Talk:HIV/Archive 5

HIV oraquick discussion should be posted on HIV tests

There is a lot about HIV testing, one of the most common methods now a days is the oraquick test. in just unde 45mins, usually, the test comes out postitive, negative or inconclusive. Usually its detects not only HIV 1 but also HIV 2. That article should have a page directing them to the "hiv test' article. Thanks ( [Daekl]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daekl (talk • contribs) 08:59, September 23, 2008

Bit of a necropost, but it wasn't archiving. There are few rapid tests in use. The OraQuick is only good between 20 and 40 minutes. Even then you would generally come back preliminary positive until additional confirmatory test could be run. And there is also the window period between when an individual would become infected and when the test would read as positive. Feel free to try and hash out a proper change to the testing (diagnosis) section. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Mention of life span outside body?

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

How long can HIV survive outside the human body?

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

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

Scientific studies have found that HIV can sometimes survive in dried blood at room temperature for up to six days. It is extremely difficult to assess exactly the length of survival of HIV outside the body in a non-laboratory setting.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agouti (talk • contribs) 23:59, November 28, 2008

Out of date HIV statistics

The info "About 9 out of every 10 persons with HIV will progress to AIDS after 10-15 years.[8] Treatment with anti-retrovirals, where available, increases the life expectancy of people infected with HIV. After the diagnosis of AIDS is made, the current average survival time with antiretroviral therapy (as of 2005) is estimated to be more than 5 years.[9]" is very out of date - number 8, 1994. New reports are saying that lifespan is now upwards of 24 years and potentially normal. http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?coll=news_articles&sernum=2006/11/13/4&page=1 http://www.terradaily.com/reports/HIV_Life_Expectancy_Now_Normal_999.html

Where access to medicine is possible, HIV is now considered a 'chronic illness'. This distinction is important so as to lessen prejudice. --Skordy (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I also question the currency of the assertion, "Eventually most HIV-infected individuals develop AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome)," which has no citation. Who wants to update this prognosis stuff? --72.188.100.74 (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia - be bold and fix it! With reliable sources, of course --Scray (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it is almost certainly true that "most HIV-infected individuals develop AIDS" since most people with HIV have no access to effective treatment. There's a big effort to change that, but it's the current reality. --Scray (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The lifespan is based on no access to treatment which is dependent on the genetics of the individual 1-15+ with treatment theoretically the lifespan is unlimited unless they develop resistency to all 20 or so drugs. Your sound like your teying to give the impression that due to mutations of the virus the lifespan is now much longer or earlier estimates of life expantency have now changed, You also imply that it doesnt matter if your HIV positive anymore, well for most who get it it is, taking those drugs is not a pleasurable expereince and having to tell everyone you have sex with you have HIV iuf you thought Herpes 2 stigma was bad then you should check out HIV stigma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.39.164 (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure to whom you are referring when you say "you", nor which content you're talking about (here on the Talk page or in the article). Editors here are generally happy to respond to specific questions/comments. --Scray (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, this part of the Talk page is pretty old and many people don't read this "high" on the page. If you want your comments read by the largest audience, I'd recommend starting a new section at the bottom of this page. --Scray (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

How can HIV be a naturally occuring virus in nature if...

It kills 100% of people it infects? It's my understanding that one of the purposes of a virus is to reproduce itself, but if every person who is infected with HIV eventually dies, then at some point, so will the virus itself. This doesn't sound like very smart evolution to me... Davez621 (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand viral evolution. It's a myth that viruses (and other pathogens) evolve to low virulence. The obvious counterexample is rabies virus, which has been around for a long time and still is essentially 100% lethal to all the species it infects. Pathogens evolve to increased transmission, not reduced virulence. Reducing virulence is one route for pathogens to increase transmission, but it's far from the only one. Ian (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Increased transmission is not the ultimate driver, either. Ultimately the measure of "success" in evolution is increased population size (the measure of fitness), which for a virus could be measured as increased prevalence (see Natural selection. Increased transmission would be a tactic, one way for a virus to achieve this. Persistent infection would be another. --Scray (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

HIV has infected humans for less than a century by most estimates, so it is still considered by many to be a zoonosis. It is now a naturally-occurring infection of humans (transmitted in communities and not laboratory-engineered), but it may evolve further to the less pathogenic (like its parent virus SIV is in the respective natural hosts). Even as pathogenic as HIV is, it won't "burn out" anytime soon (by killing all its hosts), because people have plenty of time to transmit before dying. Contrast with human infections by SARS or filoviruses, which do kill the host rapidly and epidemics extinguish quickly. Hepatitis C virus is a better example of a well-adapted (usually indolent) chronic human RNA virus.Scray (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

HIV has an extremely long incubation period, which allows it to spread more quickly. And my understanding is that it might not kill 100% of the people it infects... We don't know yet. See CCR5 for one known resistance factor to HIV infection. Grandmasterka 01:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Simple, Davez. HIV spreads relatively easily during sex so it doesn't matter (from the virus' point of view) if it kills someone, just so long as it gets spread to someone else. 86.130.68.29 (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not only is HIV less than a century young, but HIV's relatives in primate species are all similarly recent in origin. It appears to have hopped from cows to primates to humans, with the HIV-1 and HIV-2 strains in humans coming from different primate intermediaries.--Turpin (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

People with hiv typically have a larger right bicep as compared to the ratio of non-hiv infected people. Also during the early stages of hiv, the infected may have a temporary enhanced strength due to the amount of nerve cells that die early off in the infection.—Preceding unsigned comment added by True sheep (talk • contribs) date

This is garbage. Is it vandalism if it's on a talk page? Scray (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's OK to remove obviously inappropriate stuff from talk pages. Technically, this probably is vandalism, or at least extreme silliness, and it would be fine to remove it. MastCell ^Talk 03:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Davez621 it's still evolving and it stands to reason eventually (if humans don't die out/cure it/eradicate it) it will evolve into a less lethal form prolonging it's opertunity to spread.Wolfmankurd (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Cure

I have a question,

Would it be possible to create an anti-virul that has a dual purpose: One, remove the lipid surrounding the virus; Two, attack and dismantle the matrix that protects the capsid?

I understand that the lipid is taken from the host cell.

My train of thought is that if we remove the defenses of the virus then the immune system can then target the capsid directly and destroy the virus. I feel that we are trying to out-program the virus when it's very nature is to survive by using the very 'binary' system that allows for all life. Its understanding is far greater than ours currently.

If it is not possible because of it's mutation probablities, would it be possible to create a device that we can insert into the body that detects the virus and it's current mutations, extracts stems cells from the body 'cures' them then reinstates them into the enviornment to seek out and destroy the virus. Im thinkng of a dialysis machine within the body, along the same principle as the artificial heart. Well the two different concepts that form to make one.

Again i really dont know what i am talking about and it probably shows but it was just a thought.

24.14.177.89 (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Some mushroom tinctures strengthen the immune systems while acting as antivirals and antibiotics. (eCAM 2005 2(3):285-299; doi:10.1093/ecam/neh107 http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/2/3/285). If you add good nutrition, this could be quite effective. If you are looking for a cure, why engineer something when you already have an effective treatment? Answer: Profit. Most of the research is driven not be a quest for a cure but by financial considerations of drug companies and researchers. --Turpin (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/09/1558241 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.166.180.133 (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Questioner, the HIV is the most tricky virus ever seen, and mainly is not accessible to specific immune response, because it's envelope protein is derived from the failed TCR recombination, generally needed to gain antibodies against any disease (see above). The only way is to enforce the non specific immune response, especially the MBL (mannose binding lectin), whose extensive binding to HIV env may contribute to the lack of lectin in infected persons. Here is a probate mixture of herbs, I do manage the infection with: Juglans regia:Hamamelis:Chelidonium 8:1:1 in dill. D4 (by Hahnemann). By this way we may help the thyroid gland, what is quite important, because the thyriod gland is responsible for the propper action of the immunosystem (and further essential body's functions). The thyroid gland needs a c o n s t a n t and s u f f i c i e n t level of iodine, it probably needs selenium and it needs calcium, which is very important for the immunosystem's cell's function. Hands off of levothyroxine and other hormone like drugs! And, which is important in general, we need a sufficient supply of proteins in the nutrient. If some people say, AIDS is not caused by the HIV, this statement is not completely wrong, because not starving is the first condition of staying immunocapable. Janeway's immunobiology - Mark Walport, WUSTL; Paul Travers University of Edinburg; and another guy, I don't remember now his name, director of the Wellcome Trust, London - does say, that starvation is the major cause for immunodifiecency worldwide (Children dying by measles, for example).

Johannes Buhlmann, ChronicalWeb_30b@yahoo.de

cost

Can someone put an up to date cost per year of anti-retroviral drugs in to the article?Pejman47 (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In Germany, the average is about 25,000 $/year due to standart (e.g. HAART) therapy. If You manage the infection by herbs, as I do (see above), cost decline to 1,500. If You mix the above given herbs by Your own, it takes about one or two gallons of alcohol (40 vol%) and the three infus herbs (say alcohol plus 35 $ a year). Johannes Buhlmann, ChronicalWeb_30b@yahoo.de —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.193.196.253 (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well as I discuss above, some mushrooms have been found to be effective antivirals. If you use instead Reishi at around $1.50-$2.00 per ounce (I just bought some today for $1.30 per ounce but I suspect that's low), and say 1 ounce of mushroom per day (which is a lot), that's about $700 US per year for the mushrooms. Add vitamins and say $1000 per year. If you are doing your own processing to make teas or tinctures, you might just lump that in with your cooking costs, because the mushroom also has nutritional value. For that matter, you might just pull the $1000 per year out of your food budget. Basicly if you already have a decent budget for food then this is just about eating differently and not about medical costs per se.--Turpin (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no vaccine?

I think you need to make room for a discussion of why there are no vaccine for this virus while there are vaccines for lots of other vira. A discussion of why it is so hard to make a vaccine and treat it in general is needed. It's really weird that we have a vaccine for rabies which is the deadliest virus in the world but not one for HIV/AIDS! 83.92.26.61 (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

---

I think it is really hard to findout how to vaccinate this miserable virus. I just suppose that the scientists and experts try to do their best to figure out and vaccinate this disease but the machanism of the virus is totally different from other viruses. We should make clear to the patients that it takes long time to make a vaccine for HIV, and still we only have a chance to strengthen human body immune system with special drugs. I really would like to research this part in 10years and it takes long time to find out how to get rid of the root host from the patients body, I am just worry about the people who may die for the 20 years without cure with no money. We are finding better solution but it's still not enough to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahreum.hahn (talk • contribs) 08:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that HIV mutates incredibly fast - any infected person has not just one but a cocktail of HIV infections in their body, and it'll be a different cocktail from the time they wake up in the morning to the time they lay down at night! It's like the common cold - it wouldn't be so hard to vaccinate against HIV, except you're only vaccinating against one "strain" in millions that may not even exist anymore except in the vaccination! 137.122.31.11 (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not quite as bad as that. There are portions of the HIV genome that do not change, rather they are conserved. A number of groups have demonstrated that HIV-infected persons have immune responses that recognize many worldwide strains. The tricky thing is to find a bit that is conserved but is also immunogenic, i.e. able to stimulate a meaningful immune response, when given as a vaccine. --Scray (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Because of the derivation of the HIV env protein from the host's genome (see above, assertion), any vaccine directed to it would cause an autoimmune disease. There never will be a vaccine. I think, we have to arrange with this tiny visitor, mostly by adequate behaviour. Johannes Buhlmann, ChronicalWeb_30b@yahoo.de —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.193.196.253 (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Detectable through urine tests!

This article does'nt seem to mention that HIV is detectable through urine and saliva tests, the online doctor page FPA quotes 'Although tests can detect HIV in urine and saliva, the level of virus in these fluids is thought to be too low to be infectious' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.246.56 (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please post a reference so that we can look into it. You say its online, so a hyperlink would help.--Turpin (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I found this by searching for the first part of the sentence: http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:07jl9aXO6ggJ:www.cks.nhs.uk/patient_information_leaflet/hiv_fpa. The direct link is http://www.cks.nhs.uk/patient_information_leaflet/hiv_fpa but that doesn't work from outside UK. 80.203.34.15 (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

10-15 years to AIDS, or to immune decline?

Could someone else take a look at the statement "Without treatment, about 9 out of every 10 persons with HIV will progress to AIDS after 10-15 years"? The cited article by Buchbinder[2] seems like it might be saying something different:

Of 588 men, 69% had developed AIDS by 14 years after HIV seroconversion (95% confidence interval, 64-73%). Of 539 men with HIV seroconversion dates prior to 1983, 42 men (8%) were healthy long-term HIV-positives (HLP), HIV-infected > or = 10 years without AIDS and with CD4+ counts > 500 x 10(6)/l.

Looks to me like it's saying that ~69% of the sample developed AIDS within 14 years of infection, while 8% of those who were infected >=14 years ago were healthy. I'm inferring that the remainder are people who did not have AIDS, but did have CD4+ counts under 500. This is a sign that HIV is taking a toll and that they would probably progress to AIDS eventually, but it wouldn't support the statement that 90% progress to AIDS within 15 years. Also note that the study only reported on men, so the gender-neutral phrasing in this entry may be inappropriate.

I don't want to mess with such an important point in the article without some additional confirmation. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Inhumandecency (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of a disconnect between the two.

In reading Long-term HIV-1 infection without immunologic progression, look at the 'objective':

To identify and describe a subgroup of men infected with HIV for 10-15 years without immunologic progression, and to evaluate the effect of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) and recreational drug use on delayed HIV disease progression.

You have to understand the facts that it is:

• ONLY LOOKING AT SURVIVORS!

• trying to identify whether a lack of exposure to certain factors affects whether they experience immunological progression

In terms of even thinking about altering the statement about progression times for this Wikipedia article, there is one very important piece of the jigsaw missing: How many would have progressed so quickly that they had died and couldn't therefore be part of the cohort recruited at the 'municipal STD clinic'? In 1994, which is when that report is from, that would have been a scarily high number. Finn (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The progress of HIV infection to AIDS depends on two major factors. First, we have to look at the site of infection. This may be the blood stream by i.v. drug adminstration, which leeds to AIDS in about six month, if a massive amount of virions was given, due to the destruction of the thymic gland. The developement of waste syndrome is due to rectal infection of the mesenterium (see above, assertion, therapy of waste syndrome). Other ways of infection are less severe, because the innate immunosystem may control the infection several years, until the peripheral lymphsystem is destroied and the infection spreads on to the thymic gland, which means no T-cells, no specific response left. An other parameter of progression is the age of the infected individual, because the immunosystem looses specifity due to the broad number of pathogenes yet encountered (and still engaged with, subclinical). The response is smeared, in this way weakened to a one specific pathogene, which gives the virus the chance to invade thymic gland, finally causing AIDS. Johannes Buhlmann, ChronicalWeb_30b@yahoo.de —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.193.196.253 (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

can i say something.......

hiv dont just affect people having sex, and sticking needles in their arms. someone people are stabbed with needles by hiv infected people. in hopes of infecting those people with one prick.....it should be added in the article that hiv can also be used as a weapon to infect others by simply pricking them with a bloody needle.......most gang members these days do that. and the crime is on the rise. I know of 3 people that were infected with HIV by being stabbed in gang fights, and in public. people infected with HIV contain a life changing weapon in their body, If you double cross a person with HIV , they will infect you. thats why i stay away from everyone and everything with "HIV" its way to scary.......I will not give anyone the chance to stabbed me with a HIV infected needle....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.188.118 (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources to substantiate these claims, then please consider adding them. I seriously doubt, for example, that "most gang members these days" use HIV as a weapon. Scray (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the likelihood of being infected from a needlestick is around 0.3%, it seems unlikely to replace the Mac-10 or Street Sweeper anytime soon. MastCell ^Talk 03:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Or heart attacks caused by Big Macs. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the risk from a deep puncture with a hollow-bore needle that was just taken from the vein of a person with HIV is much higher. Scray (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, I think thats for needle stick injuries and usually the plunger isn't pressed. What if it they were injected with blood from a HIV infected person. If it wasn't being controlled I would think it was nearly certain.Wolfmankurd (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Celebrities that had AIDS

I would like to know which celebrities died from this virus, i.e. Freddie Mercury. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.214.67 (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

See List of HIV-positive people. -Optigan13 (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

KUDOs on evolution of this material

Just wanted to give some well deserved KUDOs to the primary providers on this entry. I've watched this entry closely over the last two years and I'm very happy with the evolution of the content that I've seen in that time. I'm still a tiny bit frustrated with the amount of overlap between the HIV and AIDS wiki entries, but in that last two years I've also gained a better understanding of the "politics" that are involved in that approach. Keep up the good work! ZacWolf (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes its an excellant artical but I did have some questions,

When was the first HIV test developed and by whom? When was the test standardized and widely distributed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.168.28 (talk) 06:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The clinical course of infection

I would like to propose restructuring this section to add a new section after "Latency stage", adding "Chronic stage". I think the current "AIDS" header (while not necessarily "untrue") is not the complete picture. I think by focusing on the more clinical designation of "Chronic stage", we can better explain that there are different "outcomes" of this stage. AIDS being one possible outcome, but another being that even without treatment, AIDS is not necessarily the final "stage" of the infection, as a more common cause of death among those on successful treatment or long term non-progressors, is death from comorbidities before developing AIDS. I'm new to this, so would appreciate any thoughts, and some possible acceptable "sources" that I could start with to substantiate these statements. ZacWolf (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand where you are coming from, Zac; BUT that is about disease progression and it would be totally incorrect to start talking about long-term non-progressors and those on "successful treatment", but suffering from co-morbidities, under your suggested heading 'Chronic Stage'.

The real issue for me is that AIDS (especially the CD4 < 200 criteria) is increasingly just a reporting classification. I get my treatment at Europe's largest HIV treatment and research centre and they would quite simply NEVER dream of using the term 'AIDS' in any sort of diagnostic sense.

Personally I would prefer to see the terms 'Primary', 'Asymptomatic' and 'Symptomatic' used to describe the progression of HIV. Finn (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Doctors may have found a way to destroy HIV !!!

There's news going round of a possible major breakthrough against HIV. Dr. Sudhir Paul of the University of Texas Medical School at Houston says they have found a way to destroy the virus. Check it out : http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/stories/NWkmsb20080730_hiv_breakt-hrough.1971ecbd.html I think there should be a new section in the article titled Treatments Under Development so that we can keep track of these. If someone with an account could please do that, that would be great, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.240.125 (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds too preliminary for an encyclopedic article. There have been HUGE numbers of "breakthroughs" like this one that never worked out. Nothing against the hypothesis or scientists - it's just too preliminary, is not even a treatment per se. Scray (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Scray makes a good point, and I'm not encouraging adding it to this article, but I've added a paragraph (second para in the vaccines section) on this development in the article on gp120, the protein Dr. Paul refers to. In addition to a news source (in my case the Washington Post, which seemed a little bit more realistic), I looked through one of the papers they've written and tried to make the description a little more scientific/specific. Check it out, and if one of the more biology inclined contributors to this article (I'm a materials person) can make better sense out of it all, please do. The paper appears to be available for free (see the reference). -- Lone Skeptic (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am with Scray on this. Even IF FOX is regarded as a reliable source and even IF there is mileage in this 'discovery'; then it would (at best) have potential as the basis for a preventative treatment - not a cure. First it has to be explored under more realistic conditions, then (assuming it is still looking good) whatever is learned about it has to be applied to developing a vaccine (or possibly a microbicide to prevent sexual transmission). That is a lot of ifs - and all manner of 'discoveries' and compounds, that have managed to answer all those ifs, have still failed at the final hurdle: working in the real world. Just look at how many preventative vaccine trials have been halted in last twelve months (with one of them even appearing to increase the likelihood of HIV transmission). This is many years off even ranking as a potential candidate for a potential preventative treatment. Finn (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Confusion between mL and µL

I could have just read the article wrong but under HIV#Acute_HIV_infection CD4+ T cell counts per mL is frequently referenced, I believe this should be counts per µL. 61.68.182.136 (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Good catch - fixed. Proper units are cells per µL (or per mm³, which is the same thing), not per mL. Scray (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Prevention section needed

As per WP:MEDMOS this article needs a Prevention section. For a good source for Prevention, I suggest the following recently-published review:

• Padian NS, Buvé A, Balkus J, Serwadda D, Cates W (2008). "Biomedical interventions to prevent HIV infection: evidence, challenges, and way forward". Lancet. 372 (9638): 585–99. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60885-5. PMID 18687456.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Eubulides (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This probably doesnt belong here but here is a useful articlew on why HIV contraction via oral sex is low, masybe a mod can add this. IOt also explains pathogeneis a little too. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12354-tonsils-may-help-transmit-hiv-during-oral-sex.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.39.164 (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Mistake in the article

Hi, this is my first time posting in wiki so hopefully I'm not doing anything too out of the ordinary.

