Talk:History of HIV/AIDS/Archive 2

A still unanswered question in this article

Why didn't HIV infected mankind, let's say, some thousands years ago? Why was it as late as the 20th century? What was so different in the 20th century? Could someone add it here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.83.161 (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That is an interesting question. I'll see if I can find anything about this, but no promices. It's prolly best if someone else looks too. - Ekoi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.202.66 (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just listening to the Quirks & Quarks' podcast and they talked with a man (who apparently has an article in this weeks issue of Nature; a preview of the article can be found here) and they discuss how the rise of HIV might be related to the growth of cities in the area that it is from (he mentions Kinshasa) since larger cities lead to more high risk behaviour (prostitution?) and easier dissemination. It could easily be chalked up to a 'wrong place, wrong time' kind of situation and that we were just lucky that it didn't become an epidemic sooner. Maybe someone who knows more about the subject and has read the article can see if it can be applied to the wiki page. --Thaddius (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Didn't notice the discussion below. --Thaddius (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OPV AIDS

We have a scientifically published source that includes the possibility of the OPV being amplified (mixed up and grown) in Africa. Hooper 2003 "Dephlogistication, Imperial Display, Apes, Angels, and the Return of Monsieur Emile Zola", published as Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Atti dei Convegni Lincei, 2003;187:27-230. Material in this article supported by tests of vaccine samples for HIV contamination is now obsolete and indeed is misleading as it has been since 2003. Please remove such material from this article. It will still have a place in the main article on OPV AIDS hypothesis in the history section. Modern and informative sources showing refutation may of course be used in its place. (Phylogenetic sources remain current) SmithBlue (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Koprowki damges; $1 amount queried

It says that Rolling Stone paid US$1 in compensation to Koprowski in the OPV section. Does anyone know the actual value, as i am sure that this is not correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.2.200 (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The article gives a reference in the Journal of Medical Ethics which verifies the $1 amount. What makes you sure this amount is not correct? SmithBlue (talk) 09:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Source for 1959 Haitian death from AIDS

the article at present uses http://www.aegis.org/news/ct/1987/CT871004.html How Long Has Virus Been Stalking Victims? Chicago Tribune (CT) - Sunday October 25, 1987 as a reference for AIDS death - "1959 Haitian clerk". Anyone got a more reliable and more current source for earliest AIDS deaths. SmithBlue (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC) New Scientist[Timeline: HIV & AIDS 04 September 2006] does not mention this case. Although Time does. Anything scientific in this area? SmithBlue (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As best I can tell from the Chicago Tribune article, the 1959 clerk was not a confirmed case of AIDS, but just a young and otherwise healthy patient recalled by the pathologist who had died of mysterious opportunistic infections. In retrospect, the pathologist considered that it might have been an early case of AIDS, but I see no indication that the patient's samples (if any still existed, which is doubtful) were actually tested. That's my inference from reading the first cited article. MastCell ^Talk 19:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The bottom of the article does mention that someone tested positive from HIV, but it seems to be talking about the Congolese man. II | (t - c) 06:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC

As stated in my edit summ I have removed the Haitian clerk from the lists of AIDS deaths - this would appear to be a medical/science topic and the absence of scientifically reliable cite makes the case at best "suspected by one doctor". To claim that this is the first AIDS death known and that no-one else but the Chig Trib has noticed is fantastic. 124.169.185.133 (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Hello, here, in Paul Farmer's paragraph it says: "Epidemiological studies reveal that the virus did indeed enter Haiti via Americans " while a section in this article it says the opposite. Only one of the statements is sourced, but I do not know enough about the topic at hand to know if there is an actual dispute about the geographical diffusion of the disease. Should it be changed? Brusegadi (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2008 (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 this article; 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)

Looks like someone beat you to the punch. Have a look and see if you want to expand on it and add the new ref. NJGW (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Worobey Nature paper

Calculations based on ZR59 give one result range; calculations based on ZR59 and DRC60 give a different but overlapping result range. I would caution against presenting this along the lines of "people used to say x, however, today we know y". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Robert R

This teen from St Louis has been discredited since the early 90s. I am removing it from the section. It was found that the test was contaminated and when retested his blood never tested positive for HIV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.80.250 (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have a source for this then please list it... another editor has meanwhile undone your edit. NJGW (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Grethe Rask

Not that it would make the article that much better and not that it's controversial, but I'm just wondering why Grethe Rask is not mentioned in here as she is one of the first and most notable HIV/AIDS-related deaths. I was surprised that she was not mentioned in this article because she was actually alluded to in And the Band Played On which definitely gave a high profile to her case - a higher profile than any previous case, probably.

If nobody objects any time soon (within a week or two), I will add her to the History of Known Cases. Miloluvr (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Support her addition here. See also Timeline of AIDS and Timeline of early AIDS cases two related articles. (I'd like to see them merged.) SmithBlue (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Title of article

The article's title leads the read to expect information on HIV 2 (as well as HIV I). There is no information in the article on the origin of HIV2. As the term "AIDS" includes infection with either/both of HIV 1 and HIV2 I propose that the article be re-titled or the missing information added. "AIDS origin (HIV-1)" appears to be an accurate title for the present article. 203.59.177.245 (talk) 09:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support adding information on HIV-2; just as strongly, I oppose renaming the article. Overall, HIV-2 is less prevalent and less infectious than HIV-1. HIV-2 also generally produces milder symptoms and slower progression to AIDS. I suspect that the resulting emphasis on HIV-1 is the reason for this article's omission of -2, but it remains a deficit and the article should be expanded. Thank you for raising the issue. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If this was not "live" I would support waiting indefinately for HIV-2 information to be added. However continuing to present a misleadingly titled article makes WP appear un-reliable. I propose in 3 months time to change the name, if necessary, so that it reflects the content of the article. 124.169.185.133 (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oral polio vaccine hypothesis

This section should be moved, demphasized or deleted. It's obviously bunk and is being given undue weight. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC) It was a very high profile hypothesis of how AIDS began. It needs to be included for historical reasons if no other. That it is rejected by respected scientific bodies needs to be stated clearly. SmithBlue (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Added Lemur link

Added the very fresh Lemur link in AIDS origin#Genetic studies. Anyone better informed in scientific speak should read the sources and reword the paragraph accordingly, without making it sound like a verbatim copy of either source. -Mardus (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)