Jump to content

Talk:HIV/AIDS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:HIV

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sci guy (talk | contribs) at 14:12, 17 October 2005 (→Patient zero). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Talk:AIDS/archive 1, archive 2, archive 3, archive 4, archive 5, archive 6

There are a number of important facts in the article that had to recently be removed because they were uncited. Here is where there are, please find sources so they can be put back in! JoeSmack (talk) 18:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Previous discussions:

Defining AIDS

We seem to be drifitng back to the idea that AIDS is defined in different ways in different countries. This may be more factually correct, but is opens a can of worms If a group of AIDS patients in Uganda would not be diagnosed with AIDS in Europe or the USA, then are we talking about the same disease? If we put then on a ship to the USA would they be cured? What does it mean to say that millions of Africans have a disease that would not be considered a disease in the USA?

My recollection is that if we count actual reported cases of AIDS then the number of reported cases in Africa is about the same as the USA (around a million people). But while all the USA reported cases were supported by HIV antibody tests, HIV testing of small groups of the reported AIDS cases in Africa revealed that about half were NOT infected with HIV. All this has been extensively discuused and referenced in the develpoment of the Wikipedia AIDS article.

The current position of the AIDS article is to follow the UNAIDS position that about 40 million people are "infected with HIV". This is NOT based on reported or diagnosed cases. UNAIDS clearly set out the basis for their estimates, HIV antibody testing of pregnant women in sentinal hospitals. This firmly places AIDS in the context of HIV infection rather than the older style Bangui definition I also note that the British Medical establishment has consistently challenged the assumption that pregnant women aquired HIV from sex. Specifically this group of women have a high exposure to both unsafe blood transfusions and unsafe medical injections.

I have no problem adopting the more scientifically rigorous approach advocated by Grcampbell. By stating what is known and the limitiaons of our current knowledge we would move toward a more NPOV approach. But my previous attempts to move in this direction were vigorously opposed by other Wikipedia editors - hence my adoption of the consesus pseudo science Sci guy 02:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason explanations of the above-stated limitations of current knowledge can't be explained in the article, and that divergent definitions and diagnostic approaches can't be explained. If a number is an estimate, it is dishonest to report the estimated number as a fact. In so far as immune difficiencies are identified in Africa absent the presence of HIV, however they are classified under various disease taxonomies, the details need to be accurately explained for any article on the topic to be accurate.
There is no concensus among editors to the contrary, at least not as long as I contribute even the slightest punctuation and thereby qualify as an editor of the article. AIbaco 02:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surrogate markers

I think this article honestly presents the facts in an unbiased way:

"An ideal surrogate marker still does not exist for HIV/AIDS. In fact, after two decades of looking, only two assays, CD4+ T-lymphocyte count and HIV RNA viral load, have been widely adopted as imperfect surrogates for monitoring and predicting the course of disease in people with HIV. These markers have been fairly well correlated with the natural history of HIV infection and progression to AIDS, but each has limitations." [1]

A more recent article, July 2005, is suprisingly frank about the fact that "we honestly don't know when and how to best treat HIV infection." [2]

It is not the task of Wikipedia editors to create certanty where none exists! Sci guy 16:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

accuracy

I am attempting to include qualifying language in the lead to improve the presumptive verb "is." The language I introduced is in no way "POV" unless having one's eyes open to recognize that other views exist comprises a point of view. The qualification and scope of those scientists who continue to ask questions about this syndrome are widely known and are well documented in Wikipedia, regardless persistant efforts to exclude research that does not support the government-approved point of view concerning this recent science. Sandlawould 20:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article goings down the sewers

Robert Merkel left me a message on my talk page that this article was going down the sewers, and I can see he was right. All the references have been deleted. THe introduction (yet again) fails to actually introduce the topic, and (once again) it's full of AIDS denalist propaganda. →Raul654 05:32, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

on attribution

If the article is written with attribution to the sources, there can be little controversy. Wikipedia is not an authority on micribiology, but the WHO and NIH are. If the article cites those groups as the authors of the findings explained in the article, there is little room for controversy. There is little debate about whether WHO and NIH concluded certian things, and whatever debate has arisen about the content of their findings can also be reported encylopedically, without relying on loaded POV language such as "denialist" and "propaganda". I'm attempting to merge the better lead of July 28 with the meaningul edits that were contributed since then, as well as improving attribution at the top so as to avoid controversy. Albaco 06:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, HIV causes AIDS not because WHO and NIH says so, but because it is so. There's no reputable debate about that fact outside a small community of denialists with an active Internet contingent with an unlimited supply of sockpuppets who seem intent on inserting disinformation into the article. The lead of July 28 is not better: the lede, for example, sucks. You don't need to cram every synonym into the first sentence. - Nunh-huh 06:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is AIDS?