I think there is a mistake in the main HIV article where it talks about CD4 interactions.

It should be changed from MHC class I to MHC class II and subsequently the link changed as well.

I don't know how me talking about this actually goes on to getting the article changed but hope this is at least a good start.

Jun

Junviolin (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome! I assume you're talking about the HIV#Structure_and_Genome section, and I would say that it was not wrong, but incomplete. I've added class II and references for downregulation of CD4, class I, and class II to support that sentence. BTW, the last sentence in your post is correct - there is no guarantee that a comment will change Wikipedia, so be BOLD and make changes! Now that you've edited this page, you know how easy it is. --Scray (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

item needs to be placed in HIV transmission section

there is an article in the nytimes about 3 children being infected with HIV because of pre-chewing. This, I deem, very important to be placed under routes of transmission. Rare yes, important yes! could this mean that the virus that these individuals had has mutated past being less infectious? hmm but the cultural impact it could have in some communities as stated in the article are the most important; this is why its an important consideration under this section. Google infant infected by hiv caretaker, i dont know how to place the link in here. Thanks! ([user talk:Daekl]) 0145 23 september 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daekl (talk • contribs) 08:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The table Estimated per-act risk for acquisition of HIV by exposure route can make people think that it is really hard to aquire HIV, this is not tru!!! when the 'source' is in accute HIV stage (seroconversion going on), tha chance to get infected is 5% (500 in 10000 intercourse) by vaginal intercource. This has to be added, 50% of people who gets infected have the infection from someone who is in seroconversion stage.

And your source is?

Nobel Prize

I've added mention of this to the discovery section. This is likely to open the whole can of worms with Gallo, but fortunately AP did their homework and published an article quoting Gallo, so I think my inclusion is reasonably NPOV.

We really do need some referenced information (news articles, etc) on the original controversy. Historically it was quite a big thing IIRC, Reagan and Chirac had to get personally involved to resolve it. -Kieran (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Discovery attribution prior to nobel prize

i changed it a little to reflect this

In 1991, however, further studies showed that the virus isolated by Gallo was identical to Montagnier's and different from the viruses carried by the patients Gallo claimed to have isolated it from. Three years later, the U.S. government conceded that the French should receive the lion's share of royalties from the AIDS test, affirming Montagnier's role.

which is from [3], but i'm not sure how to insert the reference in the article--Mongreilf (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the reference. I intend to clean up this article in a few weeks, since it's a bit of a mess. I hope your part survives, but we'll see how notable it is. To learn how to do references, which are important to editing medical articles, please see WP:CITET. Also this tool is a great one to automatically generate references. I use it all the time. If you need help, just drop a line on my discussion page. I'm not the best of teachers (I have the patience of gnat), but I'll do what I can for you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

cheers. i'll probably be fine figuring it out. show preview is a wonderful thing. the discovery controversy is a great story, very notable, and would probably merit an article of it's own. i am however too lazy to write it myself--Mongreilf (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Demographics and risks

i must say that i am shocked that there is nothing about demographics in this article because i think a lot of people are going to be coming to this article for that kind of information. they want to know about the percentages of men compared to women, ethnicities, social practicies and stuff. i tink it would be fair to add that even though it is not a gay disease or anything like that there is science explaining why homosexuals get more HIV. for example, some (not all) do it in the bootyhole with other men unprotected, and it doesn't stretch the way the vag does, which means it's more likely to cause tearing and bleeding, and that means gay sex will cause more HIV when unprotected by the condom. the connection betweeen HIV and sex education, affluence, geography, and attitudes might be what people come here to know also. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community effort - feel free to be bold and edit, just be sure to use and cite reliable sources. I doubt you will find the term any serious reference to "bootyhole" in reliable sources, though. --Scray (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I wish there was more of an effort for people to include the correct information. I see the "feel free to add it yourself" kind of stuff as an excuse to not have in included, but it is what it is, and I'll be sure to use the correct terminology (rectums, anuses) instead of words like bootyholes in the actule article, since that would be inappropriate. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Assertion

Assertion: HIV env is derived from expressing several non functional alpha-chains, deposited in the cell genome by TCR recombination failures while undergoing positiv selection in the thymic gland. Proof: 1) When looking to the HIV envelope protein, the similarity to five variable alpha-chains unspliced plus CD4 receptor, derived from the TCR genes, connected by constant glykoproteins, which are normally physiologically spliced off of the mRNA, is obvious (see Medical Microbiologiy, by Jawetz, Melnick & Adelberg, 24th edition, figure 44-3). 2) A further evidence is given by Murphy, Travers and Walport, who describe a large population of CD4 CCR5 cells, which do express viral proteins, but is not capable to form functional virions (Janeway's Immunobiology, 7th edition, chapter 12, section 28, page 538). This might be due to these cells having undergone less than 4 cycles of recombination of V,J,D genes, before achieving a functional TCR. 3) In section 12-24, homozygosity of HLA class I is mentioned to be associated with more rapid progression of HIV infection to AIDS. This may be explained by the of number of recombination cycles in mean needed to gain a functional TCR and thereby enlarging the population of T-cells having experienced more than 4 recombinations to functional T-cell receptor expression, thus shortening the population of non virus replecating T-cells. The evidences 2), 3) might be proofed, when calculating the function, which describes the probability to gain a functional TCR. Integrating this function up to the observed amount of T-cells, not produceing functional virions at one hand (taking number of recombinations as parameter), and up to the number of rebombinations cycles, needed to get the observed amount of non productiv T-cells would qualify these evidences. 4) A quite weak evidence is given in section 12-27 (Janeway's Immunobiologiy). Althoug nef inhibits the expression of MHC, there may be a competition between physiological cell function (MHC expression) and pathological virion production for expressed chains, which contributes to the lack of MHC on the cell surface, too. 5) In section 12-29, it is said, that antibodies do not bind very well to HIV env antigen. This can be contributed by the the self antigen properties of the HIV env glycoprotein: variabel regions are derived from host's self DNA. And, nearly striking, passiv adminstration of (allogenic?) antibodies do protect from infection, seemingly in that way, that these donated antibodies do bind to the hosts failed TCR chain, because these chains are in this relation not self antigen like. 6) The possibility of a virus to act in this way, is given by the retroviral transfer of T-cell receptor genes (Chapter 15, figure 15.20, Janeway's Immunobiology). Remark: The presumption of abnormal cytokine secretion as the cause for wasting syndrome in AIDS might be expanded by taking in account, that one of the mesenterial lymphsystem's funtion is to collect essential fatty acids from the nutrients in the gut (via the milky ductus to the circulation), what cannot be done, if peyer's plaques have been destroied by chronical, HIV due inflammation. Therapy: essential fatty acids as they are used to administer steroid hormons i.m..

With respect

Johannes Buhlmann Kienitzer Straße 108 D-12049 Berlin, 24/10/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.193.196.253 (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of the content of the HIV page, but your assertion sounds like original research, and should be subjected to scientific peer review if you want it to appear in wikipedia. If you have a question, the Science Reference Desk might be a better place. (BTW, these assertions don't agree with the facts as I understand them) --Scray (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Milk and other body fluids

There are subtitles "sexual" and "blood" but what about breast milk? (= 15% of mother-to-child transmission) The article about HIV shall be more clear about listing body fluids that carry the virus, together with their infectious potential. A list of body fluids could be added such as: blood (high), semen (high), woman milk (quite high), saliva (very low), tears (?), sweat (none ?), nose mucous (?), urine (very low). Men drinking woman breast milk as uncommon sexual practice should be more aware. 118.173.225.242 (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)LD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.173.225.242 (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference 34 needs to be fixed

I can't seem to edit the page myself, so could somebody please update what is currently reference 34 to:

http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/about/organization/dmid/PDF/condomReport.pdf

as the current hyperlink 404s. This is under Transmission -> Sexual, in the sentence:

The correct and consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of sexual transmission of HIV by about 85%.[34]

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillip Jordan (talk • contribs) 18:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Done - good suggestion - thank you! --Scray (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Isolation of the virus

The article is so technical that I failed to find the place where it describes how HIV was isolated. Can you explain this in layman's terms? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you looking for a statement of who isolated the virus or a discussion of the lab techniques involved? Rex Manning (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ed seems to be having a bit of a flirtation with AIDS denialism over at Conservapedia; he presumably came here in a desperate search for data to support his feelings. Not finding any, he seems to have gone ahead and made the Conservapedia HIV article considerably more stupid anyway. I think a simple referral to our AIDS denialism article should suffice; if he's truly interested in actual facts he can look at the sources linked there. I imagine this also means we will have to make doubly sure no visiting Conservapedia editors introduce corresponding errors into Wikipedia coverage of the subject. - Nunh-huh 14:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(Ignoring personal remarks) ... My interest is more in the lab techniques involved, but a statement of who did what is always good to have. I'm especially interested in anything that proves that HIV exists - like an electron microscope image.

Because HIV infection is so controversial, I feel our readers would like to be able to know exactly how HIV was discovered. The entire history of the discovery would be interesting: the whole detective story aspect.

We could contrast it with the classic story of Semmelweis, who inferred the existence of an "invisible substance" which caused childbed fever - although I don't think anyone in the 1840s had any idea what this substance was. He found a way to prevent its transmission, but his recommendation drew great opposition (even though it was effective).

I'm wondering if there are any modern-day parallels, that's all. Let's keep it informative, interesting, and (above all) neutral. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You say you're "especially interested" in "an electron microscope image". Did you look at the article HIV? - Nunh-huh 07:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, we do have a scanning EM photo in this article. There's a transmission EM picture on AIDS denialism. Other such images can be found at the CDC website, this Times article, this article from Nature (see Fig. 2, for virions in action), this recent review, and my personal favorite, the Big Picture Book of Viruses.

Of course, despite the natural human prejudice that seeing-is-believing, the strongest evidence that HIV causes AIDS is not visual but laboratory-based and epidemiologic. Good starting points are the NIAID compilations of information here and here, though I find these are updated less and less often as AIDS denialism has receded from a tiny-fringe view to a lunatic-fringe view.

If you're interested in the history of the discovery of HIV, then I'd recommend the following books: Science Fictions by John Crewdson (very harsh on Gallo, but quite exhuastive). An excellent sociologic history is Steven Epstein's book Impure Science, which deals with the politics of the "causation debate" at length (though it leaves off in 1996). And the Band Played On is a more narrative history, worth reading, though Randy Shilts took some criticism for inaccuracies in the book. Most libraries have all of these books in stock. MastCell ^Talk 21:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Anal secretions

Recent research has shown that anal secretions also contain transmissible levels of HIV.

http://www.natap.org/2004/HIV/062804_11.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genderwarrior (talk • contribs) 22:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the article addresses the anal mucosa in the "Sexual" section. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The article says only "Sexual transmission can occur when infected sexual secretions of one partner come into contact with the genital, oral, or rectal mucous membranes of another." Based on this information one would assume there is no risk of the insertive partner becoming infected. This is apparently not the case. A paragraph about transmission through anal sex should be added in the 'Sexual' section.Darktangent (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would one assume that? The sexual secretions of the receptive partner could have HIV in them, and infect the insertive partner via the mucous membranes of his penis. The language in the article says nothing inconsistent with that. Of course, you are welcome to be bold and add well-referenced content of your choosing, but please adhere to use of reliable sources. --Scray (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Infection rates for female to female transmission

I know the rates are low, but are there any statistics or figures for female to female transmission- i.e. oral sex between women or by oral sex on a woman by a man? 82.71.13.219 (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC) A. Jones

There are some case reports but I haven't seen reliable per-act statistics. Estimating per-act risk (for, say, oral sex between women) assumes, for example, that heterosexual sex was not under-reported by study participants. And the actual risk will probably vary considerably depending on, e.g., viral load/phase of infection, lesions in the mouth, bodily fluids involved, and so forth. Per-act statistics, and only at their best, hold true for populations. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Great answer! --Scray (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The article should cover this: does HIV/AIDS kill every infected person eventually? Are there people who are completely immune?

I've heard that rabies is the most deadly disease with only a couple of survivors worldwide, how does HIV/AIDS compare? I'm not thinking of keeping the disease down until you die of something else, I'm thinking of complete immunity where you will never die of it regardless of how long you live. Or alternatively that you simply cannot be infected by it. Don't tell me it's 100% deadly, that's just too frightening. T.R. 87.59.78.161 (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What you've heard about rabies is incorrect. Even after being bitten, post-exposure prophylaxis is quite successful. Once the disease passes the blood-brain barrier, I think it's deadly, but that takes a few days. Many diseases are like that. HIV is a chronic infection, one that requires a lot of drugs to suppress. See AIDS#Prognosis for more information, but with the HAART treatments, lifespan can be increased by 20 years, at least. For a chronic disease, I'd consider that a very nice outcome, given everything. There is no cure at this time, so I guess it's mortality rate is 100%, but not from HIV directly, but from malignancies and opportunistic infections. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant once rabies reaches the CNS, it's almost 100% deadly. Anyway maybe I should rephrase it: How many people with HIV does eventually develop AIDS? This the burning question for me(and most others I believe). People want to know but it's hard to find hard facts about it. Since it's central to the issue of HIV, I think there should be a section in the article covering these facts. T.R. 87.59.77.53 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC).

Chance of infection in male/male sex?

I was curious about what the chance is of that, compared to with heterosexual sex. I know it's supposedly much higher, but yeah. I saw statistics for heterosexual transmission, but none for homosexual activity. Is there a reason for this, or is it simply that no one has bothered to add something like that yet? I'd look it up and add it myself, but I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some other reason for its absence. (I see no reason why there should be, but it doesn't hurt to ask.) 98.208.65.56 (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's actually not "supposedly much higher". Certain sex acts are riskier than others, and the receptive partner often has higher risk, but there's no reason to believe that sex act X between males is riskier than sex act X between a male and a female. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Circumcision

Uh, apparently i'm not good enough to edit this article despite having an account, so if someone else could edit it, it would be appreciated:

Advocates of circumcision as a way of reducing HIV incidence fail to account for the following statistics:

"AIDS incidence in the UK and Canada (1.4 per 100,000 and 0.8 per 100,000 respectively) is much lower than in the United States (12.8 per 100,000) [and Israel (9.0 per 100,000)]."

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/israel_statistics.html#45 http://www.avert.org/ausstatg.htm

If HIV is reduced in populations where circumcision is practiced, then why is the incidence significantly higher in the USA and Israel compared to Britain and Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jusau (talk • contribs) 06:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome! (Someone has semi-protected the page so that new account holders cannot edit, but after a short period of time you will be able to. This was done because of persistent vandalism. This page gets a lot of visitors) Your question is excellent; however, comparison of HIV infection rates in different countries is fraught with confounding variables. The section that addresses the issue of circumcision on this page is quite good (I did not write it) - it notes early epidemiological studies that had mixed results, and then three separate, concurrent randomized trials done in different countries with convincingly similar results - about a 50-60% reduction in transmission. Of course, it was not possible to make these double-blind (people know whether they've been circumcised!) but it's the best evidence we're likely to get, and is far more convincing than retrospective study of different populations. Moreover, your analysis of country statistics represents original research, and for that reason would not be appropriate for inclusion by Wikipedia standards (if you found the same comparison in a reliable source then it would be appropriate for inclusion, but would not carry as much weight as the three propspective studies. So, in more direct answer to your question, I don't know why HIV rates are higher in the U.S. and Israel thhan in Britain and Canada, but it's probably not the circumcision rate. Perhaps the rates of poverty and drug use are different? Other things are likely to differ as well. --Scray (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You have not answered my question and have (conveniently) dodged the point. You put down the difference between circumcision rates to drug use or poverty, yet you aren't willing to introduce such factors in explaining the other study (the one that confirms your point of view).

You are saying:

Circumcision is a factor for explaining why there was a lesser incidence of HIV, but it is not a factor for explaining why there was a higher incidence of HIV.

You can't pick and choose.

The fact remains that HIV is much higher in Israel (where circumcision is universal) than in many European countries. This is a much greater statistic than merely choosing some study out of tribal Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jusau (talk • contribs) 10:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am requesting that a link be added to the circumcision discussion, linking to the genital mutilation page. E.g., "A meta-analysis of 27 observational studies conducted prior to 1999 in sub-Saharan Africa indicated that male circumcision, a form of genital mutilation, reduces the risk of HIV infection." After all, these WHO panelists appear to be proposing that some people should have pieces of their bodies cut off to benefit some other people. The context for such a proposal, including WHO-condemned practices such as female circumcision, is a link to the genital mutilation page.

Please take my request seriously, since we gnomes are no longer able to maintain this page.68.178.59.178 (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The debate about whether circumcision should be considered a form of mutilation is outside the scope of this article and its talk page. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not the place for that discussion. --Scray (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Anecdotal cures

From time to time, we see a report on the nightly news that HIV infection or AIDS has been "cured". The recent announcement by Gero Hütter, first in the media and later as a case report in the NEJM, is quite notable and also very encouraging. I certainly hope, along with many others, that this finding will lead to a true cure for HIV infection.

At the same time, our enthusiasm for this report must be tempered by a realistic view of both the history of sensational announcements in HIV research and our goals at Wikipedia. This is after all an encyclopaedia that in medicine-related articles such as HIV gives proportionate weight to the medical literature. An anecdote, however exciting, is not a reliable source for a medical article, and even if the overwhelming surge of media coverage compels us to include it for now, it should not command its own section of the article.

