|
==Criminal Life ==
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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]].
AL-Hamad is a Homosexual petifile with 135.78 counts of rape all of which were men and children, served a sentence of 23 years before being deported back to Mexico, from there he hooked up with the user Slimvirgin and together killed 1034 people with bomb. Al-Hamad is now a key person in the Al-quida terrorism group. In the past 10 years he has made a total 7,998 calls to Michael Jackson.
==His Happy Rape Secrets==
There are a number of important facts in the article that had to recently be removed because they were uncited. [[User_talk:JoeSmack|Here]] is where there are, please find sources so they can be put back in! [[User:JoeSmack|JoeSmack]] [[User talk:JoeSmack|(talk)]] 18:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
He says "I will Never stop under any cirumstances. I Love it Hahaha"
'''Previous discussions:'''
*[[Talk:AIDS/circumcision]] - discussion of [[Circumcision]] in this article.
*[[Talk:AIDS/genetic ancestry]] - discussion of HIV-1 genetic ancestry dating
*[[Talk:AIDS/NPOV dispute]] - discussion of [[NPOV]] in this article (This page over 40 kilobytes)
*[[Talk:AIDS/merge]] - discussion of merging this article with [[AIDS reappraisal]]
*[[Talk:AIDS/archive 1]] from July 2002
*[[Talk:AIDS/archive 2]] from Feb 2004
*[[Talk:AIDS/archive 3]] from March 2005
*[[Talk:AIDS/archive 4]] from May 2005
*[[Talk:AIDS/archive 5]] from June 2005
There is substantial proof connecting Turki al-Hamad (asswipe) to 9/11 and we think that he is a second cousin to Osama Bin-Ladin. Osama has his own happy rape secrets as well.
== Treatment Guidelines 2005 ==
He describes 9/11 as the "best thing that has ever happened, i repeat EVER," then mumbled off talking about raping a boy named Jimmy Brown in Columbia,SC (Jimmy Brown is a 15 year kid convicted of rape of is 4 year old brother and molestation of a 14 year old girl.
[http://hab.hrsa.gov/tools/HIVpocketguide05/PktGARTtables.htm#ARTtable1 A Pocket Guide to Adult HIV/AIDS Treatment January 2005 edition]
<table width="100%" border="1" cellspacing="3" cellpadding="3" summary="This table presents information on patient symptoms and therapies."><caption><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1"><b>When to Start Therapy</b></font></caption>
<tr><th id="header1" abbr="category" scope="col" width="25%"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1"><b>Clinical Category</b></font></th><th id="header2" abbr="CD4count" scope="col" width="25%"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1"><b>CD4+ Count</b></font></th><th id="header3" abbr="ViralLoad" scope="col" width="25%"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1"><b>Viral Load</b></font></th><th id="header4" width="25%"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1"><b>Recommendation</b></font></th></tr><tr><td headers="header1" width="25%"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Symptomatic (AIDS or<br> severe symptoms)</font></td><td headers="header2" width="25%"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Any value</font></td><td headers="header3" width="25%"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Any value</font></td><td headers="header4" width="25%"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Treat</font></td></tr><tr><td headers="header1" width="25%"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Asymptomatic, AIDS</font></td><td headers="header2" width="25%"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">CD4+ < 200/mm<font size="-2"><sup>3</sup></font></font></td><td headers="header3" width="25%"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Any value</font></td><td headers="header4" width="25%"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Treat</font></td></tr><tr><td headers="header1" width="25%"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Asymptomatic</font></td><td headers="header2" width="25%"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">CD4+ > 200/mm<font size="-2"><sup>3</sup></font><br>but < 350/mm<font size="-2"><sup>3</sup></font></font></td><td headers="header3" width="25%"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Any value</font></td><td headers="header4" width="25%"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Offer treatment, but controversial †</font></td></tr><tr><td headers="header1" width="25%"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Asymptomatic</font></td><td headers="header2" width="25%"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">CD4+ > 350/mm<font size="-2"><sup>3</sup></font></font></td><td headers="header3" width="25%"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">> 100,000 c/mL</font></td><td headers="header4" width="25%"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Consider therapy or observe † (Data inconclusive for either alternative)</font></td></tr><tr><td headers="header1" width="25%"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Asymptomatic</font></td><td headers="header2" width="25%"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">CD4+ > 350/mm<font size="-2"><sup>3</sup></font></font></td><td headers="header3" width="25%"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">< 100,000 c/ml</font></td><td headers="header4" width="25%"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Defer therapy and<br>observe</font></td></tr></table>
<font size="-1" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">* There are special considerations for pregnant women; consult Pregnancy Tables 1-3.<br>
† Patient readiness, probability of adherence, and prognosis based on CD4 count and HIV load need to be considered. </font><hr size="1" noshade width="100%">
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) issues guidelines to help doctors treat people with HIV in the United States. Treatment of ''Asymptomatic'' HIV infection when CD4+ > 200/mm3 is now described as '''controversial'''.