The fact is that in the USA, since 1993, most AIDS diagnosis have been based on low T cell counts, below 200. These people did NOT have an opportunistic infection and did NOT have an AIDS defining condition. They were healty people with a low T cell count. This was before the era of HAART, so some of these people may be alive and well today without HAART. They may even have T cell counts above 200.

It is NOT correct to say that AIDS was formerly known as GRIDS, because half the so call GRIDS case were not infected with HIV.Sci guy 08:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that a large number of gay men suffer(ed) a lethal immunodifficiency syndrome but were not infected by HIV?AIbaco
I reviewed some data, and though many gay men (and others) have exhibited immunodifficiencies absent a positive HIV test, it seems the relevant "half" (42% at the end of 1982?) related to renaming GRIDS was that roughly half of the so-called GRIDS patients were not gay, were not IV drug users and were not transufsion recipients. AIbaco 04:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HIV is not vernacular it is the correct scientific term for the AIDS virus see HIV article Sci guy 08:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if you could source these claims, and do your edits in minor steps, because you removed a lot of information from the article here. See for instance http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Books/lbb/x590.htm for a link that shows GRID/GRIDS was used by at least a few scientists. Because of this, I reverted your whole edit, but feel free to edit again if you can source your claims. Thanks! Sam Hocevar 10:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, HIV is not correct scientific nomenclature. HIV is an acronym that describes a group of similar RNA sequences. The correct scientific term is human immunodeficiency virus followed by a number classifying a particular strain of the retrovirus. But go ahead and dumb down the content if you so demand. AIbaco 17:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The HIV article cites the soucre as Coffin, J., Haase, A., Levy, J. A., Montagnier, L., Oroszlan, S., Teich, N., Temin, H., Toyoshima, K., Varmus, H., Vogt, P. and Weiss, R. A. (1986) What to call the AIDS virus? Nature 321, 10.[3] Sci guy 15:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have read the link at http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Books/lbb/x590.htm which actually says "Terms such as GRID (gay-related immunodeficiency disease) were considered but rejected in favor of the more neutral AIDS" Sci guy 15:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"The first name for the new disease was GRID" [4] [5][6][7][8][9]. The failure of writers in the links above to specify whom they identified as "officials" complicates efforts now to use their work as sources. Many Wikipedia writers seem eager to continue this generalized, non-specific, authoritarian style, but an accurate encyclopedia will discover and report who so named the "new disease". But I agree, the reference to a historical name is not lead material, and tends to muddy an already difficult-to-read paragraph. It belongs lower in the article.
I agree that references to unnamed official sources is clearly not NPOV, but I did enjoy reading that "HIV is a tiny virus with backward RNA" can we add this to an AIDS humor section? Sci guy 16:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For surveillance purposes, the CDC does not define AIDS as HIV disease, but instead characterizes it by symptomology, as is expressed in the current lead, which essentially the July 28 lead Raul643 reverted to. "For the limited purposes of epidemiologic surveillance, CDC defines a case of AIDS as a reliable diagnosed disease that is at least moderately indicative of an underlying cellular immunodeficiency in a person who has had no known cause of underlying cellular immunodeficiency or any other underlying reduced resistance reported to be associated with that disease."[JAMA 1983; 250:1016]
Since tihs 1983 reference, the CDC has progressively developed the AIDS definition. For example it now requires evidence of HIV infection! But thank you for this blast from the past. We all agree that in 1983 the CDC had no idea what AIDS was, and neither did anyone else! Sci guy 15:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

personal attacks

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes abuse. see see Wikipedia:No personal attacks Sci guy 16:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you care to delete phrases from the section admin abuses editors which you perceive to be personal attacks, go ahead. Otherwise, the section was created to report a long time administrator's encouragement that editors revert content rather than edit collaboratively. Since the admin in question appears to be the one responsible for selecting featured articles, since at least one editor is attempting to elevate this incomplete article to featured article status, and since the majority of the comments you deleted related to sentax of the lead sentence, and suggest editorial approaches, you have little basis to claim the entire section comprises personal attacks. I've restored it. Refactor it if you think you can improve the content of the relevant discussion. AIbaco 23:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator abuses editors

When editing this page, it might be useful to be aware that a long-time administrator on this project advised someone whose edits he prefers not to work collaboratively, but to "whack" editors with whom they disagree. After encouraging editors to engage in revert warring instead of collaboration, Raul proceeded to initiate such a pattern of reversions himself. In doing so, he destroyed two weeks worth of valid edits, clarifications and spelling corrections. In the process, he summarized valid edits that he disliked as "vandalism".