I posit that this anecdote also should not be used as a springboard for personal opinions and syntheses, such as those one user has recently contributed by speculating that the Berlin patient data mean a CCR5 mutation confers resistance to CXCR4 viruses as well. That's not at all what the paper says, much less the bulk of the literature. What do other users think about this and about the relative weight the Berlin case should be assigned? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Note this post was originally in a different section which was deleted and than moved here without my permission. I believe that the statement "which confers resistance to the predominant strains of HIV" is not accurate since it states that the CCR5-Δ32 mutation only confers resistance to the predominant strains of HIV. The fact though that Huetter's patient also had CXCR4 virus at low levels before the treatment means that this statement may be wrong. After all even 600 days without antiretroviral drug treatment no sign of the HIV virus of any strain was found in blood, bone marrow, or bowel. As such I believe that the earlier version of this statement which was in this article for over 3 months until it was changed a few days ago was more accurate without the term "the predominant strains of". I have been asked to reach a consensus on this issue. --GrandDrake (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

On medical issues, we as Wikipedia editors should not support statements with anecdotes or personal analysis of the issues, however logical or sensible they may seem. Similarly, an inaccurate statement is an inaccurate statement, regardless of whether it's been here for a minute or three months. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon, please do not move my posts into a section that I did not post them in. The context of the post I made was for the beginning of a new section and was not a reply to the post you made. I do not mind replying to this section but in the future please do not delete a section that I made or move my posts from one section to another without my permission. --GrandDrake (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon, I did not state that the treatment causes resistance to CXCR4 I merely pointed out that Hutter's patient did have the CXCR4 virus before the treatment which is a fact. In one of the edits you reverted I had added a CNN article as a reference which had information about this issue. The CNN article said that:

"Before undergoing the transplant, the patient was also found to be infected with low levels of a type of HIV known as X4, which does not use the CCR5 receptor to infect cells. So it would seem that this virus would still be able to grow and damage immune cells in his body. However, following the transplant, signs of leukemia and HIV were absent. "There is no really conclusive explanation why we didn't observe any rebound of HIV," Hutter said. "This finding is very surprising."

As such the use of the term "Resistance to CCR5 inhibition is also less important if CXCR4 strains of HIV emerge (these use CXCR4 rather than CCR5 as a coreceptor, from which they become independent), and the patient carried this virus at low levels" is fairly deceptive since it implies that this treatment does nothing for the CXCR4 virus. At minimum this statement should be seperated into two statements to make it more accurate. --GrandDrake (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It may be helpful to remain mindful of a couple of key concepts:

• the difference between viruses that are R5 (i.e. utilize CCR5) and X4 (utilize CXCR4) is a continuum (not a binary switch)
• different cell lines give somewhat different results in a tropism assay. Conventionally, we use the Monogram Biosciences assay as a reference, but it's by no means perfect. In large groups of people these assays are considered accurate but individual results, as with CD4 counts, must be taken with a grain of salt
• what happens in vitro, and what happens in vivo, may be two very different things

I am not trying to say that people are ignoring these issues, but such considerations make it risky to be dogmatic about the results of a single assay in a single individual. This is reflected in our general distrust of case reports (and news sources like CNN, which will very rarely cover science with any depth). In other words, it is factual that an assay indicated that X4 was present in Hütter's patient prior to the transplant. It is also true that the virus has not come back to high levels since the transplant. Does that prove that the lack of R5-bearing CD4s is the sole cause of continued control of his viremia? Or, is it plausible that innate immune responses, or some other factor, are also playing some role? A case report cannot tell us. I'm reminded of the "Berlin patient" of the late 1990's who was thought to be "cured" after ddI and hydroxyurea therapy - that was a fiasco (and caused a huge amount of pancreatitis, neuropathy, lipoatrophy, and other complications - including treatment failures - in people whose doctors jumped on the bandwagon before good science had been done). --Scray (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Scray's remarks are instructive. The uncertainty about this anecdote, the tendency towards speculation to fill in the gaps, and the relative unreliability of anecdotes for important medical articles suggests that the extent of the section here is a violation of weight. I have previously proposed that a brief description of this latest "Berlin patient" remain in HIV while the rest be moved to Gero Huetter, where the news content, etc., would be more appropriate, and in light of Scray's reminders, I think it's time to do that.

We should consider moving the first paragraph of this section elsewhere, as well as renaming it, since the other sources are quite low-quality and the entire bit is rather crystal ball-ish. While there are many proposed new treatments for HIV/AIDS, we should use reliable sources to describe them if they are sufficiently notable to be included at all. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, this material should have better sources and include less speculative language (i.e., "promise", "promising"):

Promising new treatments include Cre recombinase and the enzyme Tre recombinase, both of which are able to remove HIV from an infected cell. These enzymes promise a treatment in which a patient's stem cells are extracted, cured, and reinjected to promulgate the enzyme into the body. The carried enzyme then finds and removes the virus.

I've removed it until we find better sources, which shouldn't be too difficult since the concept has been addressed in the literature recently. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an excellent approach - wish I'd thought of it. The case of Hütter's patient is notable, and appropriately placed in that article where people can find it, but should not be prematurely generalized. --Scray (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I accept the consensus on this. --GrandDrake (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Input requested

I'd be grateful for input at Talk:Circumcision and HIV#HIV/AIDS topics re integration of that article with {{AIDS}}. Jakew (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Misleading/Confusing research results

I have an issue regarding the articles cited for transmission rates with receptive/insertive anal sex. First off it is not stated whether the anal sex is male/female or male/male, unless both are the same. The first source says "RESULTS--Overall, 19 (12%) male partners and 82 (20%) female partners were infected with HIV". There were roughly the same number of females as males, so either the 82 or the 20% is wrong. The issue with anal sex is whether the 5.1 is a percentage or whether it is stating that it is 5.1 times more effective than female to male transmission. I find the whole article rather confusing. When they say the number of males and females infected, they do not say whether the infection was from vaginal or anal sex. Also these percentages disagree with the extremely low numbers listed in the chart on the wiki page. 12% of males were infected (whether from vaginal or anal intercourse still in question) meaning the number listed for insertive penile-vaginal intercourse should be 1200 (12% of 10000) and not 5. It is my opinion that this article is not usable as a reference source due to these flaws.

The second source (#32) is completely useless as it says how much the risk of infection was reduced by using condoms, screening your partner, and choosing oral sex over anal sex, not the risk of infection itself. Not to mention the article says all of these measures are effective only for heterosexual couples, which cannot possibly be true. Darktangent (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You do not clearly specify which reference is the "first one", though I gather you're referring to the study in BMJ (PMID 1392708). You clearly don't understand the results. First, realize that the paper is peer-reviewed and in quite a respectable journal, so it's not likely that the numbers are so far off. 19/0.12 = 158.333, consistent with the 159 male partners of HIV-infected women described in the methods section. Likewise, 82/0.20 = 410, consistent with the 404 female partners of HIV-infected men (slight differences are likely due to statistical corrections for cofactors like age or somesuch). So, this is entirely consistent and your justification is erroneous. Please also see my comment in next section regarding wholesale deletion of citations, which should be avoided. --Scray (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The rates in the table for "Receptive oral intercourse" and "Insertive oral intercourse"(from reference 32) are not in any way based on any research, but are just a "best guess estimate" by the authors. The methods section of that paper says "Although there are few data on the relative risks associated with fellatio (oral-penile contact), most investigators suggest that it is safer than vaginal sex. We assumed that insertive fellatio was 10 times less risky than insertive vaginal sex and that receptive fellatio was 10 times less risky than receptive vaginal sex, per act (Table 1)." No source or reason for that assumption was given. These values should be removed from the table or at the very least a disclaimer should state these two values are "best guess estimates" (wording from the journal article).

Also, all values from reference 32 are not actually given in the article, but were back calculated by someone (not one of the authors) from the relative risks of various behaviors and the absolute risk of transmission resulting from receptive vaginal sex with an infected person. Does this count as original research? CORRECTION: Actually, the calculation was done in reference 26, so it is not original research. However, the source for the data in reference 26 was reference 32, and so the value is still a "best-guess estimate."

Sources 27, 29-32 Should be deleted

These sources should be removed as they are falsely cited. Source #26 was used for all numbers in the chart except for Childbirth. I'd remove them myself but I'm not sure how to do it. Darktangent (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Have reverted the wholesale deletion of references in this table. For example, reference by Bell (PMID 9845490) is from the CDC and an infection risk of 0.3% from needlestick is generally accepted. You'll need to justify removal individually, and I suggest that you remove them individually, since each was added and reviewed by others previously. --Scray (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The references in the chart are the original sources cited by reference 26.--Twistinside6 (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

INFORMATION

Please help how far back should you go. Who can get aids. I mean years you can get it. Is thier year that you should look for. i had sex with someone 8 years ago If they have aids could I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.46.249 (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As noted in the Talk page guidelines, this space is for working out how to improve the article, not to chat or address questions of personal interest. In addition, there is a prohibition on Wikipedia against answering medical questions. You should ask a professional health practitioner if you have a medical question. --Scray (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely it is information and not advice to state that [1] if you want to know if you are infected with HIV, you need to get an HIV test, and [2] that such a test will give information about your HIV status including all sexual contacts up until 6 months prior to the test: that is, if an exposure was 8 years ago and the test is negative, you do not have to worry about that particular exposure. - Nunh-huh 20:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No place for references to 'bugchasing/giftgiving'

The reference to 'bugchasing/giftgiving' as what seems like an afterthought at the end of the section on Transmission really undermines this article (I would remove it but this article is currently locked). Being unscientific (not to mention irrelevant), why is it even included? This 'phenomenon' is disputed by many, including those who have tried to investigate it. If it even exists beyond the realm of internet fantasists it involves such a miniscule number of individuals that it has no place here. It's about as welcome as someone inserting into a Wikipedia article on human conception that 'some women sabotage their birth control to trap a man into marriage'! Someone please delete the 'bugchasing' nonsense. It's highly damaging to this article. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Our Bugchasing article provides links to some support for this concept including a peer-reviewed publication listed in PubMed. I don't see refutation there. Given that, it might be most efficient to discuss this on that page, and if the consensus is that this is not a valid concept (based on reliable sources), it should be removed here. I acknowledge that a WP article supporting a concept is not a reliable source, but it makes most sense to discuss the evidence in one place, and that article seems like the best place. Does that seem reasonable? --Scray (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Different tests for different people?

Not a conspiracy theorist here but I just had a prenatal appointment where I told the nurse we were both tested before we started our committed relationship and that we were in a low risk group. It seemed odd to test again to me and even then anonymous testing is something that is always a consideration, hence the consent form. In fact, even when I was tested before I had to insist because they didn't want to test me because I was so low risk. Anyway, the nurse seemed to think I was trying to pull something, or who knows what and so when she put the order for the test for my spouse she put HIV++2 instead of just HIV (which I saw on other forms in a stack). Then on here I see that there is some different criteria used for people in "high risk" groups,

So, I guess my point is that maybe this can be elaborated on. It seems really strange to use different criteria based on some arbitrary determination of "risk", I say arbitrary because she obviously did not use our actual truthful answers for that basis. Kind of alarming really on some fundamental level, I guess. --mumblepie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.87.149 (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding our article and HIV testing in general, there are no special testing methods based on risk (not sure to what section you are referring). The criteria for positive and negative results are not adjusted based on any risk estimate. Of course, the way the clinician handles a result might vary - a surprisingly positive or negative result could be repeated, for example. --Scray (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That's good. Got that impression from the quick test section I guess but then that is different then a comprehensive test. Thanks. --mumblepie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.87.149 (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Previous names of the virus

Previous names of the virus is an archaic fact and not so important to belong in the first paragraph. Furthrmore, GRID cannot be the name of a virus; it is the name of a disease. GRID virus would be the name of the virus if it was ever widely used Ortho (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

One user's "archaic facts" are another's "history". Where in the article would you place the prior names? Discovery, I would think, but that section would have to be significantly expanded. You're quite right about the GRID though, I'm about to remove it. - Nunh-huh 16:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If HIV is so hard to catch (5-10 in 10,000 per heterosexual act) why is it so common?

Because heterosexual acts are also very common. - Nunh-huh 07:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

lets see, in my country (Israel) every year 280 drivers at my age group (25-44) die or badly injure, out of 1513,000 drivers of that age group.

so my chance to die or being badly injured per a year is ~1.8 out of 10,000.

In Israel there are about 0.3% of adult population which are HIV carrier.

My chances for being infected of HIV from random unprotected sex is: chance partner have HIV * chance of infection = 0.003 * 0.0005=0.0000015

Therefor, the chance not being infected is 1-0.0000015=0.9999985.

Assume I have unprotected, random sex, twice a week (96 acts a year), the chances of never being infected is 0.9999985^96=0.9999856,

or, the chance of being infected at least once is 1-0.9999856=0.00014. (~1.4 out of 10,000).

So, driving to work is worse for you then having a lot of meaningless sex?? Amit man (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, indeed if every one start to go crazy and act sexuality as described above, the infected population will increase by 50% (add 0.14% to the ::already 0.3% infected population), is that what happens in Africa? Because otherwise, the numbers don't add up... the infection in some places in ::Africa is >15%. Amit man (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Without checking your figures....you seem to be comparing the incidence rate (number of new cases per year) to the prevalence (number of cases in the population). If the prevalence of HIV infection in a population is 15%, those 15% did not get infected in a single year, but over a span of years that is decades long. I believe the actual prevalence of HIV infection in the adult Sub-Saharan African population is 6.1%, not ">15%", and I believe if you check our article on AIDS in Africa you'll find that there are no prevalence rates above 15%. And yes: driving is rather dangerous than many things that people fear more than driving. For example, the average American is more likely to die in a car crash than by an act of terrorism, but there is no war on driving. - Nunh-huh 21:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Members of comparatively sexually active portions of the population (such as people having on average 100 random, unprotected sexual encounters per year) are much more likely to have become HIV positive than members of the general population. They are also more likely to have other sexually transmitted infections, many of which increase the transmission rate of HIV. Those who became infected recently are much more likely to infect sexual partners (1 in 2, not 1 in 1000), in part because they have high viral loads and are usually unaware of their infection. The virus and risk factors are not distributed randomly, so calculations that assume random distribution are of limited use. Because this discussion is beyond the scope of the talk page, I suggest the Science reference desk for help with obtaining further information about this and related topics. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Role of PDI in HIV-1 entry to cells

I would suggest inclusion in the section HIV#Entry to the cell some mention of the role of protein disulfide isomerase in the entry process. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

HIV Immunity?

I have heard about (and read about) some immunities to HIV, such as Wired Magazine. Perhaps this information should be included in the Wikipedia article? Nschoem 00:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that article was referring to CCR5 delta 32, about which we do have an article, linked from the HIV article under Tropism. This is an inborn form of resistance to HIV infection, not acquired. I think we've got it covered pretty well. --Scray (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

HIV Transmission Rates and Reference 32

The HIV transmission rates for oral sex from reference 32 are "best-guess estimates" not really based on any empirical data or analysis, and I have added a note to reflect this.

Quoting the methods section of reference 32 (Varghese et al 2002):

"When published estimates were not available, we used best-guess estimates."

"Although there are few data on the relative risks associated with fellatio (oral-penile contact), most investigators suggest that it is safer than vaginal sex. We assumed that insertive fellatio was 10 times less risky than insertive vaginal sex and that receptive fellatio was 10 times less risky than receptive vaginal sex, per act (Table 1)."

As you can see, the value in the chart obtained from this analysis is basically a guess. The table should at the very least have a note to reflect this.Twistinside6 (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The alteration of a table drawn from a reliable source is, at best, original research, and, at worst, vandalism. Neither of which is appropriate for Wikipedia. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not original research at all - quite the contrary, it is a direct quote from the source article (reference 32). How can that be original research?Twistinside6 (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The quotes could potentially be removed, though, I was unsure if they were appropriate, but left them in since it is a direct quote from the article (reference 32).Twistinside6 (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A direct quote that you apply to alter the table from the original article. I don't see the support for making this type of change, since it essentially second-guesses the expertise of the authors. We should report from the sources, not critique or (in our estimation) improve them. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not realize that the table was essentially copied verbatim from source 26, footnotes and all. However, I think this distinction is important, and it is NOT original research, since it is a direct quote from a published article. I also do not really see why the table has to be an exact copy of the one in reference 26 - surely the data there can be reformatted in some way? But I am open to a different means of conveying the distinction of a best-guess estimate if others feel this is a problem. Twistinside6 (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a footnote outside of the table would be appropriate? This would clarify the data as described in reference 32 while making clear that the footnote is not a part of the table from reference 26. I'm not actually sure how to do this. Twistinside6 (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is entirely appropriate to note the publicly stated concerns of the original authors of the 2002 source (32), even though the authors of the 2005 source (26) failed to do so. I like the present solution [4].

On a related note, the enormous differences in transmission rates between different sex acts makes a mockery of the statement "the risk of female-to-male transmission is 0.04% per act and male-to-female transmission is 0.08% per act" in our current article – this really needs to be clarified. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:HIV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: On hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a GA. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.

1. The lead needs to be reduced to four paragraphs, see WP:LEAD for guidelines.
2. Address all of the "citation needed" tags. Some have been there since October 2008.
3. There's some errors with the spacing of the inline citations (such as ". [1]" or ".[2]."). Try and fix all occurrences. I'll fix any you miss when I copyedit the article.
4. The "Blood or blood product", "The clinical course of infection", and "AIDS" sections are unsourced.
5. The "Other routes" section consists of a single sentence. Either expand on the information or merge the subsection into another one. There are also other single sentences throughout the article. They should be expanded on or be incorporated into another paragraph.
6. There are a few dabs that should be fixed as well as a few dead links/redirects. The Internet Archive can help with fixing those.

This article covers the topic well and has a great source of free images. Due to the length of the article, I will wait to review the prose for any other issues until the above points have been addressed. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

#3 is done (at least, I think I caught them all). --Scray (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

#6 dabs are fixed. Still working on dead/redirects. --Scray (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As for, #1: no, the lede doesn't need to be reduced to four paragraphs: four paragraphs is suggested as a guideline, with exceptions. What the lede needs to be is a concise, readable overview of the article. Therefore any criticism of its length should be based on content rather than an arbitrary number. Specifically, those who assert that it is too long should state what information there is superfluous or in some way detracts from the goal of the lede being a readable overview. If something needs to be sacrificed at the Good Article altar, my suggestion is that we reduce the epidemiological information (much of paragraph 3) to about a sentence, and combine it with paragraph 4. That will get the "magic number" for GA; but it should probably only be done if someone also feels it will improve the article. - Nunh-huh 22:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, here are my two cents about what to cut (based on what seems out of place for a lead, not based on any numeric target for length): 1) sentence starting "Previous names" (none of these are in wide use today), 2) sentence starting "HIV infection leads to low levels of CD4+ T cells" (too much detail for the lead), 3) somehow merge the paragraph starting "Eventually most HIV-infected individuals develop AIDS." with the mentions elsewhere about opportunistic infections, antiretrovirals, etc (I'm not as sure about how to do this one). As for the epidemiology, it does seem like a lot of numbers, but we should hit high points like the huge impact on Africa (I've trimmed a bit of the language but it could probably be shorter still). Kingdon (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree on the previous names; not needed in intro. I will do that and attempt to squish into the arbitrary "4" paragraphs; feel free to revert, undo, or re-edit. - Nunh-huh 10:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably the sentence about predicted numbers of deaths could be removed from the intro; we can content ourselves with history rather than prognostication. - Nunh-huh 10:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

#6 completed. --Scray (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Good work addressing some of the issues. I will leave the article on hold for another week for the remaining issues to be addressed. The sourcing issues are the main concerns, and if sources cannot be found for the content, then it should be removed for now until a source is found later. I had forgot to watchlist this review page, so if you have any additional comments/questions, I'll try and reply quicker this time. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Kept

Good work addressing the sourcing issues. I went through and made some cleanup edits, please review them. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit required under Transmission/Sexual

{{editsemiprotected}}Under Transmission/Sexual the following statement needs revision. It currently reads

However, spermicide may actually increase the male to female transmission rate due to inflammation of the vagina.

It should be changed to the following

However, spermicide may actually increase the transmission rate due to inflammation of the vagina and rectum.
The lining of the rectum is much thinner than that of the vagina so it is important to not use spermicidal lubricants for anal sex.

