evidence that African Americans are any more promiscuous than other American ethnic groups." I agree with that sentence, but saying it's a misconception that African-Americans are promiscuous and saying it's a misconception that they are disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS are separate things. If someone feels there's a need to introduce a new entry on the list of misconceptions to debunk claims of promiscuity among African-Americans, feel free. AIDSvideos 00:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- When you say "African-Americans" you are referring to people who are 2 generations removed from Africa or less, white or black, correct? As I understand it, simply living in America and having dark skin doesn't make you an "African-American". Your political correctness is confusing me, please elaborate. Democrats told me that separating different ethnic-racial groups with terms is racist, would that not include the term "African-American"? --Jacksoncw (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- African Americans are direct descendants of formerly enslaved Africans (or free Africans from the same time period). Take your not-so-subtly veiled racism elsewhere. — 220.127.116.11 19:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to use the "Myths" page as a resource for debunking HIV/AIDS myths/misconceptions
Just an FYI for editors of this page: in my own HIV/AIDS educational outreach effort, I've had to create a HIV and AIDS Myths Debunked page. Feel free to use that page and its contents as a resource if you wish to expand this page. As that page's author, I grant permission for its contents to be used by Wikipedia under GFDL. I may transfer over some of the misconceptions from there as time allows, but feel free to jump in in the meantime if you like. That's what the page is for! AIDSvideos 00:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Further explanation of the non-hetero theory
I recall reading on some christian fundamentalist site (which is reason enough for me to dismiss it) that a cause of AIDS was the fact that the cells in sperm penetrate the wall of the rectal cavity, where they permeate into the body and attack the immune system cells that respond to them. I'm almost 90% sure this is nothing more than a farce, but I'm looking for a medical source to verify this. Not only will it put me at east knowing I have correct factual information, but from what I understand this view has been fairly proliferated through the Christian community. 18.104.22.168 13:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wow. If your recollection is accurate, they are passing on some awful "science". Sperm cells would be highly unlikely to penetrate the walls of the rectal cavity--they're much larger than bacteria and our bodies take great pains to keep the gut flora only in the gut. Even if, say, the wall is torn or perforated, sperm don't survive all that well in hostile environments and other things, such as the present bacteria & any viral particles in the seminal fluid, are far more dangerous. Finally, I have no clue how a sperm could "attack" another cell...all they do is swim around, they have no other capabilities! Rest assured that this is complete and utter crap.
- If you find a site or publication spouting this drivel, please link it here so I can add it to this page with a properly sourced refutation. — Scientizzle 15:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The article says: "it is not surprising that a majority of U.S. AIDS cases have occurred in men.", where 64 = U.S. Census Bureau, 1999. But that page is about "population groups in developing countries" (i.e., not the U.S.), and the main page it links to (hivaidssurveillancedb.org) is an "international compilation of HIV prevalence and incidence data resources from various sources for countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Oceania" (i.e., not the U.S.).
The page also has links to "Related Internet Links", but they seem to be general AIDS organization home pages, and I don't see anything here specifically related to the U.S. incidence rate by gender.
I don't doubt this claim, but I'm not seeing support for it at this link. Is this the intended link? Is there a better one we can use, or a more specific one at one of these sites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
How do syringes transfer the virus so easily when the virus "dies" shortly outside the body? Also: What is the extent that the disease is spreadable through syringes? Does liquid solution have to be injected, or can a scratch cause an infection?JackorKnave (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I have added my objections to this section below. HIV is known to survive in syringes for as long as 28 days, according to some studies. This doesn't necessarily contradict the common understanding that HIV does not survive long outside the body, as the syringe acts to protect the virus from air contact. Also, the references to "wet" and "dry" are misleading, as the syringe study referenced in the footnote (No. 23) says nothing about either wet or dry. HIV in a syringe could be potentially infections days or weeks after acquiring HIV, as far as I know, but this would be much more likely to happen were there to be a percutaneous (needle stick) exposure rather than a mere scratch. Neverthless, used syringes should be considered to be potentially infectious in any case. As I also noted below, the study cited to support the "dry" remark used very high concentrations of HIV, I believe much higher than would normally exist in the human body. Most studies of this type are intended to assess potential infection in laboratory conditions, and not "real world" settings. In this case, the study was intended to assess the effectivenss of infection control measures to be potentially used in a lab. This demonstrates the inappropriateness of citing and using studies to say things they weren't really designed to figure out. Therefore, the idea that HIV does not live long outside the body is not incorrect, nor is it a misconception, as far as the vast majority of circumstances are concerned - certainly not those cicrumstances that the general public is likely to encounter re: environmental contact. If you happen to use injecting drugs or work in a laboratory, the conventional wisdom may not apply. I've been doing HIV education for a long time, and most poeple understand readily that syringes represent a special "outside the body" --Peirce's Signs (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)circumstance.