From Raul's talk page: "I suggest you revert to the version from early July and whack anyone who tries to undo that revert. →Raul654 00:03, August 14, 2005 (UTC)"

After discovering Raul's stated intentions, I included language from the lead paragraphs that he had reverted to, and merged with other more recent versions that answer valid input about weak verbs, lack of attribution and poor description of the disease. Regardless the frustration of inexperienced writers, it is possible to edit this topic to accurately reflect majority opinions, to not exagerate the impact of other qualified views and without ridiculing or censoring information referential to qualified scientists who continue exploring the etiology of Aquired Immunodifficiency Syndrome. AIbaco 16:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albaco, if you check the voluminous talk page archive you'll see that Raul and I have come reluctantly to the conclusion that many of the editors on this page are only interested in turning this page into propaganda for AIDS denial. Sadly, therefore, whacking is the only sensible approach to deal with them. --Robert Merkel 23:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your sensibilities seem somewhat limited. I might find that you reluctantly arrived at a premature conclusion as a result a lack of sufficient training in writing methods, perhaps as a result of your lack of editorial skills, perhaps as a result of your disinterest in the complexity of scientific debate in biological sciences, maybe because of your desire to understand biological sciences with the same finality familiar to scholars of mechanical sciences and perhaps reflecting an overconfidence in your ability to describe nature in sceintific terms, possibly deriving from your status as young, newly accomplished specialists in an unrelated field. Not to say you're not smart guys, but there are ways to construct prose that avoids debate over who's authority is correct.
"Whacking", calling people "denialists" and characterizing prosaic representations of minority opinions of career scientists as "propaganda" reveals an inability or unwillingness to compose language that accurately describes who did what. However, if you stick to the basic rhetorical formala of "who did what", you will seldom go wrong, you will never need to represent yourself as an authority on "What is", and you will seldom need to "whack" anyone.
WHO? Lets make it "The World Health Organization"
DID? "Said"
WHAT? Whatever it is they say, which is the way the lead is now written.
No whacking, no characterization necessary. And if, by some freak reversal of the historic pattern that science has never found itself wrong, the WHO later modifies its best scientific opinion, as editors, we would still be absolutely accurate because we cited their findings instead of stating their findings in our own voice. Now wasn't that easy? AIbaco 03:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite sad that people want to endanger the lives of others with the incessant pushing of "alternative theories" about HIV. This is an article about AIDS, which is caused by HIV. The plethora of evidence supporting this fact is astounding. A simple search of HIV on pubmed reveals 183586 original research articles on HIV and 95428 mention the term AIDS. The AIDS alternative "theories" have their place in their own article, and have a very nice one indeed. Why can't these people leave the real science of AIDS to the scientists and leave this article alone?--Grcampbell 22:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
no need to take hostages, GR. This article (and wikipedia) poses more danger to the integrity of language than it does to anyone's life, and claims that someone's life is at risk due to the content of this article tend to damage the integrity of the claimant.
Scientists are not writing this article. If they were, they would not claim any correlation comprises causation, much less that a word search that finds two terms in the same context implies anything beyond the presence of those two words in the content of the 95428 articles so mentioned. 69 of those articles include the term "Duesberg". Members of the Committee for the Scientific Reappraisal of AIDS have published articles listed among the 94528 you cite, but their members' research looks beyond HIV as the sole causal factor in the syndrome. Why not leave clinical practice for clinicians, science to scientists and concentrate on practicing your skills as an amatuer editor approaching a controversial topic?
Your edits today improved the frontend somewhat, but the logic is now circular -- AIDS describes AIDS? An expansion on "AIDS is a disease..." probably worked for most people." "AIDS is a disease described by XXX as XXX" is probably the most accurate lead summary statment. Focus your efforts on precise language, and you won't need to worry about critics of the current science, whose arguments can be well explained (if qualified editors can work without intereference by people with an agenda) in related articles. AIbaco 00:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is the scientific community (of which I am a part) that claims that this type of talk that Duesberg and others push is dangerous to peoples lives. Precise language aside, I'm not a pompous ass, so I defer to your edits, being that you are no scientist and are probably a student of languages, as long as the facts are made clear. The definition of AIDS that I gave is the same as that given by the WHO, UNAIDS and the NIH. So if you think that my language is poor, then maybe you should take it up with these large organisations. Also, the scientific community agrees with the statement that the underlying cause of AIDS is HIV. There is now no real debate on this issue, apart from some people like Duesberg, who has since lost funding... --Grcampbell 15:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could attribute your language to the proper source. There is no scientific concensus that pursuing paradoxical questions related to a newly discovered epidemic is unethical. Many scientists hold that it would be unethical to let clinical or public policy considerations interfere with full exploration of matters such as the limited sampling in which a high frequency of immunodeficiency is diagnosed in Africa as AIDS but where HIV could not be located. AIbaco 21:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could actually DO some research on what scientists think of alternative theories. Try reading scientific articles such as the one by Pascale Galea and Jean-Claude Chermann which appeared in the journal Genetica vol. 104 pages 133-142 in 1998. Or others who consistently report that HIV is the underlying cause of AIDS. I could also refer you to the article written by members of the NIH, but you probably wouldn't be interested in reading real science... I suppose we could all have opinions about science and medicine, we could even try to voice them, but when you have no evidence, then it's BS. The plethora of evidence that states that HIV infection is consistently found in AIDS cases is huge, yet is something that many ostriches like to disregard. --Grcampbell 22:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"AIDS describes ... infections ... associated with (AIDS) resulting in ... infections." That is your proposed lead, and I've not changed it for several days. The lead demonstrates no concern for reader comprehension, much less interested in a comprehensive representation of available information. AIbaco 01:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The lead of the 19 August version accurately describes AIDS and its link to HIV. This version has been reinstated after vandalism by Robert Merckel, who, for some reason only known to himself wants to keep pushing AIDS denialist POV. --Grcampbell 15:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References