Reasons The original reference was misquoted to leave out information about anal sex.

References

Toyotabedzrock (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Having reviewed the above request (and the references), I am not happy with the suggested text, because the two new references talk specifically about Nonoxynol-9, and that does not cover all spermicides.

Therefore, for the time being, I have changed it to the fairly neutral phrase However, spermicide may actually increase the transmission rate. - and I have added the two references you gave.

This is not ideal - I don't like having excess refs, and it would be nice to give more details, but I think that it at least removes the previous poorly-cited fact; if you can construct a suitable replacement which is fully asserted by references, please use another semi-protected edit request.

Thank you for your contribution.  Chzz  ►  05:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done

Suggested modifications and addition of new information about SIVcpz

{{editsemiprotected}}

This is my first post, so kindly let me know what procedures I have omitted. I recommend changing the following paragraph from the article on HIV-

The closely related simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) exhibits a somewhat different behavior: in its natural hosts, African green monkeys and sooty mangabeys, the retrovirus is present in high levels in the blood, but evokes only a mild immune response,[89] does not cause the development of simian AIDS,[90] and does not undergo the extensive mutation and recombination typical of HIV.[91] By contrast, infection of heterologous hosts (rhesus or cynomologus macaques) with SIV results in the generation of genetic diversity that is on the same order as HIV in infected humans; these heterologous hosts also develop simian AIDS.[92] The relationship, if any, between genetic diversification, immune response, and disease progression is unknown.

to

Some closely related simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIVs) exhibit somewhat different behavior: in natural hosts, African green monkeys and sooty mangabeys, the retrovirus is present at high levels in the blood, but evokes only a mild immune response,[89] does not cause the development of simian AIDS,[90] and does not undergo the extensive mutation and recombination typical of HIV.[91] By contrast, infection of heterologous hosts (rhesus or cynomologus macaques) with SIV results in the generation of genetic diversity that is on the same order as HIV in infected humans; these heterologous hosts also develop simian AIDS.[92] The relationship, if any, between genetic diversification, immune response, and disease progression is unknown. The study of SIV strains can shed light on human infections. One form of SIV, SIVcpz, is associated with increased mortality and AIDS-like symptoms in wild chimpanzees [insert ref below]. SIVcpz is the virus most closely related to human HIV-1, implying it may be the origin strain. Both viruses lack Nef function which helps downregulate the T cell receptor, increasing likelihood of T cell depletion and immunodeficiency. Both SIVcpz and HIV-1 appear to have been transmitted relatively recently to chimpanzee and human populations, derived from reservoir primate species whose immune systems remain relatively intact in response to their infection.

ref http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7254/full/nature08200.html

Researchdoctor (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done. I've added the information as you've requested, and you can see the change here. I've reviewed the modifications, and it seems alright, but another user who's more knowledgeable in this field of science might want to take a look to make sure that everything is correct. Thanks, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 22:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Rarer in men?

It is raraer for men to catch HIV from women than it is for Women to catch HIV from men during vaginal intercourse, because the infected fluid would not be able to enter the male body through the penis as easily?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.246.56 (talk • contribs) 09:31, June 29, 2008

That is the case although I haven't searched for any papers on the matter, it's mainly because during sex the vagina may be damaged. This is also why anal sex is far more likely to transmit the infection since it damages the more fragile rectum. However I don't think HIV infection is rarer in men, perhaps due to the ease of infection in anal sex( for example penetrative gay sex)Wolfmankurd (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The odds of becoming infected by the virus is higher via anal sex than vaginal sex (for the woman), but since I think it's safe to assume that vaginal sex is more prevalent, world-wide, than anal sex, that is why it translates to a higher likelihood of infection for women than men. I'm no expert, but it seems like a reasonable possibility to me. MagnoliaE6 (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Tonsils and adenoids

"In tonsils and adenoids of HIV-infected patients, macrophages fuse into multinucleated giant cells that produce huge amounts of virus.” My question is that if tonsils and adenoids are such significant reservoirs or virus factories, and are such commonly removed organs, is the removal of tonsils and adenoids recommended to HIV-positive patients to slow down the rate of infection? Would it be enough to slow down the creation of new virus cells (if done in the early stages of the disease) to the effect of measurably slowing down the progression of the disease? Or would the effect be too marginal to warrant such surgery? I understand that the removal of tonsils in particular is more difficult in adult patients because the tonsils flatten as patients age, but it is still done when needed, so it’s not impossible. I’m curious as to whether this has ever been tested, if it is a recommendation that is made to patients and, if so, is it common? And could it have a significant effect in the first place? MagnoliaE6 (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Careful use of statistics

I cut the 25-year total figures for deaths given by WHO. Other diseases rarely if ever are described in terms of "historical totals", but AIDS often is. See, for example, WP entries for cancer (7.6 million dead in 2007) and malaria (1-3 million deaths per year). If someone wants to restore the historical stat, I would like to see an explanation of the purpose for it. AIDS is a serious disease, but increasing the fear level by tallying total deaths over the course of history seems counterproductive -- as noted on this Talk page in regard to survivability, clarity is more important than panic.

I'd also like to see predictive stats given as low and high estimates -- a range, not a single number handed down as if it's engraved in stone like a doomsday target. Predictions are weakened not only by factors such as changes in survivability, but also by the uncertainty of diagnosis. I personally edited a sociology paper on AIDS awareness in Africa that recounted how some villages basically did autopsies by "verbal report", along the lines of "well, he was skinny and weak for a long time before he died" -- the person is thus tallied as an AIDS death even if he (or she) never had been tested as HIV positive. With such uncertainty, caution should be used in predicting future tallies. My opinion is that there is subtle POV at play here, contributing to panic about certain diseases while others (often those which people in wealthy countries rarely get anymore, such as malaria) are not highlighted as dramatically. Martindo (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I restored it. It's perfectly valid information, appropriately cited. In contrast to malaria and cancer, AIDS is a new disease, and this statistic helps contextualize it. There's no POV at play here; even if citing this statistic promoted a POV, it is in fact our job to reflect POVs in proportion to the numbers of people who hold them, and the WHOs POV is certainly not a minority one. NPOV isn't about treating all diseases alike, it's about not imposing WIkipedian's views on diseases, but rather reflecting opinions accurately. - Nunh-huh 01:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As an entirely lay-reader of this article, I found the stats useful, if only to remember the apocalyptic pronouncements of the 1980's public safety warnings that 'millions would die'. It confirmed that they have, but a footnote to set the number in context (i.e. per marindo cancer stat for instance) might be useful. --Joopercoopers (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion on this Talk page about removing stigma and prejudice relates directly to the "apocalyptic pronouncements". I removed the stat again, because newness itself isn't a convincing argument -- there are many other new diseases that are NOT discussed in the media with routine reference to cumulative totals. If someone restores the historical total again, I won't fight with another round of edit war. However, I would very much like to see some discussion in the article itself about reliability of stats, particularly in light of the open admission in the HIV Test section that fewer than 1% of "sexually active" Africans have actually been tested. Extrapolation to a national population from a sample of tests is one thing, actual test results are another. Let's not perpetuate GIGO by presenting rough estimates as "precise" predictions about future deaths. Again, a range of figures (low/high estimates) would be more NPOV. Martindo (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've restored it again. There are no "apopcalyptic pronouncements" to discuss, only a verifiable statistic. If your concern is that all disease articles be alike, find similar statistics for malaria and cancer and place them in the appropriate article. - Nunh-huh 13:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

First, let me point out that it was Joopercoopers who introduced the term "apocalyptic pronouncements", and in quotation marks. Second, the prediction he (?) cited that "millions would die" is very loose, involving several orders of magnitude. Clearly, 18 million dead in the 20th century would be different from 80 million -- the entire populations of Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, and New Zealand could fit into the difference.

Let me list some problems with this article, so that they can be discussed and rebutted, perhaps leading to refinement and greater clarity:

1. The lead/introduction transitions directly from HIV to total AIDS deaths over a 25-year period then back to HIV infection rates, then to AIDS deaths in a recent year.

The terms HIV and AIDS should not be used interchangeably. This sloppy usage perpetuates the mindset that all HIV-positive individuals are already sick, which exacerbates the shunning that public health officials have worked hard to reduce.

It is interesting to note that the cumulative death toll does NOT appear on the AIDS page itself, so again I ask, "What's the point here on the HIV page?"

2. Nunh-huh made a reasonable critique in regard to my suggestion of consistency: "if your concern is that all disease articles be alike..."

In fact, as noted in point 1, HIV is not a disease. So, a good argument can be made that ALL death tallies should be moved to the AIDS page.

3. Nunh-huh declares the cumulative total to be "perfectly valid" and a "verifiable statistic" without indicating the nature of verifiability. The HIV page clearly states that the vast majority of Africans were never tested, thus the "verifiability" must be from another source. As the text now stands, that source is essentially the WHO, so we are looking at *consensus* and *authority* as methods of verifiability, rather than medical test results.

The writers/editors of the AIDS page seem to be aware of this limitation, thus the repeated use of "estimated" in the lead of that article, as well as ranges in the Epidemiology section instead of fixed numbers (which lead to the impression of certainty). The first two statistics cited in paragraph 2 of the HIV lead omit the word "estimate" -- a term that generally expresses the humility of researchers in regard to the certainty of their results.

4. It is important to remember that AIDS is a syndrome, not a disease. As stated clearly in the very first section of its WP page, there are a large variety of symptoms. Consequently, it is LESS certain (not more) that AIDS can be diagnosed by combining factors such as location (Africa), age at death, body weight, opportunistic infections, etc. in the absence of actual testing.

The uncertainty calls for "careful use of statistics", thus my section title, my appeal to remove cumulative totals, and my request (seconded partially by Joopercoopers) to put statistics into better context.

5. Although emotionalism is not exactly a POV, it does facilitate POV and hinder the clarity of NPOV. For example, what is the purpose of mentioning orphans in the lead (especially when nothing is stated there about AIDS killing young adults)? If children are particularly susceptible to a health threat, then it is logical to mention their death toll in the lead; otherwise, that detail should appear later on the page.

BTW, gastroenteritis is another example of a global scourge (5-8 million die per year) that does not have cumulative totals routinely publicized. The scale of one million or more people dying each year (as noted in my earlier Talk in regard to cancer and malaria, as well as AIDS) is already a very loud alarm bell for public health officials and general readers of WP. Highlighting cumulative totals does increase the volume, but it also diminishes clarity and promotes panic.Martindo (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

no longer a pandemic to anyone but gay men and africans

surely this has to be included in the article: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/threat-of-world-aids-pandemic-among-heterosexuals-is-over-report-admits-842478.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Wig Pig (talk • contribs) 22:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Your statement so close minded, racist and so obviously inflammatory that it shouldn't even be brought up as a joke. Not to mention the most common spread of HIV is through needle sharing and other medical equipment, outside of South Africa. Actually, the presentation of this information by you is worse than the information itself. Instead of citing this site that cites a statement, you should find that statement? Outside of Africa, heterosexual transmission may be rare but does occur, but the most obvious mode of spread is through injection, which is not limited to "gay men and africans" as you put it. --Thehiddenmind (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually what you say is obviously wrong - HIV was brought to north america by the a man in the gay community. If you look at the way slanted charts of the proportion of men to women, this clearly indicates that AIDS is in large part spread by the gay community, and then a couple of others got it through bisexualism and needles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JanTervel (talk • contribs) 05:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me? If you look at percentage of populations the largest spread in the US is not among gay men. This misinformation is highly dangerous. Especially when we look at allocation of treatment and awareness funds. If everyone was as misinformed as you we would be funneling all of our money to gay and african communities. Luckily some people chose to look at facts and understand that new cases of HIV infection in the developed world are on the sharpest increase among women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.250.12.246 (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Haitian as well as Homosexual

I remember in 1983, when AIDS truly hit the news, that it was a phenomenen that hit Haitian males as equally as it did homesexual males.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opusv5 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Origin of HIV

A recent study, covered in a BBC article, "Colonial clue to the rise of HIV ", suggests that HIV may have crossed from other apes to humans sometime between 1884 and 1924. This is earlier than the stated years in AIDS origin, which says 1919–1960. Someone else might want to add this to AIDS origin (and briefly mention it in this article under HIV#Origin); I'm not feeling ambitious at the moment. I might be able to access the actual scientific paper if anyone wants, just let me know at my talk page. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

AIDS origin has already been updated, but I've updated this article under HIV#Origin. --Scray (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorrowly, I do not believe any further, that HIV has emerged from a dark rain forrest. Surely, the origine may be the SIV, but, there is the way of gene manipulation in the effort to gain a vaccine, as described above at this page of discussion. Viruses are used to ferry genes to human cells, as we may read at Janewy's immunobiology, and, HIV env really looks like a damaged T-cell-receptor (by Adelberg's microbiology). What is the opinion of Yours, Sirs? Johannes Buhlmann, ChronicalWeb_30b@yahoo.de —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.193.196.253 (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There is an inclination in the Western World to blame epidemics on lesser developed regions of the world. The attitude is that lesser developed nations generally live under unsanitary conditions, and in combination with inadequate healthcare systems, these regions are far more susceptible to diseases. While there may be some modicum of truth to this thinking, it is largely untrue as a general hypothesis.

This article has cited West Central Africa as the source of HIV in humans. I happened to have lived in this region in the early 1980s and 90s when HIV infections were being detected and spreading in the Western world. Rather than try to stem its proliferation, the attitude of Western governments was first to ignore it as a disease among its gay individuals, especially men. In West Africa at the time, the attitude was that HIV was an alien disease affecting only Europeans and Americans, because presently, there were no known diagnoses or infections in the West Central Africa. It is a fact that the first authenticated diagnoses of human HIV were in the USA and Europe, not West Africa, and so were the first recorded deaths from the associated illness AIDS.

Logic dictates that if such devastating epidemic originated in a region lacking in modern medical facilities, then the associated illness and ensuing mass deaths would have occurred there first before the rest of the world would take notice and take pre-emptive measures, as with the recent case of Swine Flu. Instead, the reverse was the case. AIDS epidemic occurred in Africa starting in the mid 1990s into the 2000s, after its toll in the Western World was beginning to subside. HIV was thus introduced into Africa from the regions that already had the virus, and, lacking in adequate medical systems and awareness programs, its effect became devastating among its people. And so the continent becomes a widely affected region and subsequently gets the dubious blame as the originator of the virus.

Africans can be blamed for lacking early awareness for the disease and for failing to adopt pro-active measures, but it is illogical and untruthful to assign the origin of human HIV virus to its sub-region. Informed medical professionals are cognizant of the fact that lesser developed regions of the world tend to have higher immunity to diseases than the highly sophisticated countries, for the fact that their diet is largely composed of naturally grown produce, as opposed to the Western diet that is largely composed of genetically designed foods and chemically processed preserves. This higher immunity albeit, is a natural compensation for inadequate medical facilities.

While Africans are unable to defend their continent against such falsehood, it does the science community little or no good to distort facts. Such distortions can only lead to delays in finding cures for diseases. 24.99.167.138 (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

change 'drug abuse' to 'drug addiction'

addiction is considered by some to be a disease in and of itself, with genetic and psychological components —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.57.205.154 (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but some drug addicts are not active users or abusers. CaseyBrady (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Denialism

This section of the article states, "Individuals, including several scientists who are not recognized experts on HIV, question the connection between HIV and AIDS,[127] the specific details qualifying (but not denying) the existence of HIV itself (this is a critique of the Montagnier group's 1983 claims),[128] or the validity of current testing and treatment methods." I cannot make the slightest sense of the part that runs from 'the specific details' to 'this is a critique of the Montagnier group's 1983 claims.' Could someone please rewrite this so that it is comprehensible? Devil Goddess (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a very bad sentence, yearning to be two or three sentences. What it ought to say is something like: "Some individuals, including some scientists who are not recognized experts on HIV, question the connection between HIV and AIDS. [127] Some question the procedures used by Montagnier's group in 1983, as well as other groups subsequently, to prove the existence of HIV. [128] Others question the validity of current testing and treatment methods." and then carry on with the debunking of these foolish notions.... - Nunh-huh 00:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that you agree that the sentence is badly written. It is totally unclear what "qualifying (but not denying) the existence of HIV itself" means, for example. I see that no one has rewritten it yet, however. Why not rewrite it as you've suggested? Devil Goddess (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I will gladly make it so; I was just waiting for confirmation that I made it clearer :) It's now in place. You yourself should be able to edit the article soon; it's protected against unregistered and new users because it's often vandalized, but it seems like you'll be getting "old" enough soon, if you aren't already. - Nunh-huh 01:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