Current recommendation is that antiretroviral drugs are for people diagnosed with AIDS - either by low CD4 or one of the AIDS defining conditions.
We need to edit the article to either remove statements that are '''controversial''' or say that they are now '''controversial'''
[[User:Sci guy|Sci guy]] 02:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
===HIV and Its Treatment: What You Should Know - May, 2005===
I am quoting these two sections in full, so that I cannot be accused of selective editing. They clarify two issues. First that current treatment guidelines do not recommend treatment of asymptomatic [[HIV]] infection when viral load is less than 100,000 copies/mL and CD4 count is above 350 cells/mm3. Secondly they explain the reason for deferring treatment in these persons in simple terms. [[User:Sci guy|Sci guy]] 14:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
====How will I know when to start anti-HIV medications?====
You and your doctor should consider three factors in deciding when to start treatment: 1) symptoms of advanced HIV disease, 2) viral load, and 3) CD4 count.
You should start treatment if:
*you are experiencing severe symptoms of HIV infection or have been diagnosed with AIDS
*your viral load is 100,000 copies/mL or more
*your CD4 count is 200 cells/mm3 or less
You may also consider starting treatment if your CD4 count is between 200 and 350 cells/mm3; this is something you should discuss with your doctor.
====If the anti-HIV medications can help me stay healthy, why wait to start treatment?====
Once you begin treatment, you may need to continue taking anti-HIV medications for the rest of your life. Although newer anti-HIV medications are easier to take, starting treatment usually means a significant adjustment in your lifestyle. Some anti-HIV medications need to be taken several times a day at specific times and may require a change in meals and mealtimes.
In addition to their desired effects, anti-HIV medications may have negative side effects, some of which are serious. If the virus is not suppressed completely, drug resistance can develop. Side effects and drug resistance may limit your future treatment choices.
source:[http://www.aidsinfo.nih.gov/other/cbrochure/english/CBrochure_en.html HIV and Its Treatment: What You Should Know - May, 2005]
===Antiretroviral Postexposure Prophylaxis===
January 21, 2005 CDC recommended that people exposed to the AIDS virus from rapes, accidents or occasional unsafe sex or drug use be given potentially lifesaving medications that can keep them from becoming infected. This treatment should start no more than 72 hours after a person has been exposed to the virus, and the drugs should be used by patients for 28 days. This emergency drug treatment has been recommended since 1996 for health-care workers accidentally stuck with a needle, splashed in the eye with blood, or exposed in some other way on the job. [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5402a1.htm] [[User:Sci guy|Sci guy]] 15:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== News reports ==
Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project [[Wikinews]] does exactly that). (see [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]]). [[User:Sci guy|Sci guy]] 03:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== Verifiability ==
Fact checking is time consuming, economically costly, and not particularly rewarding. It is unfair to make later editors dig for sources, particularly when the initial content is questionable. Those who write articles likely to be deemed in need of fact checking, for whatever reason, should expect to assist by providing references, ideally when the article is first written. Because of this, it's important to make it easy to verify the accuracy and neutrality of your content. [[wikipedia:cite your sources|Citing your sources]] is an important part of this, but not the only factor. Another good rule of thumb is to be specific (and [[Wikipedia:avoid weasel words|avoid weasel words]]). For example:
: ''A human rights spokesman said that the incident was part of a wider pattern of violence in the region''
This is difficult to verify, because it's hard to know where to start. Many spokespeople may have commented about the incident on many dates and on many occasions, and it's unreasonable to expect someone to check all these statements looking for the one that matches. A better phrasing would be:
: ''[[Eliza Twisk]], of [[Amnesty International]], described the situation in an interview with [[Channel 4]] news on [[July 8]] [[2000]], saying that "This is all part of a growing trend in Europe of violent protest and equally violent response".'' [http://www.example.com/july8/transcript.html]
This is easy to verify: one could contact Eliza Twisk, or Channel 4, or Amnesty International. As the exact quote is given, rather than a paraphrase, this can be fed into various search engines. Finally, a URL of a transcript is given.