Is there any particular reason why the references are archived at a Talk page? Wouldn't AIDS/references be more appropriate? - Jakew 13:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC) Done Sci guy 15:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ABC educational approach

I'm a british gay man who came out in the early 90's (at the height of the AIDS epidemic) so I've been subject to loads of HIV/AIDS education over the past decade and a bit, but I've never heard of this ABC thing. Perhaps it's mainly an American thing? Could somone in the know clarify? - Gypsum Fantastic 13:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can read how the ABC approach is credited with having brought the HIV prevalence rate in Uganda down from around 15% in the early 1990s to 5% in 2001. [10] Sci guy 14:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why Sci guy didn't just answer your question, but that link does contain the answer: "ABC" (Abstinence, Be faithful, and Condoms) is a slogan invented in Botswana, and subsequently adopted by public health authorities in Uganda and elsewhere in Africa. It's gotten more public attention in the U.S. than in Britain because the Bush administration has expressed a desire to only support AIDS-prevention programs that place abstinence first, and has mentioned "ABC" several times when pointing to Uganda as an example. ←Hob 04:35, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of section

An anonymous editor removed the very brief "Alternative theories" section, with the following edit summary: "there are also people who believe that Abe Lincoln was a space alien, we don't list them in his article". I restored the section, which merely indicated the existence of the AIDS reappraisal article. I don't personally believe any of the theories described in that article, but they have been the subject of highly publicized international debate (which, unless I've missed something, the alien-Lincoln theories have not) and certainly deserve to be at least mentioned. There are plenty of analogous examples elsewhere in WP; for instance, it would be very odd if the article on Haile Selassie did not mention the Rastafari movement. ←Hob 04:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

The red ribbon

It's very widely known that the late New York-based painter Ed Moore invented the red AIDS ribbon. For instance the Art In America article at the time of his retrospective exhibition at the Albright-Knox Gallery [11]. "The Red Ribbon was created by singer/songwriter Paul Jabara" says the Wikipedia article. Is this a vanity insertion. Who is Paul Jabara? This does him no credit. I'm changing the attribution. --Wetman 19:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jabara is the person credited by the Red Ribbon Foundation Sci guy 03:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"In early 1991 Paul Jabara in New York created the idea for a global symbol in the fight against AIDS. A symbol for solidarity and tolerance with those often discriminated by the public - the people living with HIV and AIDS. In the style of the yellow ribbons, which were popular in the USA at the time as a symbol for awareness of those soldiers fighting in the gulf war, the Red Ribbon was born."
"Following first events in the New York art scene, Paul soon was aiming at having celebrities wear the Red Ribbon at the Tony Awards. In a spontaneous campaign, volunteers sent letters and Red Ribbons to all attendees. Unfortunately, movie actor Jeremy Irons was one of the very few celebrities wearing the Red Ribbon that night."