A LIST OF HIGH PROFILE AIDS DISSIDENTS

   * Mohammad Ali Al-Bayati. PhD, Toxicologist and Pathologist, California. Author,  "Get all the facts: HIV does not cause AIDS"
   * Liz Byrski. Author,  "Facing Cancer-Searching for Solutions"  and other books. Adjunct Teaching Fellow, Curtin University of Technology. Winner, CSIRO Award for Excellence in Science Journalism (1996), Fremantle, Western Australia
   * Hiram Caton. PhD, Ethicist, Head of the School of Applied Ethics at Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
   * Nicholas D. Chester. PhD, Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Genetics Department, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
   * Rebecca Veronica Culshaw. PhD. Assistant Professor of Mathematics, University of Texas at Tyler. Advisor, Journal of Biological Systems. Studied and published mathematical models of HIV infection for 10 years.
   * Leopoldo Della Ciana. PhD, Chemist, President and Scientific Director, Cyanagen srl, Bologna, Italy; former Postdoctoral Fellow, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, former Senior Research Scientist at IGEN, Rockville, Maryland and Research Group Leader, SORIN Biomedica, Saluggia, Italy
   * Juan Jose Flores. MD, PhD, Professor of Medicine, La Universidad Veracruzana, Mexico
   * Sky Gilbert. PhD, University of Toronto (2005). University Research Chair in Creative Writing and Theatre Studies at Guelph University (2006). Actor/Playwright/Director, Columnist, Poet, Film Writer/Director/Producer, Novelist, Drag Queen. Received the Pauline McGibbon Award for directing (1985) and the Dora Award (1992).
   * William I. Grosky. PhD, Professor and Chair, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Michigan-Dearborn.
   * Mae-Wan Ho. PhD, Geneticist and Biophysicist, Open University, London, UK. Director, Institute of Science in Society; Author and activist. Awarded the Chan Kai Ming Prize for Biological Sciences (HK) 1964; Fellow of the National Genetics Foundation (USA) 1971-1974; Vida Sana Award (Spain) 1998. Says immune deficiency syndromes can be caused by drugs and anti-Hiv medicines
   * Vladimir Koliadin. PhD, Statistician, Senior Research Scientist, State Aerospace University, Kharkov, Ukraine
   * Lisa Landymore-lim. PhD, Biochemist, Sydney, Australia, author,  "Poisonous Prescriptions"
   * Leon Louw. Executive Director, Free Market Foundation and Law Review Project, South Africa; co-author,  "Beyond Apartheid"  and other books; nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989, 1991, and 1992
   * Richard MacIntyre. PhD, former Fulbright Scholar, Professor & Robert Wood Johnson Executive Nurse Fellow, Samuel Merritt College, Sacramento, California.  Author,  "Mortal Men: Living With Asymptomatic HIV"
   * Jonas Moses. PhD. Chicago, IL, USA.
   * Gary Null. PhD, syndicated host of "Natural Living with Gary Null," author ( "AIDS, A Second Opinion" ), and a producer of PBS special programs. His  "Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS"  won the Audience Award for Best Documentary at both the New York and Los Angeles International Independent Film and Video Festivals.
   * Rodney Richards. PhD, Biochemist, Founding scientist for the biotech company Amgen. Collaborated with Abbott Laboratories in developing some of the first HIV tests
   * Roberto P. Stock. PhD, Research Scientist, Instituto de Biotecnologia, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
   * Slawomir Szymanski. PhD and D.Sc. in Chemistry. Professor, Institute of Organic Chemistry, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland
   * Jacek Wójcik. PhD, Chemist, Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warszawa, Poland
   * Chun Xu. MD, PhD, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
   * William Young. PhD, Genetics, Lansing, Michigan
   * Vladimir Zajac. PhD, Oncovirologist, Geneticist, Cancer Research Institute, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
   * Dr. Kary Mullis. PhD, Biochemist, Winner, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for inventing the polymerase chain reaction, the basis for the HIV "viral load" tests.
   * Dr. David Rasnick. PhD, Biochemist, Protease Inhibitor Developer, University of California
   * Dr. Gordon Stewart. MD, Emeritus Professor of Public Health, University of Glasgow. Former Consultant Physician (Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine) to National Health Service (UK) and WHO. Author of over 100 journal articles and contributions to symposia, as well as such books as "Trends in Epidemiology" and "The Penicillin Group of Drugs".
   * Dr. Alfred Hassig. MD, Professor in Immunology, University of Bern, former Director, Swiss Red Cross blood banks
   * Dr. Peter Duesberg. PhD, Professor of Molecular Biology, University of California, member, National Academy of Sciences, first to map the genetic structure of retroviruses. Five-time recipient of the National Institutes of Health's Outstanding Investigator Grant. (All federal grants terminated when he started challenging the HIV theory). Author, "Inventing the AIDS Virus"
   * Dr. Sam Mhlongo. MD, Head of the Department of Family Medicine and Primary Health Care at the Medical University of South Africa, Johannesburg.
   * Dr. Donald W. Miller. Jr., MD (Harvard, 1965), BMS (Dartmouth, 1963), Professor of Surgery, University of Washington School of Medicine. Author of "The Practice of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery" (1977), co-author of "Atlas of Cardiac Surgery" (1983, Japanese version 1985), author of "Heart in Hand" (1999).
   * Dr. Martin Feldman. MD, Assistant Clinical Professor of Neurology at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, graduate of Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons, author of more than 50 articles published in peer-reviewed medical journals
   * Dr. Valendar Turner. MD, Royal Perth Hospital, University of Western Australia
   * Dr. Serge Lang. PhD, Professor of Mathematics, Yale University; awarded the Dylan Hixon '88 Prize for Teaching Excellence in the Natural Sciences; also the Steel and Cole prizes of the American Mathematical Society; Author of 37 books; former Fulbright Scholar; Member, US National Academy of Sciences.
   * Harvey Bialy. PhD. Founding and scientific editor, Nature Biotechnology (1983-1996). Resident Scholar, Institute of Biotechnology/Autonomous National University of Mexico (1996-2006), Member, South Africa Presidential Aids Advisory Panel (2000-present). Author of "Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS: A Scientific Life & Times of Peter H. Duesberg".
   * Dr. Claus Koehnlein. MD, AIDS and Internal Medicine specialist, Kiel, Germany
   * Neville Hodgkinson. former Science Editor, The Times of London; author, "AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science"
   * Dr. Etienne de Harven. MD, Emeritus Professor of Pathology, University of Toronto (1981-1993). Professor of Cell Biology, Cornell Graduate School of Medical Science (1968-1981). Associate Professor (1964-1968). Assistant Professor, Pathology. Université Libre de Bruxells (1956-1962). Belgian Air Force Medical Corps (1953-1956). Author of over 100 peer-reviewed medical papers on virology, cancer, immunology and electron microscopy.
   * Dr. Richard Strohman. PhD, Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley; former Director of the Health and Medical Sciences Program at UC Berkeley
   * Dr. Randall R. 'Rush' Wayne. MA, Molecular Biology, Harvard University, PhD, Biochemistry, University of California
   * Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger. PhD, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology and a former director of the Department of Viroid Research, Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry, Germany; Recipient of the international Robert Koch award for medical research, 1978*
   * Dr. Heinz Spranger. PhD, DDM. German Nosologist and Semiotist, and Practitioner in Periodontology and Oral Medicine. Former founder and Dean of the Faculty of Oral Medicine at the University Witten/Herdecke, former head of the Department of Periodontology and Oral Medicine, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt/Main. Recipient of the German Ribbon of the Order of the Distinguished Service Cross for his humanitarian scientific efforts
   * Dr. Matthew Irwin. MD, Washington, DC
   * Dr. Christian Fiala. MD, PhD, specialist in OB/Gyn, Vienna, Austria; Member of President Mbeki's AIDS Advisory Board
   * Dr. George Kent. PhD, Chairman, Political Science Department, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. Coordinator of the Task Force on Children's Nutrition Rights for the World Alliance on Nutrition and Human Rights and the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action
   * Todd Miller. PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology, University of Miami School of Medicine, Florida
   * Dr. Henry Bauer. PhD, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies and Dean Emeritus of Arts & Sciences at Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University; Former Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration; Author, "The Origins, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory", "Fatal Attractions: The Troubles with Science", "Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method", "Science or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena, and other heterodoxies" and other books
   * Andrew Maniotis. PhD, Program Director, Cell and Developmental Biology of Cancer, Departments of Pathology, Anatomy and Cell Biology, and Bioengineering, University of Illinois at Chicago
   * Andrea G. Drusini. MD, PhD. Medical Anthropologist, Professor of Anthropology, Department of Medico-Diagnostic Sciences and Special Therapies, University of Padova, Italy
   * Joan Shenton. MA, Meditel Productions, England. Medical journalist and producer of over 100 TV documentaries which won her company seven international awards as well as the British Royal Television Society Award and the British Medical Association Award
   * Dr. Kevin Corbett. PhD (on sociological impact of antibody, T cell and viral load/PCR tests), Independent Research Consultant, London, UK.
   * Dr. Mae-Wan Ho. PhD, Geneticist and Biophysicist, Open University, London, UK. Director, Institute of Science in Society; Author and activist. Awarded the Chan Kai Ming Prize for Biological Sciences (HK) 1964; Fellow of the National Genetics Foundation (USA) 1971-1974; Vida Sana Award (Spain) 1998
   * Dr. Gerardo Sanchez. PhD, Nutritionist, Miami, Florida; Author, "VIH/SIDA, Una Gran Mentira" (HIV/AIDS, a Great Lie); President, USAS, Union por Soluciones Alternativas para el SIDA (Organization for Alternative Solutions for AIDS) and Director of www.sidainformatica.org
   * Halton Arp. BS Harvard University, PhD, California Institute of Technology. Astrophysicist, Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics, Munich, Germany; awarded the Helen B. Warner Prize of the American Astronomical Society, the Newcomb Cleveland Award of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award; President of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 1980 to 1983. Author of "The Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies," "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies" and "Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science"
   * Abdulalim A. Shabazz. MSc, M.I.T., PhD, Cornell Univ.; Distinguished Prof. of Mathematics, Lincoln University, Pennsylvania. Former chair, Mathematics Dept., Atlanta Univ.; American Assn. for the Advancement of Science "Mentor Award" (1992); National Assn. Of Mathematicians Distinguished Service Award; 1995 recipient of the QEM/MSE "Giants in Science" Award
   * Robert O. Young. DSc, PhD. Researcher into the impact of foods and liquids on the delicate pH balance of blood plasma and cells. Author of "The pH Miracle: Balance Your Diet, Reclaim Your Health", and "Sick and Tired? Reclaim Your Inner Terrain".
   * Lodewyk Kock. PhD, Professor of Biotechnology, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. Awarded Joint Runner-Up Prize in Research and Innovation from SA's National Science and Technology Forum (2002)
   * Stoffer Loman. PhD, Pharmaceutical Chemist, Utrecht, Netherlands
   * Yang-chu Higgins. Medical Anthropologist, Washington, DC. Winner of the Fogarty Award for Biomedical Research from the National Institutes of Health (1995)
   * Ricardo Sánchez. PhD, Biochemistry, Mexicali, Mexico
   * Mary Sevigny. PhD, Molecular Biology, University of California, Berkeley. Cancer researcher, University of California, San Francisco. Lecturer in Biology, Napa Valley College (2004-5). Adjunct professor in Microbiology, Dominican University (2006-). Member, American Societies for Biochemmistry and Molecular Biology and Cell Biology.
   * Rochus Börner. PhD, Mathematics, Arizona State University. Science writer
   * George Davidson. MB ChB, PhD, Biophysicist, Biochemist, Physician. Bronte Stuart Prize-winner UCT, Senior Research Scientist, biotech pharmaceutical R&D, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
   * Vernon Coleman. MD, D.Sc., Hon. Professor of Holistic Medical Sciences at the Open International University, Sri Lanka. Author of the bestsellers "Bodypower", "Mrs. Caldicot's Cabbage War", "How To Stop Your Doctor Killing You" and over 90 other books that have been translated into 23 languages. Author of over 5,000 articles in leading British publications. Former editor, British Clinical Journal. Awarded the Yellow Emperor's Certificate of Excellence as Physician of the Millenium by the Medical Alternativa Institute (2000)
   * Ingrid Fernando. DVM, PhD in Cell/Molecular Biology, Bethesda, Maryland
   * David Lueker. PhD. Full Professor Emeritus of Immunology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA
   * Sir David Smith. MA, DPhil, FRS, FRSE. Biologist. Fellow of the Royal Society. Founder Member of the International Society of Endocytobiology. Principle of Edinburgh University 1989 - 1994. Head of the largest graduate college (Wolfson) Oxford University 1994 - 2000. Currently government adviser on environmental concerns.
   * Phyllis Pease. DSc, PhD, Former Senior Lecturer in Medical Microbiology, University of Birmingham, UK. Continued work at University of Toulouse, France. Author 'AIDS, Cancer and Arthritis: A New Perspective' (2005) and 'L-Forms, Episomes and Autoimmune Disease' (1965)
   * Lynn Margulis. PhD, Biologist, Distinguished Professor of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Originated the Endosymbiotic Theory for the origin of eukaryotic cells in 1966, which was ridiculed for years by the scientific establishment until proven in the 1980s. Recipient of the National Medal of Science (1999). Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983. Author of over 130 scientific works and the books, "Origin of Eukaryotic Cells", "Early Life", "Symbiosis as a Source of Evolutionary Innovation: Speciation and Morphogenesis", "Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution", "The Ice Chronicles: The Quest to Understand Global Climate Change" and many others. The Library of Congress started to permanently archive all of her papers in 1998.
   * James MacAllister. Medical Documentary Film Maker. Winner of many awards including First Prize in the Health Science Communications Association Awards, 1989, Continuing Education for Physicians category for "Surgical Implantation Dermaport Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter"; New England Chapter American Medical Writers Association, 1991, Audiovisual Award of Excellence for "Recent Advances in Cranial Perforation"; 1992 Video Publishing Award of Excellence for "Minimizing Post Dural Puncture Headaches"; 1993 Video Publishing Award of Excellence for "Institute for the Study of Cardiovascular and Muscle Diseases"; 1996 William Solimene Award for Audiovisual Media for "Living Well with Diabetes Type I" and many others.
   * John Stenström. PhD. Department of Microbiology. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Uppsala. Sweden
   * Gordon Burns. PhD. Professor of Cancer Research, Previous recipient of federal AIDS funding, Newcastle, Australia.
   * Joel Kauffman. PhD in Organic Chemistry, MIT. Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia. A specialist in exploratory drug development, he obtained grants and contracts from the US National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy, the Office of Naval Research, Army Research Office and various companies. Author of 80 papers on chemical and medical topics, and holder of 11 patents, including 2 on anti-tuberculosis drugs, Dr. Kauffman now works to expose fraud in medicine. Author, "Malignant Medical Myths: Why Medical Treatment Causes 200,000 Deaths in the USA Each Year".
   * Dorion Sagan. Science writer for The New York Times, Bioscience, The Times Higher Education Supplement, Wired, Natural History, Coevolution Quarterly, The Smithsonian, The Sciences, The Science Teacher, Whole Earth, Omni, The Environmentalist, The Ecologist and The New York Times Book Review. Author or co-author of 16 books translated into 11 languages, including "Up From Dragons: The Evolution of Human Intelligence", "Acquiring Genomes", "Microcosmos", "Origins Of Sex", "Into the Cool: Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life", and "What is Life?"
   * Terry Michael. Executive Director, Washington Center for Politics & Journalism, and former Press Secretary, Democratic National Committee. Recipient of the "Distinguished Service Award" in 2001 from the Washington, DC, chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists and the "Presidential Award" in 2002 from the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. He has served as a guest lecturer on media and politics, in the US and abroad, for the US Department of State and is a former adjunct lecturer at George Washington University.
   * Vincent Graziano. PhD, Mathematics. SUNY at Stony Brook.
   * Andrew Paul Gutierrez. PhD. Professor of Ecosystem Science, University of California at Berkeley. Co-author of a report to the Governor of California on climate change. Editor of "Ecological Entomology" (2nd ed. 1999). Co-author of "Biological and Economic Foundations of Renewable Resource Exploitation" (1998), "Evaluating biological control of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) in California" (2005), "Why do some Bt-cotton farmers in China continue to use high levels of pesticides?" (2005), "Physiologically based model of Bt cotton-pest interactions: I. Pink bollworm: resistance, refuges and risk" (2006) and "Eco-social analysis of an East African agropastoral system: management of tsetse and bovine trypanosomiasis" (in press).
   * Dr. Philip C. Packard. PhD Economics (1962) and Master of Public Health, School of Public Health (1986), UC Berkeley. Professor of Economics, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, Holland, 1965-9. Manager and Editor of Journal "Development and Change", 1969-71 and Corresponding Editor, 1971-81. Ford Foundation Advisor to Government of Tanzania, 1970-72. Senior Economist, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, 1972-84. University Fellow in Nutrition, Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, 1981-2. Advisor on Health and Education, African Development Bank, Abidjan, Ivory Coast, 1987-9. Fulbright Economics Professor, University of Botswana, 1989-90. Fulbright Economics Professor, University of Durban-Westville, Durban, South Africa 1995. Lecturer, Saint Mary's College of California 1990-2006. Lecturer, University of California Extension, Berkeley 2003-Present.
   * Dr. A. Makata. Dipl (Clinical Medicine), MD (USSR), Certificate in Tropical Pathology (Japan), PhD in Pathology (Japan), DFM in Pathology (Australia). Consultant Forensic and Histopathologist, Head of Forensic Unit. Ministry of Health. Tanzania.
   * Mohsen Fathi Najafi. PhD Biotechnology. Vaccine Researcher. Iran.
   * William F. Shughart II. PhD. Barnard Distinguished Professor of Economics, and holder of the Robert M. Hearin Chair of Business Administration at the University of Mississippi. Formerly, economist at the Federal Trade Commission. Associate editor, "Southern Economic Journal"; Book review editor, "Public Choice" and "Managerial and Decision Economics" journals. Author of "Taxing Choice: The Predatory Politics of Fiscal Discrimination"; "The Elgar Companion to Public Choice: The Organization of Industry"; "Antitrust Policy and Interest-Group Politics". Co-author, "Modern Managerial Economics"; "The Causes and Consequences of Antitrust"; and "The Economics of Budget Deficits".
   * Pablo Idahosa. PhD. Director, African Studies, York University. Toronto, Canada.

http://www.gnhealth.com/dissidents_list.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaseyBrady (talk • contribs) 09:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Separate pages for HIV (the virus) and HIV Infection

Could I suggest having this article split into HIV, for information pertaining to the virus itself. And HIV Infection, pertaining to the human affliction. IvanShim (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the distinction as it is drawn now is HIV & AIDS. Is this not adequate? JoeSmack ^Talk 19:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Is a similar distinction made between, say, measles the virus and measles the disease? Or chicken pox the virus and chicken pox the disease? How would it be an improvement, to separate the disease from the agent that causes it? I'm with JoeSmack on this one: we already have a similar distinction, with HIV being about the virus and the disease it causes, and AIDS covering the history and distinct issues of late-stage HIV disease. I would think that is enough. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads-up – the issue of whether pathogens and the diseases they cause merit separate articles has been discusses before, for example at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)/Archive_3#Virus_articles. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In response to TechBear, note that "measles" is the name of a manifest disease as well as its causative agent. HIV is not the name of a disease. There is already plenty of confusion or conflation in this article, as noted in some of the points I made in the section preceding this one. It would be useful to have a concise article that focuses on biochemistry and does not "need" to mention orphans and other social consequences of infection. Martindo (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Existence of a human immunodeficiency virus not yet proven.

1. To date there has been no isolation of a "human immunodeficiency virus" commonly known as HIV, according to the scientifically approved standards for retroviral isolation which require: a) Purification in sucrose density gradient and banding at the density of 1.16g/ml b) Morphological identification of the 1.16 banded material using electron microscopy c) Introduction of PURE particles into a virgin culture and, by repeating the above steps, demonstration that identical particles are produced. The existence of the "human immunodeficiency virus" must therefore be called into question. 2. None of the indirect markers (reverse transcriptase, antibodies, "virus proteins") seen in human subjects labeled "hiv positive" and/or as having aids is specific and proves infection with the alleged cause of the conditions labeled aids. 3. Due to lack of "hiv" isolation, and due to the fact that there still does not exist a sound demonstration in medical literature proving that a retrovirus named HIV is the cause of what is named aids, the "hiv-aids hypothesis" must be considered unproved. 4. Epidemiological data does not support the predictions made in 1984 that the conditions labeled aids were caused by a new specific retrovirus, transmissible by sexual intercourse, inevitably fatal and spreading uncontrollably in the general population, culminating in a global pandemic. Independent epidemiological research together with the passage of time has since shown that this hypothesis and the ensuing predictions are wrong.

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/continuum/v5n4.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaseyBrady (talk • contribs) 09:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know that you believe the material you copied from an AIDS denialist disinformation site. But since it's disinformation, it's not going to influence this article; and since a talk page is a place to discuss its associated article, the disinformation doesn't really belong here. - Nunh-huh 09:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it is true and of course I got i from people who don't believe that HIV=AIDS. You wouldn't exactly get info like that from an HIV=AIDS funded corporation now would you? CaseyBrady (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we know you believe it's true, even though it's the most preposterous kind of balderdash. In any case, it has no business here unless you are proposing a change to the article on its basis. - Nunh-huh 10:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could at least add it to the obviously non-neutral "denialism" section somewhere. Can you prove that this is 'balderdash'? This is a widely accepted hypothesis, though not as wide as the HIV=AIDS=Death hypothesis, or the hypothesis of the human immunodeficiency virus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaseyBrady (talk • contribs) 10:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The disinformation that you've repeated here has been disproven numerous times. The National Institutes of Health has an informative page that cites many reliable sources in refuting the claims you repeat. We also have a page on HIV and AIDS misconceptions that addresses some of these. -- Scray (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Prognosis: It is requested that an edit be made to a semi-protected page.