HIV Survival Outside the Body
I am concerned that this sections fosters a misconception rather than debunking one. In the article cited regarding survival in dried body fluids, it clearly states that high concentrations of the virus were used. I believe these concentrations were much higher than would be found in humans, and therefore the fact that the virus survived for a period beyond "does not live long ... " does not in this case reflect real-world conditions. This is not made clear in the entry. Also, the "wet" reference is misleading, as it does not specifically mention that the study refers specifically to the survival of HIV in syringes. I don't believe there is any misconception out there that HIV does notlive longer in syringes - on the contrary, in my experience (over 8 years as a professional HIV educator), that most people are aware that contact with the air (inhibited by syringes) is a contributor to the short HIV survival in real-world conditions. To summarize, the fact that HIV lives longer in laboratory conditions in very high concentrations, or that it lives far longer in syringes than otherwise, does not contradict the fact, commonly understood, that HIV does not live long outside the body (except in special circumstances). The section of the article should be upfront and specific about what those special conditions are. --Peirce's Signs (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- CDC summary of this general issue is here:
- I'd like to add this section is extremely important information for those with a fear of HIV as an obsessional/compulsive pathological problem. It needs to be extremely accurate and as full as possible. I think that currently it says 'technically it could survive for quite a long time, but it probably wouldn't'. That's not good enough to challenge an ocd thought about whether coing close to a plaster/band-aid or bit of floss or hanky could transmit. I don't have this particular anxiety myself, but I want to be helping people who do. Kathybramley (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Priests dying of AIDS
I think that there is another misconception out there that supposedly celibate priests can't die of AIDS because of the chastity promoted by the Church. This is inaccurate, since research indicates that priests are four times more likely to die of AIDS than the general population, presumably because of the widespread gay culture within the priesthood, a gay culture which was also blamed for the pedophile crisis.  ADM (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the given reference is a reliable source. Who, exactly, believes that priests can't die of AIDS? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
risks of oral sex: does it need re-phrasing?
Currently the article reads: While it is agreed that oral sex has a much lower HIV-infection risk than vaginal and anal sex, HIV can be transmitted through both insertive and receptive oral sex, when there is contact between semen or vaginal fluid and the mucous membranes of the mouth.
Taken at face value, this sentence implies that there is a risk of HIV to the insertive partner when there is contact between his semen and the receptive partner's mucous membranes - which is clearly not the case (HIV cannot be transmitted from the mucous membranes, via the ejaculated semen, into the insertive partner!).
I suggest it should read something like: While it is agreed that oral sex has a much lower HIV-infection risk than vaginal and anal sex, HIV can be transmitted through both insertive and receptive oral sex, when there is contact between bodily fluids of either partner - such as semen, vaginal fluid, or blood - and mucous membranes, cuts or sores on the body of other partner." Barnabypage (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
pregnancy with aids
can anyone help me.... i am trying to find an answer to my question
i have a unit of course work to do about diseases and ailments that can cause harm to a mother and her unborn child and the effects it can have later on in life for the baby.
if a woman has AIDs or HIV can she pass this to her unborn child?
i already know that breast feeding can give the child the virus and that if any blood is shared between the mother and the child. but when the child is still in the womb can they contract the virus? it is confusing as the mothers blood does not mix with the childs blood.