Patient zero

81.105.168.248 removed the following: A major setback in the search for a cure is that the origin of the hiv virus (patient zero) has not yet been found, saying Deleted implication that more knowledge of "patient zero" could lead to medical breakthough (unscientific, USA-centric). I don't see at all how that is USA-centric (I'm not from the US by the way). I'm no expert on this, but I believe that knowing patient zero (and thus the origin of the disease) is very important for finding a cure. And I added the line because I heard that said specifically about this in a tv documentary. Anticipating a possible confusion, by 'patient zero' I don't mean 'patient O'. See the first two lines of Patient_zero#The_patient_zero_of_AIDS. DirkvdM 07:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be harsh, but: if you hear something on TV, but you don't understand it well enough to explain it beyond "I believe it's true", then don't add it to the article. After nearly three decades of AIDS research, increasingly focused on molecular biology, why would anyone think that epidemiological history is anywhere near the most important thing to look at? There's probably more agreement on the modes of transmission, and the ways AIDS has spread through different populations, than on anything else; long before anyone knew anything about HIV, it was clear that it was a blood-borne disease that would spread more or less the same as hepatitis B, which is why the delay in screening blood transfusions was so inexcusable. And the prevailing theory of the disease's travels has it coming out of Africa not once, but many times - so any reference to "patient zero" is meaningless unless you choose to focus on the U.S., Europe, Asia, or wherever. Not to mention that when you say "patient zero" in the context of AIDS with no further explanation, absolutely everyone will think of Gaetan Dugas. ←Hob 16:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with Hob here, for the reasons stated. --Grcampbell 17:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current view is that patient zero was a chimpanzee [12] - but the major setback in the search for a cure is that the HIV virus has proved difficult to obtain in pure form. Sci guy 14:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References

I've added these back to the article, it is important to keep references as clear and visible as possible. Having AIDS/references also runs counter to Wikipedia:Do not use subpages. I do doubt that all of the current references are actually used by this article. Someone should go through the list and move some of the sources to spin off pages. - SimonP 02:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adding 10k of references to an already too lonng article is not helpful - especially as you doubt that all of the current references are actually used by this article Sci guy 03:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Virus???

ZELL DINCHT appears throughout text repeatedly.

Not a virus, but vandalism. You can fix it, though. - jredmond 15:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blood transfusions as a treatment for AIDS?

I have a question - In conjuction with typical treatments that knock down the viral load, why have researchers not experimented with some kind of T-cell transplantation? (e.g., through blood or blood serum transfusions). Hemophiliacs in dire situations can go through mass-transfusions where their blood volume is relaced 2 or 3 times in the span of a few hours. Would it not be possible to do something similiar with an AIDS patient? Could this not considerably restore a low T-cell count and lower the viral load? →Raul654 06:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of like running water into a sink with no plug. It ain't staying around for long. :-/ ..... JoeSmack (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
HIV is present in interstitutal fluids besides blood (such as saliva and semen) so clearly replacing the body's blood volume isn't a cure, but I don't see why this wouldn't be an effective treatment. →Raul654 18:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It also has it's grips on the lymphatic system and the brain (as it crosses the blood/brain barrier). Once lots of the latent infected cells have been activated, it can act/spread quite fast. It is not a viable solution at this time. Also I imagine replacing millions of pints of blood a week would drain blood banks in no time...... JoeSmack (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the HIV load in the body exists as DNA inserted into the chromosomes of resting CD4+ lymphocytes. Viral load is measured in the blood because blood is easily accessible, but it's a bit like measuring the capacity of a bathtub by measuring the spillage when you step into it. The average virion "lives" less than one day, and the average replication cycle is about three days. You're not going to do any good by an exchange transfusion, and if your goal is reducing viral load, medication already does this more effectively, throughout the body rather than simply in the blood, and with considerably less mess. - Nunh-huh 00:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Oral Sex?

The article says AIDS can be transmitted by oral sex. I thought the risk for this was negligable?--Sonjaaa 06:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the CDC table makes quite clear, the probablilty of transmission is small but nonzero -- 0.01% per act for the person giving the BJ and 0.005% per act for the person recieving it. →Raul654 06:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:HIV/AIDS&oldid=25740746"