Please consider changing the following: "In areas where it is widely available, the development of HAART as effective therapy for HIV infection and AIDS reduced the death rate from this disease by 80%, and raised the life expectancy for a newly diagnosed HIV-infected person to about 20 years.[133]"

to this:

"In areas where it is widely available, the development of HAART as effective therapy for HIV infection and AIDS reduced the death rate from this disease by 80%, and raised the life expectancy for a newly diagnosed HIV-infected person to about 20 to 43 years, depending on the study.[133]"

HIV life expectancies have continued to grow, and more and more HIV infected individuals are dying of natural causes. Some experts have said that the current life expectancy is about 10 years earlier than that of HIV negative individuals. I work in the mental health field, and telling a young person that they have only up to 20 years to live after infection can increase risk of psychiatric conditions associated with HIV and possibly increase the risk of suicide.

The source for the "43 years" quote is:

as cited in:

http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/20080724/combo_therapy_boosts_hiv_life_expectancy

• • I have not previously requested an edit to a semi-protected page. If I did not do so in the correct format please let me know. Thank you.

Davect1 (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion - done. The reliable source is PMID 18657708. -- Scray (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes to lead

The lead was recently changed by User:Neuromancer to indicate that the causative role of HIV in AIDS isn't proven (see diff). As the user also noted in their recent edits, the medical consensus on the issue is that HIV does cause AIDS. To my understanding, if medical consensus supports some hypothesis based on verifying experiments and overwhelming amounts of empirical evidence, then that notion is considered a scientific fact. Thus I think adding a caveat about the unproven nature of HIV's causative role in AIDS isn't just an example of undue weight, but is furthermore incorrect. Neuromancer also added to the lead a paragraph citing research from 1982 and 1983, which I consider more appropriate for other sections of the article if it's to be included at all. Based on that rationale, I've reverted Neuromancer's edits for the second time. I'd like to get Neuromancer's thoughts on this, as well as feedback from other editors -- with whom I presume but would like to verify I share a consensus -- so that my recent reversion doesn't seem like a single-editor fiat. Emw (talk) 09:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As Emw says, the notion that HIV causes AIDS is supported by overwhelming amounts of evidence and is not disputed within legitimate scientific literature. It's only "unproven" to the extent that any empirical claim will always remain formally unproven (see Falsifiability); to label it as such in the lead only places undue weight on an extreme minority viewpoint, even when the medical consensus is still acknowledged. The only reason this page needs to even mention that some people dispute the link is because those people are so vocal; this is appropriately covered in the section on AIDS denialism. Putting all those caveats in the lead only places unwarranted doubt in our readers' minds. The other material added by Neuromancer seems to be unnecessary, as there are better sources already cited in the Origin and Discovery sections. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The page on undue weight includes this:

Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order to avoid misleading the reader.

To me, this suggests that the HIV article needs "more extensive description", including possible revision of the lead. I have previously commented in Talk on the irrelevance of social issues such as orphans in the lead of an article about a virus (which is NOT the same as the syndrome, which is a specific medical term distinct from disease).

More extensive description should, IMO, address issues such as the fact that most AIDS victims in Africa were never confirmed as HIV positive by testing. There is presumption (logical and statistically supported, but still presumption) of HIV infection as the cause of their deaths.

This also suggests that the preponderance of media repetition of known information about HIV and AIDS may create the impression that minority views are "tiny" (a subjective term). Thus, we see what is IMO a blatant POV term such as "denialism" instead of skepticism or "alternative explanations" in the section heading that gives lip service to other viewpoints. Martindo (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious from statistically valid sampling that HIV is highly prevalent in people with AIDS in Africa. As you say, this is logically and statistically supported - that's good science. There are endless parallels in other branches of science. I support Emw's reverts of the edits above the lead. -- Scray (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

From what source are you citing that HIV is highly prevalent in people with AIDS in Africa? Can you also cite a percentage of the AIDS population which is not HIV+? These are questions which must be answered. If you can provide the reference, then by all means, cast your educated opinion, but as of now, your argument isn't really an argument. It is a baseless, uneducated opinion. - Neuromancer (talk) 11:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Some reliable sources regarding the prevalence of HIV in people who have AIDS in Africa: PMID 19709731 highlights the alarming pattern of rising HIV incidence and prevalence followed by AIDS mortality, and another PMID 19709736 describing the burden of HIV and other communicable and non-communicable diseases there. Those authors have collected and cited reliable sources. -- Scray (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As do I, for the reasons given above. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons. If discussion turns into a polarized shouting match then there is no possibility of consensus, and the quality of the page will suffer. consensus - Neuromancer (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have high hopes of convincing you of anything, I just want to keep the page balanced and avoid giving denialism undue weight - HIV clearly causes AIDS. Some useful resources, that include primary references if those are what you seek: a WP page on HIV and AIDS misconceptions that specifically addresses some of the denialist claims you're repeating; the AIDS denialism page shows an electron microscopic image of HIV virions; the AIDS connection maintained by the National Institutes of Health to address these concerns, which links to a Resources page that has links to more-detailed explanations. -- Scray (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Overlaps between new and pre-existing sections

The newly introduced section 'HIV Types, Groups and Subtypes' seems mostly redundant with the established section 'Genetic variability'. It also seems out of place within a larger 'History' section, and seems like it would be more appropriate within a section like 'Pathophysiology'. What are others' thoughts on merging any worthwhile material from the new 'HIV Types, Groups and Subtypes' section into the established 'Genetic variability' section? (Also, note the style guidelines in WP:Headings about capitalization and explicitly referring to article subject.) Emw (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you. Though, if you refer to the previous version, there were oblique references to the information in the latest edit, however, they were unclear, and intertwined between HIV and AIDS. However, the information is not redundant, as the 'Genetic variability' section lacks some of the specificity included in the latest edit, as well as 'Genetic variability', not to mention other areas of the article, incorrectly refer to HIV "types" as HIV "species," which the latest edit to 'HIV Types, Groups and Subtypes' under 'History' does not include. I would be more than willing to integrate the HIV Types, Groups and Subtypes with Genetic variability to make the overall article more clear and concise, however, I would also recommend updating the incorrect references to 'species' throughout. Neuromancer (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

According to their respective entries on NCBI, HIV-1 and HIV-2 are classified as species, not types. HIV-1 and HIV-2 also also referred to as separate species by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, which can be verified by entering 'lentivirus' into the search box and expanding the returned hits at the ICTV database. Emw (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've worked to integrate and merge the large amount of material added by this edit. This consisted of removing most of the new 'HIV Types, Groups and Subtypes' section, which I found overwhelmingly redundant with the older 'Genetic variability' section (along with elements from other established sections) and integrating the remaining material into existing sections. The only non-redundant and notable information I could find in that section was on the new strain HIV-1 group P, and it was around the reference Neuromancer provided that I recalibrated the '2009 strain' section to have a more scientific tone.

I also liked the new information Neuromancer added to the 'HIV Discovery' section. However, since it didn't make much sense to me to have a separate section named 'Controversy over Discovery', I merged the two. I refined the prose and organization of each section, and roughly doubled the scientific meat of the 'HIV Discovery' section that Neuromancer had started. Because I felt the discussion of the Gallo/Montagnier priority controversy had gotten a bit distracting from the subject of the article, I cut the material from the 2/3 of the section it had comprised in the previous version of the 'Controversy over Discovery' to 1/3 of the new 'Discovery' section that resulted from the merge. Emw (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I like what you've done with it. Thank you for being so diligent. I still think the lead needs to be reworked, but we can work on that later. Neuromancer (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Response from Neuromancer edits made to lead

Let me start by saying that I am NOT implying that HIV does not cause AIDS, nor am I implying the opposite. I merely feel that all relevant data should be shared in one place so that people do not have to search for it themselves.

Proven implies empirical evidence, not a consensus. The proper information and citations were made for the body that issued the consensus. Furthermore, if you talk to any Doctor, Researcher, or Scientist, I think you will get a general consensus that there is no fact in science, only consensus. That being said, it is a FACT that there is no empirical evidence that HIV causes AIDS, even if it is a generally accepted theory. I don't see how stating factual information is misleading. In fact, I think that censoring the information is detrimental to the point of Wikipedia. I am not citing HIV/AIDS denialism (which incidentally is not a real word), information. I have included much lacking, very relevant, on topic, scientifically referenced, unbiased information.

I can not think of a better source than the ORIGINAL papers being cited, as I did. Nowhere in this Wiki are there references to the original publications claiming to have isolated HIV. In fact, there are no references to HIV isolation at all, and I felt it important to include this information. I cited the CDC report, as well as the Gallo and Montegnier publications. If you are going to look at something, then look at it all, and the basis for this article are those three documents, and they are NOWHERE to be found in this article prior to my edits. It actually took a great deal of time to locate them for inclusion.

I also agree that there should be two separate pages: One for HIV, and another for AIDS, as while they may be intrinsically linked in the cause and effect consensus, they are NOT the same thing. There are people who test HIV+ who have NEVER developed AIDS and these case start in the 80's. There should also be a separate article for treatments, a separate article for dissident information. It is not the place of the Wiki to hide notable information, however much one may personally disagree with it.

Before you make biased and uneducated statements regarding a degree of scientific and linguistic comprehension that are being debated by Nobel Laureates, scientists, doctors and researches the globe over, perhaps you should read a REFERENCE or two supporting your statements. The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.[1] A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.

To date, there is NOT ONE SINGLE study, paper, reproducible experiment, photograph, video or lab result that supports HIV being the cause if AIDS. That being said, many people, but not all, with AIDS test positive for HIV. There are 10% (Verifiable by the CDC) of all AIDS cases where the individuals do NOT test positive, by means of any test, for HIV. There are another 10% of the HIV+ population that have never developed AIDS despite not taking ARVs.

So I pose this alternative to my edits... CITE YOUR REFERENCES, in unbiased language, supporting anything contrary to what I wrote. I want to see citations to EMPIRICAL evidence references that contradict my edits to the lead. If you can do this, then I will happily shut my mouth.

Neuromancer 10:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty of evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Here's a link to useful resources on this topic. -- Scray (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Scray was quicker than me – I was going to suggest http://www.avert.org/evidence.htm, which is written in an accessible manner and has dozens of links to primary sources – copious amounts of empirical evidence. The page also describes how the first two of Koch's postulates have been fulfilled beyond all doubt and how the evidence for the last two is very strong. Your claim that "there is no empirical evidence that HIV causes AIDS" is simply untrue. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The WP:RS are unanimous: HIV causes AIDS. Since RS, not our personal opinions or interpretations of scientific evidence, guide article writing, an encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia is not forum to discuss the science of HIV/AIDS. Neuromancer's use of the talk page for agenda soapboxing is inappropriate per WP:TALK. I will remove further abuse as allowed by the talk guideline. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The WP:RS are NOT unanimous. There are Reliable Sources the world over who dissent on this topic, therefore, it is NOT unanimous. I believe that your your interpretation of RS is a matter of personal opinion. You cannot say that EVERY RS in the world is unanimous on the topic that HIV is 100% the cause of AIDS. Additionally, THIS IS NOT my soap box. My edits, which CITED undisputed scientific works from the CDC, the two men accredited with discovering HIV, and the body that reached the consensus, was unbiased, well written, and informative. My edits were reverted, and I was asked for my thoughts as to why they should be included. This is NOT abuse, but rather discussion regarding why or why not an edit should or should not be included. I cited information, in an unbiased manner, and I feel that it should be included. Neuromancer (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to read WP:FRINGE. Basically, the existence of reliable sources does not necessarily mean that the assertions themselves are reliable. You may also find the article AIDS denialism of some informational value. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically Neuromancer, pour through the archives of this talk page to see how this is flogging a dead horse. Tell me, what makes your argument different from the last dozen specious/similar ones that have been repeating over the years? The past arguments have been refuted as spurious time and time again. JoeSmack ^Talk 21:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The quasi-religious defense of a monolithic consensus is the main problem that is undermining the value of this page. Alternative viewpoints are labeled "fringe" (despite CaseyBrady listing over 80 researchers as dissidents on Sept 30 in the Denialism section of this Talk page). Reverts are wholesale, as if the current version of the text is pristine, despite its obvious syntactical errors, run-on sentences, and redundancy.

As I said recently, the lead should focus on scientific facts, with minimal mention of social consequences. The social, economic, etc. consequences are covered on the AIDS page. Highlighting orphans in the lead here (rather than only in the main body of text on HIV) is itself an example of undue weight, because it over-dramatizes the social aspect of an article about a virus. An alarm bell is good, but making it louder doesn't always make it more effective.

Undue weight on AIDS consequences in the HIV article leads to an undercurrent of HIV=AIDS, conflating the virus with the syndrome. Many people have fought hard to dispel the panicky belief that if you are HIV positive, you are sure to die of AIDS, because it is an obvious stigma that leads to shunning and impedes treatment.

Further, the polarization of viewpoint into belief/denial sounds like a religious crusade that ignores nuances (e.g., Bob Lederer's article, which deserves mention here as well as on the AIDS Denialism page). The lack of cure might well be due in part to the denial of cofactors, which people like Root-Bernstein are researching. Given the centuries-old tradition of neutrality in science, one doesn't have to be a skeptic to investigate cofactors in one's research.

In sum, this page is problematic because its carefully constructed scientific information is not carefully complemented with NPOV info on the consequences of HIV. We still see emotionalism (orphans in the lead) as well as polarization (if you don't agree with everything written above, then you are a DENIALIST -- a word absent from most dictionaries, BTW). Consequently, people are continually trying to modify the lead or other aspects of this page, to the dismay of those who feel the page is already perfect.

Frankly, I'm astonished that this page so easily retained its "good" status in the review it received a couple of months ago. Any future review should include careful combing of the Talk page, ideally by multiple reviewers. Martindo (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about wholesale reverting (if there are obvious syntactical errors/grammar/redundancy problems, please post them up and we can discuss them). Given that this topic is important/frequently read, changing the lead significantly is of course going to be reverted quickly. Reverting usually happens when people don't bring the issue to the talk page first to form a consensus.

I don't think anyone would claim that this article is perfect, so I wouldn't fret about that. JoeSmack ^Talk 00:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

See the wholesale revert of my recent edit to Denialism section made by Nunh-huh a mere 80 minutes later. The final sentence of that section is a run-on, includes the bizarrely contorted phrase "acceptance of denialism", and the redundant "no validity" after "reject".

And see the explanation for the reversion of your recent edit, which did not merely address perceived grammar issues, but significantly misrepresented facts. - Nunh-huh 00:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have several times voiced my objections to the lead, and it appears that the one I made about qualifying projections as "estimated" has been taken to heart and integrated. I have no desire to play edit war about the lead. I agree it is important, but I will trust others to refine it.

However, I would like to float a compromise addition to the Denialism section, which carefully contrasts skepticism (Root-Bernstein) and denialism (Duesberg), drawing on Lederer's nuanced article that explores diverse viewpoints and explains how denialism has lost steam in light of newer research and treatments. Lederer's 2006 article is cited on the AIDS Denialism page.

When I say "float", I mean a heart-felt request that all editors who are so dedicated to keeping this page clear will allow 24 hours for everyone to view my changes before reverting. Can we all agree to breathe deep and keep calm that long? That might attract some new voices to the discussion, people who might never see my changes if they are reverted in less than two hours. Martindo (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to "float" a change that you know will be controversial, and want to do it in a place where it will not be reverted, the talk page is the place for it. That's the very purpose of a talk page. - Nunh-huh 00:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Martindo (and Neuromancer) -- if you'd like wider feedback, then consider opening an RfC on this point of debate. Also consider leaving a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Viruses and/or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology. Emw (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Gee, I thought the general principle of WP was to Be Bold. I think we all recognize that a much wider segment of users will read the page itself than the Talk or Project pages. I simply propose adding 200 words that reflect Lederer's article, which is cited at length on the Denialism page, so how controversial can it be?Martindo (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Lederer's article (if that's the one you mean) was published in POZ magazine, a very interesting read but not a reliable source. The fact that some people with HIV are slow to develop AIDS, and some people with immunodeficiency don't have HIV infection, does not disprove the fact that HIV causes AIDS. In my experience, HIV/AIDS care providers are very sensitive to dissident beliefs, and are constructive in helping people explore their doubts. In an encyclopedia article, facts rule. -- Scray (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Martindo, the talk page is the precise place to float a controversial change, not the article itself. Put it up and we'll go over it. Perhaps the RfC/message to WikiProjects after posting your proposed change here will garner the wider scrutiny you seek. JoeSmack ^Talk 01:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

A sandbox is another good option for complex/large edits. Provide a link to it and I'm sure this crowd will weigh in. -- Scray (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Be Bold. But note that the second section of those guidelines are but please be careful. Also, you do not seem to be aware of the extension of the BB policy, the Bold, Revert Discuss Cycle. There are also policies regarding consensus which you may with to review. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This article looks to me, a layman who has indirectly encountered research as a freelance editor, like a very detailed biological article that explains everything one would want to know about a virus. It necessarily addresses consequences of infection, and it necessarily addresses secondary effects (e.g., loss of income, loss of parents), though I feel the latter should not be part of the lead.

HIV is mostly focused on the biology and nitty-gritty therein, AIDS has a broader focus like Aids#Society_and_culture. Have you checked over the AIDS article? JoeSmack ^Talk 07:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Such comparison was the basis for my earlier criticism (graciously heeded) to turn the lead's presumptively precise predictions into estimates of future cases -- "estimate" or the equivalent was already carefully used on the AIDS page.

So, if we all agree that the focus is biology, why does the section on "denialism" refer to the beliefs of non-biologists? Martindo (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

We need a new section soon, this is getting lengthy. Let's toss those non-biologists then! JoeSmack ^Talk 16:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

So, when describing a controversy that has been given the label "denialism" (a contortion of the English language), why is it a "misrepresentation" or "distortion" of a *scientific* WP article to focus on *scientists* in that section? Everyone knows that all sorts of non-scientists have differing views about HIV, including millions of people who totally accept the "single direct cause" paradigm that is mainstream. The issue at hand, if one is going to give any lip service to dissent, is the fact that some *scientists* dissent. The separate page on AIDS Denialism covers the topic in greater detail, including the views of non-scientist activists (some of whom are mentioned in the Lederer article, along with scientists and physicians).

Not exactly what sure what you mean by some of this without a dif to point at or something. However, terms like denialism, misrepresentation and distortion are how main view scientists have received theories differing from HIV causing AIDS. That's part of describing the standing scientific consensus. It would be obfuscating consensus to replace them with other words because thats not what is used. JoeSmack ^Talk 07:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree it would be "obfuscating" to turn the heading of AIDS Denialism into something like "Alternative Theories" but I also think it is obfuscating to lump all skeptical scientists together when they clearly do not share the same beliefs about HIV's role. Martindo (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh thank goodness! That's been tried before and it is a really tiring discussion. As per lumping, I think it's just not important to rattle off a list. In AIDS denialism is the place to go over individuals. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Further, I find it curious that I am being urged by several people (unquestionably dedicated, but perhaps a bit narrow-minded) to "use the Talk page" when those same people have repeatedly avoided addressing some of the issues I have raised here on Talk about the usability of this article. The article should be combed over to remove conflation of HIV and AIDS; polarization of accept/deny should be avoided (as I proposed yesterday); the lead (already very good) could be improved so that it will lead countless concerned people further into the article. Think of who is reading/using this article and rewrite where necessary. Please stop panicking that more people will die if a sentence remains in the article for more than two hours. It really doesn't serve the public to have the most touchy person become the ultimate arbiter of content. Martindo (talk) 03:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you've addressed previously that we've avoided exactly. Maybe something like 'I would like to add these paragraphs, they are as follows...' or 'this sentence needs to be turned into this...' or 'this paragraph needs to be removed...'. Just saying that HIV and AIDS share too much info isn't specific, especially as both topics share so much ground and providing similar context shouldn't be surprising. I don't see polarization, just firmness. No one is panicking. Also, there's no reason not to use the talk page first. Also also, I don't think the most touchy person becomes the arbiter of content. JoeSmack ^Talk 07:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's a useful criticism, thank you, JoeSmack. Unfortunately, I have little to offer on this technical topic other than earlier comments on the lead and my current draft of a rewrite for the Denialism section (still visible after three hours).