Absence of Human Creation Myths??
Why aren't myths about HIV's creation by humans addressed in the article? The myth that the virus was engineered in some way to target certain groups (blacks, gays) by an intelligence agency of a major power (read: the CIA) -- why isn't this addressed? -126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Because either no one has thought to add a response to such claims, or no one has yet been able to find reliable sources offering the claim and counter-examples. If you have such resources, please help improve the article by adding mention. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Showers cannot reduce chances of contracting HIV?
I've never seen any scientific evidence for this assertion, i don't believe it should be included in wikipedia unless such evidence can support it. I'm no expert, but it seems eminently reasonable that washing bodily fluids containing the virus away soon after intercourse will reduce the chances that it will penetrate the skin (which, as far as i understand it, is how males contract the virus sexually). Its no good for aids activists to laud science when it suits them and then ignore it when it doesn't suit them. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think you're right...but more importantly, that section isn't even particularly useful or informative. I'm just going to remove it. — Scientizzle 14:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Whilst I agree that the section wasn't particularly useful or informative, and I'm also skeptical that this is a common misconception I'd be very suprised if there was any basis for the idea that showering does prevent HIV transmission from sexual intercourse. It sounds very much like the myth that showering after intercourse will prevent pregnancy and in both cases the vital flaw for the recieving partner is that the fluid they wish to avoid contact with is already inside them. I could maybe see a very small reduction in risk for the incertive partner, but (especially considering the virus does not actually pass through the skin but instead passes through breaks in that barrier such as cuts and grazes) the chances are by the time you've finished the act and gotten into the shower you will either be infected already or no longer at risk. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like there is a new version of the "having sex with X will cure AIDs" myth out there:
©Geni 17:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Translation to simple English
This Article has a rather scientific language - perhaps that will keep some of the people who believe one or more of the named misconception to not understand the explanations, rendering this article effectless.
Maybe it shout therefor be translated into simple English so more people with less knowledge about biology and virology can understand everything that is said here. 00:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk)
To quote WHO statistics,"'The number of people living with HIV worldwide continued to grow in 2008, reaching an estimated 33.4 million [31.1 million–35.8 million].The total number of people living with the virus in 2008 was more than 20% higher than the number in 2000, and the prevalence was roughly threefold higher than in 1990." There's been no reduction since 2004, but rather an increase. - Nunh-huh 22:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Some discrepancy in section "HIV survives for only a short time outside the body"
In the beginning of the section it says that: "HIV can survive at room temperature outside the body for hours if dry" as per  (ref.  in the main article at this time).
Nonetheless, according to the reference abstract, the time for infectivity to become practically zero in dry conditions at room temperature is more that 3 days. According to my computations, it would be roughly 63 hours or 2.6 days (the data in the abstract is approximate). Thus, I argue that this section should state a survival time of days or at least tens of hours, not just hours. It would be more precise and more appropriate. Ferred (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Table of contents too long
Two healthy people having sex creates HIV
Why is this big misconception left out? We tell our young people to contracept and that otherwise they will get AIDS, making them so frightened of sex that they think HIV is created when having sex. We didn't tell them that one person had to be actually already infected to transmit the virus and disease. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Invidiousness of characterization
Why is either misunderstanding about AIDS or scientific disagreement with a dominant view of its causes called "denialism" in the article? That's a prejudicial term, and there isn't any great discussion of the content of Duesberg's arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
If anyone checks out wikiproject/alternative views, the bot seems to be going haywire swapping this article each day from Low importance to Mid importance and then back the next day. no idea whats going on here, but could someone with more experience than me look into this[]? Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikiproject/Alternative Views bot assessment is odd
If anyone checks out wikiproject/alternative views, the bot seems to be going haywire swapping this article each day from Low importance to Mid importance and then back the next day. no idea whats going on here, but could someone with more experience than me look into this[]? Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Monkey Love Coitus