I do recommend that those who are far more technically knowledgeable than I am should take a careful look at where and how HIV and AIDS can be made distinct in the text in order to avoid unnecessary conflation. I am not qualified to take a scalpel to most of those examples.

Finally, if the issue really boils down to focusing more on the science (which I generally support), perhaps yet another page could be created specifically about "HIV and AIDS Linkage" or some similar title. In such case, my opinion is that the Denialism section could be excised entirely and moved to the new page instead of being an awkward part of the HIV page. The new page could also address social (young adults, thus orphans) and political (locations other than South Africa) issues in more detail. Martindo (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no prob! :) I see you just went ahead and edited. Again, I think you (and others) would feel less frustrated by using the talk page first. I'm going to create a new section below to talk about your revisions and why I'm revising them. Anyways, I think people who do feel knowledgeable editing this article in depth do not see the same needless overlap between HIV and AIDS articles (pipe up if I'm wrong). An HIV/AIDS Linkage article would be redundant because it is described here clearly. Deleting or moving the denialism section off article has been tried a few times, someone always starts yelling a couple months down the road. Also, have you seen AIDS_orphans and HIV/AIDS_in_Africa? We already have those articles! JoeSmack ^Talk 16:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violations by Neuromancer

I note that User:Neuromancer copied the section "HIV discovery" from the unreliable "virusmyth" website, while the "HIV Types, Groups and Subtypes" subsection was copied word-for-word from the site [5]. This is unacceptable. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the "VirusMyth" website was not copied. While there may be information that can be found on VirusMyth that you, I, and others disagree with, there is also a wealth of scientific information and references there. Some of that information is thought by many to have been misinterpreted. However, I did not copy it. As for your insinuation that a copyright violation occurred, I cannot see how referencing the work of others is a copyright. Since much of what I included has now been reworded and moved to various sections of the article, it is a moot point. However, when a reference is included, is isn't a copyright violation, it called a REFERENCE. Neuromancer (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear that you should review WP:Copyright violation and WP:Plagiarism. The latter states, "If the external work is under standard copyright, then duplicating its text with little, or no, alteration into a Wikipedia article is usually a copyright violation, unless duplication is limited and clearly indicated in the article by quotation marks, or some other acceptable method (such as block quotations)". Note the requirement to copy only "limited" text, AND to set it off clearly with quotation marks. -- Scray (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Neuromancer copied nine paragraphs/425 words verbatim from this copyrighted website without giving any reference to the source (and copying the citations from avert, too). The only change made was to the header: from Avert's "Introduction to HIV types, groups and subtypes" to "HIV Types, Groups and Subtypes". The user also copied a sentence and citations from VirusMyth without referencing VirusMyth. This is called plagiarism, and feigning ignorance or claiming to have given a source later is, well, let's just say that this editor's behaviour will be scrutinised carefully from now on out.

As for VirusMyth, any "wealth of scientific information" should be found in reliable sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. -- Scray (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see how you can debate the references to original material on Virus Myth. You obviously haven't looked at them, because if you had, you wouldn't be making the statements you have. I am sure that for the simple fact that you don't like what I have to say is plenty of reason to scrutinize me. Do you really need an excuse? Neuromancer (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, assume good faith and be civil. We can have disagreements and still be respectful. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

New Documentary Film - House of Numbers

I think this is notable mention, particularly this excerpt Nobel Laureate Montagnier: HIV Can Be Cleared Naturally - House of Numbers. Take a look and tell us what you think. Where should information such as this be included in the article? Neuromancer (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

A propaganda film is, alas, insufficiently rigorous to serve as a source for serious-minded people, and certainly doesn't rank as a reliable source here. When Montagnier (who unfortunately seems to be in the process of going off the deep end) publishes actual data in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, we should begin to consider "where" such information belongs. - Nunh-huh 00:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether he's going off the deep end or not in our opinion is not important, what's important is a good article that fully and accurately covers and the topic. Articles such as these often suffer from the conflict between, broadly, science and the humanities. Some feel that only conclusions accepted in peer reviewed journals deserve a mention, others realise there's a much bigger picture. Montagnier is indisputably a reliable source himself, as one who is "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Whether his conclusions are correct or not, or shared by anyone else, needs to be contextualised, but claims such as these by Montagnier need to appear in the article.

Simply put, the claim, by Montaignier, is that it is possible to get rid of the infection with a good immune system, and this, made by someone of the stature of Montaignier, deserves a mention, perhaps in the treatment section. It can be contextualised, countered by others, etc, but it must be mentioned. Greenman (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it can be mentioned. In his article, where his opinions belong. Certainly not here. - Nunh-huh 01:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, but Montaignier's "opinions" are what created this article in the first place. BLP violation redacted. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC) To say that his opinion is irrelevant and does not merit inclusion in this article, is unethical and quite frankly, retarded. I hope you are not suggesting that Luc Montaignier's opinion on HIV is irrelevant to this article.

Furthermore, citing "quackometer.net" is not exactly a noteworthy reference in and of itself. That is the opinion of someone who has no standing at all. Neuromancer (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Montaignier's "opinions" didn't "create this article". It's data that matters in science, not opinions, and not argument from authority. - Nunh-huh 03:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Montaignier's opinions later became a theory, which then became a consensus, which some call fact. So yes, his opinions, which were based on his research, are the basis in history for this article. Neuromancer (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not at all what science is. His research led to data, which was evaluated and confirmed by other researchers. His opinions alone produced nothing. - Nunh-huh 06:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

His opinions guided his research, which led to a theory, which led others to research it further. However, there has NEVER been an experiment designed which can take infected host blood, and use it to infect another hosts blood in a laboratory. Therefore, to say that the research was confirmed, is rather incorrect. Yes, HIV can be made by the "bucketful". However, the conditions in which it is made is rather disturbing. The host blood is subjected to oxidising chemicals, and plant extracts, which have never been shown to exist in vivo. These cell lines are then co cultured with human cells. When all is said and done, HIV is not actually obtained. Reverse transcriptase activity is shown to occur, and so it is assumed that the DNA that is found must be viral.

I challenge you to find an ACTUAL published work which claims to have infected cultured cells directly from an infected hosts cells. I would love to see it. Further, I would challenge you to find a published paper that explains the EXACT process by which HIV DNA is extracted, and if it differs in any distinguishable manner from what I have written, then by all means, shut me up with it. Neuromancer (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Quoting Nunh-huh, It's data that matters in science, not opinions, and not argument from authority.. That is correct, but this is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal, which is why perhaps you're missing the point. The article needs to reflect Montaignier's point of view, as it's highly noteworthy, and is being widely used for various purposes related to HIV. Remember, the point is to write a neutral, informative encyclopaedic article, covering not just scientific consensus but broader social issues too, which at times is a little trickier to get right. Greenman (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent). Everyone calm down here. Keep focus on the article and not debates. Just because Montaignier has published reliable sources in the past, does not mean everything he publishes now is reliable. Besides the YouTube link above not working, I'm guessing there is no YouTube peer review. In the article on HIV, we cannot use unreliable sources. Nothing will be included because of 'big picture' justifications, nothing will be included because it 'deserves mention', that's not how Wikipedia works - policies on WP:NPOV and WP:RS guide content. Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. This is definitely where I see a lot of this contention steering. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I just fixed the link Neuromancer included in the first post of this section. Emw (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Saw it. Claiming you can withstand chronic HIV infection by having a strong immune system flies in the face of most of the 100+ references in this article. It's a minute long, and there is a mistake in the infobox on the YouTube page (Montagnier is a 2008 nobel laureate not a 2009). How is this reliable Neuromancer? JoeSmack ^Talk 19:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, Montaigner does not claim to have any data to support his claim that chronic HIV infection could be cleared by a strong immune system; he just says, "I would think so". Nothing there worthy of including in an encyclopedia. -- Scray (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. This article is about a virus, HIV, not about opinions. Just like this talk page is about improving the article, not about arguing about whether the virus exists, has been isolated, causes AIDS or has been imaged by EM. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because Montaignier has published reliable sources in the past, does not mean everything he publishes now is reliable. I think you misunderstand what a reliable source is. It is not a correct source, it is a source that Wikipedia can rely on for the content of an article. I quoted the relevant section above, perhaps you missed it in all the shouting. Here it is again. produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, or, from the introduction, their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Montaignier is undoubtedly a reliable source, to claim he isn't is ridiculous in the extreme. Again, please understand that reliable does not mean correct :) Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. No, it doesn't, what does this have to do with anything? Context is important, and clearly this is a minority and extreme view. Nothing there worthy of including in an encyclopedia. I think you fail to understand what an encyclopedia is, it's not, as mentioned above, a medical journal. If Barack Obama says in all seriousness "I think dropping a nuclear bomb on Mexico will solve the drug problem" that's not factual, that's not correct, it hasn't been peer-reviewed, it's lunacy in the extreme, but it's certainly worthy of a mention in an encyclopedia! It's a minute long, and there is a mistake in the infobox on the YouTube page (Montagnier is a 2008 nobel laureate not a 2009). How is this reliable There are numerous reliable sources that of critical of Montaignier's statement, including the quackometer link above. A typo in the credits of a Youtube video miss the point entirely. Greenman (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not saying 'correct source' or anything (I didn't), I know WP:V/WP:RS. I said we don't "give equal validity" to minority views because, like I said, that's where I see a lot of this contention steering, sorry if that was a mistake. I know an encyclopedia is not a medical journal, but medical articles do require vigor when carefully assessing references. You seem to be going with that Montaignier is an authority (perhaps much less so now than back then). However, claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in medicine, require high-quality reliable sources. If there are numerous statements from the field that call this unreliable, then it should not be included. JoeSmack ^Talk 22:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that guidelines for this article fall within a more rigorous subset of the WP:RS standard -- WP:MEDRS. Given that working out a resolution to this dispute among the involved editors seems unlikely in the near term, I suggest asking about the reliability of this source at WP:RS/N. Emw (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

New, freely licensed SEM images and videos

There are six images and ten videos available from a September 25, 2009 article from PLoS Pathogens: Ion-Abrasion Scanning Electron Microscopy Reveals Surface-Connected Tubular Conduits in HIV-Infected Macrophages. All the media are freely licensed and thus available for use on Wikipedia. It would be particularly nice if one or more of the videos there, currently formatted in .wmv, could be converted to use .ogg and added to this article. Emw (talk) 07:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be kick ass, I'm totally for it. Which would you include and where? JoeSmack ^Talk 17:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ideally all of the images and videos would be uploaded to Commons. I think Video S7 of the Bennett paper would be best to include, perhaps along with Figure 4. Those media show structured tubules in macrophage cells that connect internal virion-containing compartments within the cytoplasm to the cell membrane. According to the authors, this "may imply a mechanism behind the efficient, directed transmission of HIV-1 from macrophages to uninfected cells." Emw (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

New denialism section

Ok, new edits this morning. I'm removing this, because as previously discussed POZ is not a reliable source:

"The dissidents assert that epidemiological cofactors are required, along with HIV, in order for a person to contract AIDS. The denialists claim that HIV has no causative influence at all.[161] The long gap between the discovery of HIV in the early 1980s and conclusive proof of its causative status in the 1990s is one reason that skepticism arose. Dr. Sonnabend, for example, changed from a denialist to a dissident in the late 1990s. In addition, the fact that some HIV-positive people did not get AIDS after many years, as well as the fact that a cure or prevention has still not been discovered, supported the hypothesis that other conditions (cofactors) besides HIV infection might be necessary; that is, AIDS may result from a combination of causes.[161]"

Also, I'm changing the wording back about South Africa's AIDS denialism; phrasing it as HIV-AIDS link makes it sound like the link is shakey or something. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There are those who believe it is shaky... Neuromancer (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as there are those who believe the world is supported on the backs of four tortoises. - Nunh-huh 00:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As there are those who believe the earth was created in seven days, and that God sent his only begotten son to earth to die for our sins. You really have a cynical sense about you. I was wondering what your background and credentials are? By chance do you have a degree? Maybe a degree in Metaphysics? Neuromancer (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I don't want to edit the article on Earth to make either of those theories seem more tenable, while you want to do that for denialism here. - Nunh-huh 05:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Taken from Earth "Creation myths in many religions recall a story involving the creation of the Earth by a supernatural deity or deities. A variety of religious groups, often associated with fundamentalist branches of Protestantism or Islam, assert that their interpretations of these creation myths in sacred texts are literal truth and should be considered alongside or replace conventional scientific accounts of the formation of the Earth and the origin and development of life. Such assertions are opposed by the scientific community and other religious groups. A prominent example is the creation-evolution controversy."

"In the past there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth, but this was displaced by the concept of a spherical Earth due to observation and circumnavigation. The human perspective regarding the Earth has changed following the advent of spaceflight, and the biosphere is now widely viewed from a globally integrated perspective. This is reflected in a growing environmental movement that is concerned about humankind's effects on the planet."

Oddly enough, none of these people are referred to as "denialists." If someone believes that the earth and everything on it was created in seven days, they are not called an "evolution denialist." Denialist of course not being a real word and created only regarding the controversy behind HIV and AIDS, and used to describe those who dissent on the generally accepted theory of HIV=AIDS=DEATH. Within that group, some believe that HIV does not exist, some believe it exists but does not cause AIDS, while others believe that HIV can merely contribute to AIDS in the presence of other ailments. The point being is that just because something is thought to be incorrect, does not make it so. Think of them men who lost their freedom and lives because they claimed the earth was round. You cannot present the truth, as the truth changes from person to person and over time. You can merely present the information available at the time. To hide information, rather that to include it, as well as the reasons it may be inaccurate, is censorship, and unethical when presenting in an Encyclopedia. Neuromancer (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

From now a few mentions, it seems like you don't favor the use of the term 'denialist', which I can understand. If you want to discuss its use in the article, a new section for that on this talkpage would be easiest. Also, please do a search in the archives of HIV, AIDS and AIDS denialism talkpages for the previous discussions had on that very topic. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me start by saying I made a mistake in regard to "researchers". I had assumed from the journal citation in this section that Papadopulos was an HIV researcher. She is a medical physicist.

That said, let me also say that I reviewed various WP guidelines as prodded. Secondary sources are actually preferable (to my surprise), mainly because of usability and ease of checking. POZ does not claim to be a scientific article! It simply summarizes various viewpoints, providing a lot of nuance about why some scientists suspect cofactors, why some HIV-positive people refused treatment and then got it, why some doctors no longer deny HIV's role but still think something's incomplete.

So, I don't see a problem with POZ as a source to *report opinions*, which is basically what the first part of this section is doing, is it not? What's so misleading or scary about that?

The first sentence of this section sounds awkward (ask an editor who is not involved with WP and has no axe to grind about HIV) and seems to bend over backwards to deny that anyone with any kind of biological credentials could possibly believe anything is missing from the current theory. I'm not going to edit war about this, but I'm sorely disappointed that the main informal "team" of editors of this page have no tolerance for nuance. FYI, "AIDS dissident" is recognized by WP -- as a redirect.

As for South Africa, a former president denied the role of HIV. That's a verifiable fact, and the clearest way to express that as a factor undermining treatment is to refer to an *official* policy or at least the name of the former president. The current sentence is too vague. And it's also a WP:weasel because it vaguely claims "other" political impact without naming it. It's much clearer to refer to the *fact* of the South African case here, leave the "other" for another page.Martindo (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

POZ as a source to report opinion by a recognized member of the field seems OK. POZ would be a tertiary source (summarizing on others' viewpoints) with a kind of weird mix of primary narrative. I dunno, it's shakey, especially because it seems he is summarizing viewpoints based on unreliable sources/pseudoscience. Why don't you put down how you would propose to amend the wording, much like i used the quote box above. Note: I especially take pause with the last sentence as it rings a lot of pseudoscience bells to me (over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation). JoeSmack ^Talk 19:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I already amended the wording, which was reverted after 8 or 9 hours. It's clear that I've been outvoted here and I give up. Frankly, I don't have the motivation, overview, or training to make it worthwhile to keep tracking this page. There are other WP pages where I have enjoyed much better give-and-take and been able to contribute more to the developing consensus.

Regarding South Africa, the final sentence of the section implies that there are other locations where "political impact" has occurred. Yet the Aids denialism page mentions no such other locations. So, what is being implied here? That there has been "political" impact in the US or Europe? If so, state it with references, don't just imply it. The comment about "over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation" strikes me as odd: not only unsupported by WP, but contradicting the scientific nature of this topic which has inspired very careful research for over two decades.Martindo (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Cryo-Electron Tomography of HIV-1 Infected Macrophages

Has anyone ever looked at HOW HIV is obtained for electron microscopy?

"Monocyte-derived macrophages (MDM) from healthy donors were grown in RPMI-1640 media supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum. The cells were plated on gold Quantifoil grids (Quantifoil Micro Tools GmbH, Germany) and infected with VSV-G pseudotyped HIV-NL4-3/MA-TC virus for 4 hrs (106 cells+105 RT cpm virus). The cells were washed gently and incubated in media at 37°C for a further 4 days, with a change in culture medium after 2 days. They were then fixed overnight in 2.5% glutaraldehyde and rinsed with PBS. After deposition of 15 nm-sized gold fiducials on the grid, the cells were rapidly frozen by plunging the grid into liquid ethane maintained at ~−180°C using a Vitrobot device (FEI Company, Oregon). The grids were imaged at liquid nitrogen temperatures on a Titan Krios electron microscope (FEI Company, Oregon) equipped with a Gatan 2002 energy filter and operated at 200 kV. Low dose tomographic tilt series were collected over a tilt range spanning ±65° in 1.5° intervals with a total dose of ~75 e−/Å2, with an applied defocus of −15 µm, and an effective pixel size of 1.9 nm at the specimen plane. Tomograms were reconstructed using the software package IMOD [18],[19]." Taken from Ion-Abrasion Scanning Electron Microscopy Reveals Surface-Connected Tubular Conduits in HIV-Infected Macrophages Neuromancer (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In short, the same way any other virus is obtained for electron microscopy. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason why this should be on the talk page? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Neuromancer seemed to be calling into question the legitimacy of images mentioned in the section above. Since that falls under the definition of improving the article (discussion about the reliability of sources used in the article are always on topic), it seemed acceptable to offer a response to his concerns. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that PLoS Pathogens is a respected journal and a reliable source. Individual users can't call that status into question. User:Neuromancer also doesn't even make a cogent argument, but simply pastes a highly technical paragraph from the article. I'm not questioning the acceptability of your response. I'm questioning Neuromancer's plagiarism, repetition of denialist fringe canards and talk page soapboxing, all of which are disruptive and need to stop. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not "quoted" any denialism information at all. Where you seem to think I have in not clear to me. Having family with the infliction of this disease, kind of precludes me from being a denialist, as you define it. However, making sure that the information accessible to the world in complete, unbiased, and correct, is of concern. I have not soap boxed. I have used the talk page, as requested, to pose questions to proposed edits, and the inclusion of information I feel is noteworthy. Why you have taken a personal affront against me, is incomprehensible to my mind. If there is anyone soap boxing here, it is you. You seem to have made me your new personal vendetta, and I would like to know why. Neuromancer (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer review is the phase where the appropriateness of the methods are assessed in a reliable source. We're just here to discuss the page content, and support edits with reliable sources like PLoS Pathogens. I agree with Keepcalmandcarryon that this high-volume and high-frequency soapboxing is disruptive. -- Scray (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that there was an issue with the validity of the images. I just found the process intriguing and was, if anything, suggesting that the process either be included with the images (Since the referenced article is listed as open), or that a reference article be created regarding the process by which the images were obtained. Neuromancer (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains a great deal of information that is based on scientific findings, the methods for which reside in the peer-reviewed literature. WP is meant to be readable by a lay audience, and PLoS Pathogens is open-access. Those interested are provided with links they can follow. Those methods do not alter the reliability of the findings; they are standard methods and satisfied peer review. Electronic microscopy is, by its nature, a little more complicated than taking a Polaroid shot of the family. -- Scray (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess if I had a concern regarding these images at all, it would be that they are not actually images of the HIV virus as would be found in vivo. Instead, and per the documentation from PLoS, the images are of "either (i) vesicular stomatitis virus G glycoprotein (VSV-G)-pseudotyped, Env-defective HIV-1 virus stocks produced by co-transfection of 293T cells with pNL4-3/KFS/MA-TC [5],[16] and the VSV-G expression vector pHCMV-G [17] or (ii) infectious HIV-1 BaL. We used Env-defective HIV-1 viruses for most of the studies to eliminate the possible formation of an apparently internal compartment resulting from fusion of two previously separate cells." Which means that these images are NOT actually of true HIV.