My grandmother owned monkeys. When my mother was young, when her siblings would become startled or frightened, they would bite and/or scratch a person by whom they were held, should that be the case. It seems contracting a disease through a bite or a scratch from a diseased monkey would be more probable than from a wild animal hopping on one's penis without the human partner being bitten and/or scratched by that diseased monkey through the intercourse. I have heard of preying mantis and black widows killing their partners. I have heard that even domesticated, wild monkeys can instinctively injure their host families. I have also heard that even having unprotected intercourse with a partner infected with HIV does not absolutely guarantee infection. Therefore, I question the explanation that was so widely accepted at face value. I might suspect that some people eat monkey meat and may possibly hunt what could most definitely be a dangerous, wild animal. Hunting injuries on both the animals and hunters part could explain a blood transfer, unless they were blood brothers, as well. What is worse is that this question seems to be treated as if it almost makes sense as opposed to opening people's eyes to the absurdity and unlikeliness of how the mental illness monkey love sex [not gender] hurts so good disease is the culprit. Whose mind is so depraved to offer such an absurd, unlikely explanation without so much as to explore the possibility of other ways of contracting disease from animals considering widespread knowledge of rabies. And, how is it that people cannot see that it does not seem likely or that there is no attempt at exposing the problem with the suggestion: http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/SafeSex/Q8781.html. I can't be the only one that sees a problem when no one else seems to realize that unlikely, improbable or impossible explanations, excusing or causes are offered. Maybe, we should forget Africa not because of the suggested lacking of intelligence herein, but because they spread HIV to homosexual Americans through widespread continental African beastiality. Rip Van Winkle, Humpty Dumpty and Frankenstein's Monster (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't mean to insult you, but even though you may have some interesting thoughts here, I find your writing in places incomprehensible. I don't know if the problem is with the grammatical structure, or vagueness of pronoun references, or missing words, or something else altogether. Can you try to explain what this sentence means: "When my mother was young, when her siblings would become startled, they would bite and scratch. It seems contracting a disease through a bite or a scratch from a diseased than from an animal than it hopping on one's penis without the partner being bitten and scratched." I'm getting that your mother's siblings became startled, and they bit and scratched . . . Is that correct? But then there's the phrase "contracting a disease through a bite or a scratch from a diseased than from an animal hopping on one's penis without the partner being bitten and scratched"????? The second sentence about your mother is vague at best, but the third sentence about an animal hopping on a penis makes absolutely no sense. The remainder of your post then seems like a random collection of unrelated phrases. Maybe you should get someone else who understands your meaning to help you reword. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I made some edits. Does it make more sense, now? Rip Van Winkle, Humpty Dumpty and Frankenstein's Monster (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Before I attempt to comb through a clinical document, was it conducted with humans and live, wild monkeys? Because that sounds very dangerous to me. The last set of monkeys were not allowed in the house. They were loud. And, I doubt they was very tame. My grandmother gets personal sensitive and upset about this topic. By the time the capuchin, dubbed a "chimpanzee", reaches the finish line, it will be a gorilla. <html>http://www.si.com/vault/1971/07/19/611660/fly-away-on-ladies-day</html>Rip Van Winkle, Humpty Dumpty and Frankenstein's Monster (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm still quite lost in trying to understand what you are writing, although others may be able to do a better job than I can. (By the way, if your native language is not English you might have more luck with the Wikipedia for your native language.) But I clicked and read the link that you posted. That author seems to be making a few simple points (and I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with them). One is that it is virtually impossible that HIV was transmitted from monkeys to humans through sexual contact. He states that it is likely HIV evolved from SIV (monkeys) and that the most likely path of transmission was human exposure to monkey blood. There is nothing about an animal hopping on a human penis. Is there something in the points that the author makes that you find lacks credibility? Sundayclose (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Misconceptions about HIV/AIDS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527201701/http://data.unaids.org/pub/EPISlides/2007/2007_epiupdate_en.pdf to http://data.unaids.org/pub/EPISlides/2007/2007_epiupdate_en.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614103019/http://www.unaids.org/html/pub/publications/fact-sheets04/fs_treatment_en_pdf.pdf to http://www.unaids.org/html/pub/publications/fact-sheets04/fs_treatment_en_pdf.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.