I am not questioning the validity of the images, or of the source. I am merely questioning their use in the HIV article, seing as how they are admittedly NOT images of true HIV, but rather a defective hybridized version, as using actual virus apparently did not produce the results they were hoping for. While this is of scientific interest, these images are NOT true HIV, and therefore only speculative in nature. Please correct me if I am mistaken on these points. Neuromancer (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that I now understand your concern; however, it appears it's based on a misconception. If we take Fig. 2 of that paper, for example, the legend indicates that it is of HIV-1 BaL infected macrophages. Looking back to the passage you quoted, this is consistent with, "(ii) HIV-1 BaL" as one of the two sources of virus (i.e. not a hybridized version). In fact, the sentence after the one you quoted read, "The electron tomographic analyses with fixed, embedded cells were carried out with infectious HIV-1 BaL." Thus, the images are of HIV-1 itself, not a hybrid. As you say, you don't question "the validity of the images, or of the source." Does this mean we're in agreement that these are valid images of HIV? I should point out that it's not really our place, on this page, to question the validity of a highly reliable source like PLoS Pathogens - I'm just asking because I'm curious. -- Scray (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, I will quote from the source...

"We used Env-defective HIV-1 viruses for most of the studies to eliminate the possible formation of an apparently internal compartment resulting from fusion of two previously separate cells. The electron tomographic analyses with fixed, embedded cells were carried out with infectious HIV-1 BaL." "Monocyte-derived macrophages (MDM) from healthy donors... ...were infected with VSV-G pseudotyped HIV-NL4-3/MA-TC virus..."

This indicates to me that the images of Fixed, embedded HIV are taken of HIV-1 BaL, but that any of the images including the MDM are of Env-defective HIV-1 or VSV-G pseudotyped HIV-NL4-3/MA-TC virus. If this is a misinterpretation, please let me know where my logic is flawed, as I am certainly not attempting to throw a cog in where it does not belong. I just want to be clear that any images or video in the article are of ACTUAL HIV, and not something else. Neuromancer (talk) 06:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I specifically referred to Figure 2, which explicitly states it's HIV-1 BaL; thus, it's an EM of HIV-1 BaL from a reliable source. Other figures indicate that they involved the pseudoparticles. It's quite clearly laid out in the paper. Please remember that this page is not a discussion forum - it's a discussion of enhancements or corrections for the HIV page. -- Scray (talk) 06:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I would have no issue with including Figure 2 in the article, however, any of the images not specifically of HIV I feel should not be included. I am not using the talk page as a discussion forum. I am using it as directed, for a place to "discuss enhancements and/or corrections to the HIV article. In doing so, I think that we have just eliminated a considerable amount of information information that may otherwise have been included from PLoS. I have not stepped onto a soap box, or pushed any particular idea on this talk page, or in my edits to the HIV article, and the insinuation that I have been using the talk page as a "soapbox" or "general discussion forum" are truly starting to become bothersome. If someone feel that I have stepped on a soapbox, please review my edits and comments, and I am sure you will see that I am NOT taking sides on an issue. I am merely attempting to be subjective and present reasons for or against inclusion in a non biased fashion. Neuromancer (talk) 06:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I see - in the previous section of this page, it was indeed suggested that "all images and videos" from that paper be uploaded to Commons. I still think that would be reasonable, and might not affect this particular page at all, but I would agree that those uploads should make clear what they are. My comment just above about use of this Talk page was driven by self-consciousness about this extended discussion of the one PLoS Pathogens article, when those images have not been added to the page. By the way, video S1 also explicitly states it is an image of primary isolate HIV-1 BaL infecting primary monocyte-derived macrophages from a different person. -- Scray (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

My problem with User:Neuromancer's edits (beyond the blatant copyvio, for which no culpability has been admitted) and talk page soapboxing is precisely that he or she claims to be "NOT taking sides" and is thereby taking a strong and decidedly AIDS denialist stand against Wikipedia's reliance on reliable sources. The view of Wikipedia, per WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS, is the view of reliable sources on any particular subject. Reliable sources on HIV do not (as Neuromancer has done) quote from a denialist website as an authority, suggest that African HIV infections are exaggerated (see 27 October comments, above), suggest that AIDS causation uncertainty in 1983 is somehow current and worthy of inclusion in the lead, state that the role of HIV in AIDS is "still unproven", suggest that researchers only "assumed that the (HIV) DNA that is found must be viral", state with certainty that confusion over the origin of a certain virus strain was theft or write that "Montaignier's opinions later became a theory, which then became a consensus, which some call fact". Neuromancer is welcome to term such opinions and statements "dissident" or "neutral"; scientists and many others typically call them AIDS denialism. Advancing them on the HIV talk page is disruptive by any name. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE give me the EXACT referenced edit in which I supposedly "quoted" denialist propaganda. Secondly, and thank you for illustrating my point in your above post, you OBVIOUSLY have no comprehension of scientific method. While it is agreed by staggering consensus the world over, with only a minority of dissidents, HIV has never been SHOWN EMPIRICALLY to cause AIDS. There are anecdotal references to laboratory altered, amplified strains of HIV infecting laboratory workers, and there is 1 documented case, in 30 years, where a dentist in Florida allegedly gave his patients HIV (which statistically is improbable), there is no experiment that has been able to show this. Not once has a laboratory been able to infect healthy cells with contaminated cells without first inflicting a battery of amplification techniques to accomplish the desired results. Furthermore, there is no direct laboratory evidence that even remotely suggests that HIV is a causative factor in AIDS.

HOWEVER, due to statistical and observable patterns, it certainly appears that HIV has a role, if not the only role, in causing AIDS. This is why it is a consensus and not a fact. So yes, I take issue with misleading people to believe that there is some proof that HIV causes AIDS, when there isn't. THIS DOES NOT MAKE ME A DENIALIST, which I will add again is a fictitious word not used outside of the HIV/AIDS reals of the universe.

I do NOT deny that HIV exists, nor do I have a better theory to explain the cause of AIDS, other than HIV. That being said, I cannot, just anyone else cannot, prove it, and therefore, I feel that it should be called what it is... It is (believed/accepted/agreed upon/etc at infinitum) that HIV is the causative agent in AIDS. My uncle was diagnosed with HIV, and later died of AIDS. This makes it kind of hard to be, as you call it, a denialist. I certainly believe that there is a virus known as HIV, and I furthermore believe that there is a condition known as AIDS. I also know that until a definitive causal effect is determined between the two, there cannot be a cure. Therefore, I keep my mind open to all options. However unlikely it may be, there is the possibility that an as of yet unknown factor is the determinant in developing AIDS, that may or may not be linked to HIV. I do not however present or suggest that anything contrary to science be shared in the HIV article. If and when I do, please call me on it. However, seeing as how you cannot admit this simple as day distinction, is evidence that you are unwilling to expand your thought process to accept new and ever changing ideas, such as in science. I would ask that you refrain from further harassment of myself, and distance yourself from my edits. Neuromancer (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuromancer, typing in all caps (like THIS) comes across as unnecessarily adversarial. Please don't shout. This applies to putting words or phrases in all caps, bold, or (with rare exception) italics -- such extra emphasis is almost always unneeded and/or unhelpful. Also, note that because of statements like "you OBVIOUSLY have no comprehension of scientific method" and "seeing as how you cannot admit this simple as day distinction", your most recent post veers too much towards violating Wikipedia's policy prohibiting personal attacks. There's no need to feign friendliness, but being polite and respectful is a pillar of how Wikipedia operates.

With that, I'd like to move back to the substantive discussion being had in this section, which I consider a valid use of the talk page. Consider that the authors of the paper in question refer to the macrophages used in this study as being infected with HIV. Thus, in my opinion, it is beyond the scope of Wikipedia's analysis of the PLoS reliable source to call into question the validity of the researchers' methods in preparing HIV-infected macrophages in Figures 1-4 and 6 or Videos S1-S7 and S10. In other words, if we were to say that the macrophages depicted in those media did not contain actual HIV, then it seems like we would be calling the paper's research model into question -- which is the domain of academic journals and not Wikipedia. Emw (talk) 07:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Emw, I wholeheartedly agree with you, this particular thread has become something akin to out of control. On that same topic, accusing one of "taking a strong and decidedly AIDS denialist stand against Wikipedia's reliance on reliable sources" is also a personal attack. Therefore, my apologies for rebutting that attack in an equally, if not exceedingly, immature fashion.

Back to the topic at hand, any and all images from PLoS that are identified as HIV (or having been infected with HIV), and not Defective HIV, I would agree to have referenced in the article without further discussion. Anything that is referenced as being other than HIV, I would take issue with. However, in the interest of attaining an end to this thread, I would concede to the use of any non-HIV (Defective HIV) images so long as there is a clear description of what they actually are. My concern is that an image of defective HIV acquires the heading of HIV, which I feel would be misleading to those who do not further research the article. Again, my sincerest apologies for allowing myself to be debased by the childish diversion that Keepcalmandcarryon and myself were engaged in. Neuromancer (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

← Good God. 80 kb of this is more than enough. Let's use the talk page to discuss concrete improvements to the article based on reliable sources. This isn't a place to convince Neuromancer that HIV causes AIDS, nor for him to convince us otherwise. Reliable sources have already reached a unanimous conclusion on the subject. Our job is to make sure that Wikipedia honestly reflects that conclusion, and to make sure that we do not dishonestly mislead people into thinking that there is some sort of scientific debate on the topic. MastCell ^Talk 05:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

← I would think that someone such as yourself would refrain from using G*d's name in vain in such a manner. Despite your obvious misconceptions regarding my personal beliefs, which should not come into play at all, your personal attack on both myself as well as the almighty, is uncalled for, inappropriate, and sacrilegious. Furthermore, I am not trying to convince anyone, of anything, least of all that HIV is or is not the cause of AIDS. I find it interesting that while I am not attempting to convince anyone of anything, as that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia, you are, and you are not doing a very good job of it. if you feel that a citation has been bested, then include that information. Don't delete the old. Explain why the old is no longer valid. You don't delete information, you update it. You call yourselves editors. Neuromancer (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps after reviewing Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) you may wish to use the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. JoeSmack ^Talk 07:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Source of File:Hiv-timecourse.png

The diagram File:Hiv-timecourse.png doesn't mention its source. I asked Jurema Oliveira (who I thought was the original uploader) about this, and Jurema pointed me to Guanaco, who from Jurema's comment and a brief note in the file's history seems like a feasible candidate for first uploader. Unfortunately Guanaco hasn't been active since November 2006. Lists of uploaded files by Guanco to Wikipeia-en and Commons don't contain anything that looks like the image in question.

To my understanding, adding a source for File:Hiv-timecourse.png would not only be nice, but necessary as well. Does anyone have ideas on how we might find that source? Emw (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Here goes...

• The graph was first published (to the best of my knowledge) in PMID 8093551 (Pantaleo et al., "New concepts in the immunopathogenesis of human immunodeficiency virus infection", New England Journal of Medicine, 1993).
• A slightly modified version is up at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases website here.
• It's also Figure 1 in this article by Fauci et al from Annals of Internal Medicine, 1996.
• It also appears in numerous infectious disease textbooks - Cohen & Powderly: Infectious Diseases, 2nd ed., Copyright © 2004 is the one I have closest to hand.

Not sure what the implications are for copyright status - I'm ignorant of that area - but those are at least a few reliable sources where the graph (or similar ones) have been published. Like I said, I think the Pantaleo article from NEJM was the first to contain such a figure. MastCell ^Talk 04:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This is known as the "Fauci slide" (for the head of NIAID), and the earliest published version goes back a little farther, to 1991: PMID 167224 (Fauci AS, et al.). That said, I think MastCell's references are better for the version that's on the page, esp the 1996 Annals of Internal Medicine. It may be necessary to get permission to use, and NIAID might be the place to request since they're a government body. -- Scray (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. Googling "1991 fauci as" (PMID 167224 brings up an article on nursing) yields as its first hit a link to an AIDS denialist site (http://aras.ab.ca/articles/scientific/DatalessGraphs.html) that brings the legitimacy of this graph into question. Apparently the graph from Fauci 1991 is the likely source for the several versions of the graph in question. And, according to that site, the Fauci '91 paper (Immunopathogenic mechanisms in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Ann Intern Med. 1991 Apr 15; 114(8): 678–93) does not reference any data to support the graph. At the moment I don't have easy access to that paper, but if possible I think it would be interesting to know whether Fauci '91 makes reference somewhere in the body of the article to the data that underlies the graph. Emw (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The 1991 paper is basically an edited transcript of a symposium at the NIH, and does not contain primary data or specific references for that figure. Greater support for that conceptual disease course came in the mid-1990s with the Shaw (PMID 8096089) and Ho groups showing HIV replication at all stages in the progression from infection to AIDS. Each person's course is a little different, but they support the overall schema of high-level replication early, then a variable "set point" of viremia for years, during which CD4 count gradually deteriorates, and finally an increase in viremia as AIDS ensues. -- Scray (talk) 06:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. I read through the Piutak paper, was able to find the supporting data, and added the Piutak paper to the summary of the image on its file page. Emw (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverts of Kepcalm's Edit

"Some question the procedures used by Montagnier's group in 1983, as well as other groups subsequently, to prove the existence of HIV." was changed to "Some question the procedures to prove the existence of HIV."

• I see no reason why the specific reason of the conflict should not be included. Please justify the removal of this information. Neuromancer (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Keepcalmandcarryon's version was more succinct, and conveyed the concept of skepticism about HIV's discovery more clearly. Simply clearer. -- Scray (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If the exact reference is to be removed, then how are people intended to conduct further, independent investigation with no starting point? Neuromancer (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The expanded sentence is just more awkward imho, the older more trenchant. JoeSmack ^Talk 08:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, "Questions regarding the original isolation and purification of HIV have been raised." Neuromancer (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the wording slightly so as not to give undue weight to the disguised fringe-of-the-fringe point of view that HIV itself does not exist. Even the most prominent AIDS denialist acknowledges that HIV's existence has been proven by every scientific standard. I also removed the unreliable source and replaced it with a review in PLoS and a sociological treatment of denialism, which is, after all, a sociological not a scientific phenomenon. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi! I want to know if the patients who receive the HAART treatment still infectious?--Dojarca (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick answer below, but please ask your doctor if you have specific health-related questions. And for more general information, please consult the Science reference desk.

Individuals on HAART may still transmit the virus to others. HAART dramatically lowers viral replication and in many individuals lowers the probability of transmission, but it does not eliminate all virus from the body, so there is always a chance of transmission. Additionally, even with good adherence (taking one's medicines regularly), "blips" (or bursts of virus production) have been reported. In the absence of a true cure, a method to eliminate all HIV from the body, precautions to prevent virus transmission are still important. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Here you will find a detailed, readable, and well-sourced treatment of this subject on the CDC web site. -- Scray (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Update

This article apparently hasn't had an update on number of people with HIV/AIDS since 2006. Is there any way we can get an update for these numbers? Hurricane06 (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the sort of thing that tends to get overlooked around here, thanks for the reminder. There is no reason why you couldn't find reliable sources with more current information and make the updates yourself. Be bold! TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Please include section: "What can we do to help in developing HIV vaccine and cure" 1. Donate money to the HIV/AIDS research organizations 2. Donate your CPU idle time to to the HIV/AIDS research organizations.

There are projects that attempt finding vaccine and possibly cure using computer simulation. One of them, "Fight for Aids at Home" url=http://fightaidsathome.scripps.edu uses computers of common people htat volunteered to donate their idle CPU time to this project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.114.138 (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

FAQ

Reading through discussions on this page, I think you could benefit from writing a set of FAQ's, similar to those used on Talk:Evolution. These could deal with common misunderstandings that tend to receive boilerplate answers. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Support - much of the sound & fury comes from people arriving misinformed by unreliable sources. A well-sourced set of answers to common questions would go a long way toward informing newcomers, as well as providing a standard set of well-constructed answers we can cite when people ignore the FAQ (which they will do). -- Scray (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The information is not unreliable. Granted, most don't take the time to fully understand what they are referring to, and rather than performing independent investigation, they rely on others synthesis of information they have read elsewhere.  Neuromancer  23:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm for an FAQ. And Neuro, this isn't the place to bring up debate about AIDS denialisms' sources again. We have had many, many threads about that previously, bring that stuff up in one of them please if you want to discuss that aspect further. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Support for FAQ To clarify, my above comment was in reference to "much of the sound & fury comes from people arriving misinformed by unreliable sources." Scray brought it up, not me. I support the FAQ.  Neuromancer  03:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The way to do this is create Talk:HIV/FAQ and transclude the contents using the {{FAQ}} template. See Talk:Evolution/FAQ for an example. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Took a stab at starting it, but definitely needs work before being transcluded here. HIV → AIDS seems to be the main point of contention, but I admit that I have not been particularly active on this talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Link 'rev' needs updating

Resolved

 – Link fixed. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In the next sentence: "The Rev protein (p19) is involved in shuttling RNAs ..." in the 'structure and genome section', Rev links to HIV_structure_and_genome#Rev, which doesn't exist. It seems Rev now has its own page: Rev_(HIV). I assume that the link can be updated to this new page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.195.144.32 (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've fixed the link. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

can women get preganant with the virus

Can women still have children without passing the virus onto their children? if so how would they go about doing that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.70.99 (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There are no guarantees, but there are ways of dramatically reducing the likelihood of a mother passing the virus on to her children. As our article states, "where combination antiretroviral drug treatment and Cesarian section are available, [the] risk [of transmission] can be reduced to as low as one percent." Obviously only a physician would be able to prescribe that drug or arrange for the C-section, and so the woman would have contact her physician as soon as she knows she's pregnant. - Nunh-huh 18:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder that talk pages are for discussing ways to improve the article and not for asking questions about the article's topic. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

HIV RNA packaging

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

Here are the two original references which demonstrated this finding:

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

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

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

HIV infection and washing

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

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

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

Haiti

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

Proposed edits to the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Simian Aids?

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

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

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

Sexual transmission and circumcision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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