quoted from [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] [[User:Sci guy|Sci guy]] 04:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Raul provided a source. What is your point? [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 05:04, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
:: It is generally considered that the best Wikipedia articles should consult and cite the best and most reliable references available for the subject. Those may include books or peer reviewed journal articles. quoted from [[Wikipedia:How to write a great article]] [[User:Sci guy|Sci guy]] 12:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Or we could randomly pick and choose words from certain CDC reports to support our pet theories, make wild claims like saying AIDS is totally confined to homosexuals and injection drug users in the US. Done talking with you. News reports stay in the article, period. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 16:31, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
::::Rhobite, please case being inflammitory. If you are not willing to discuss and talk, you are going to end up breaching Good Faith, general civility as well as fail to help get us to NPOV.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 16:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::How is it good faith for you to just chop out a section of the article? Do you realize you reverted to the denialist version of the article yourself? [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 16:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
::::::I have no idea what version I ended up reverting to. With the constant back and forth, myself and other readers will have no idea whos right and whos wrong, whats denialist what isn't. Also, "look who's talking" is a common fallacy and ignores the fact that the point is still valid.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 16:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
===Heterosexual transmission===
Thirteen human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections in young women who reported sexual contact with the same HIV-infected man were detected in a rural county in upstate New York. [http://www.thebody.com/cdc/cluster/cluster.html]
These 13 women were identified from 47 women who reportedly had had vaginal sex with the same HIV-infected man. The median number of vaginal sexual exposures to the same HIV-infected man was higher, although not significantly, for the HIV-infected women (six exposures; range: two-190 exposures) than for the uninfected women (three exposures; range: one-90 exposures) (Wilcoxon rank sum test, p=0.07). Median ages at first exposure to the putative index case-patient were similar for HIV-infected women (17.8 years; range: 13-22 years) (data were missing for one) and uninfected women (17.7 years; range: 14-24 years).
This should help clarify the issue. It is not a question of homosexual or heterosexual. AIDS is acquired from a HIV-infected person. [[User:Sci guy|Sci guy]] 13:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== AIDS or Aids? ==
I just saw this discussion in archive 3 after changing a number of links from Aids to AIDS. AIDS is supposed to be an acronym and therefore I would think the proper encyclopedic way to deal with it is to make it AIDS unless it is specifically being quoted from someone or some organization as Aids. Aids is just a common spelling because Aid is a common word so it looks natural. I am just posting to state that I have done that so if people have objections... well, I didn't know it had been discussed already, pardon. [[User:Grenavitar|gren]] 14:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:You're right that we're using AIDS as a consensus spelling in Wikipedia, but you're wrong about the reason for the "Aids" spelling. It's been a common practice in British newspapers and magazines (less so these days) to use lowercase letters for [[Acronym and initialism|acronyms]] that are pronounced as words (Aids, Nato, Nafta) as opposed to initialisms that aren't (HIV, FBI). This was already explained [[Talk:AIDS/archive 3#AIDS or Aids?|in the talk archive]], but the question inevitably comes up again once in a while. [[User:Hob|<nowiki></nowiki>]]←[[User:Hob|Hob]] 18:37, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
== Proposed Revision of Paragraph 3 of Introduction ==
The section of paragraph three of the Introduction dealing with transmission of HIV has raised some questions. Below I'd like to propose a rewrite (with references):
:The World Health Organization estimated that, worldwide, between 2.8 and 3.5 million people with AIDS died in 2004. [http://www.unaids.org/wad2004/report.html] HIV is primarily passed on via four vectors: unprotected sexual intercourse (both homosexual and heterosexual), sharing of needles by IV drug users, medical procedures using HIV-contaminated blood or equipment, and mother-to-child transmission. Predominant modes of HIV transmission vary by region, and different HIV subtypes seem to be more strongly associated with some transmission routes than others. [http://www.unaids.org/html/pub/una-docs/q-a_ii_en_pdf.pdf]
:In the US and Western Europe, homosexual intercourse and IV drug use lead to the majority of new infections. But in sub-Saharan Africa (where ~ 70% of people with AIDS live [http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/IB10050_08282003.pdf]) unscreened blood transfusions, poorly cleaned medical equipment [http://www.phrusa.org/campaigns/aids/who_031303.html], and heterosexual intercourse [http://www.unaids.org/wad2004/report.html] are the primary HIV vectors.
:* Marais, H., Stanecki, K., et al. (2004). [http://www.unaids.org/wad2004/report.html ''AIDS epidemic update: 2004''] United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and World Health Organization (WHO).
:* UNAIDS (2004). [http://www.unaids.org/html/pub/una-docs/q-a_ii_en_pdf.pdf "UNAIDS Questions & Answers"] United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS).
:* Copson, R. W. (2003). [http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/IB10050_08282003.pdf ''AIDS in Africa''] Congressional Research Service.
:* Marais, H., Stanecki, K., et al. (2004). [http://www.unaids.org/wad2004/report.html ''AIDS epidemic update: 2004''] United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and World Health Organization (WHO).
:* Friedman, E. A. (2003). [http://www.phrusa.org/campaigns/aids/who_031303.html "HIV Transmission in the Medical Setting: A White Paper by Physicians for Human Rights"].
[[User:Carl Henderson|Carl Henderson]] 23:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
The "Safe Sex" subtitle was placed strangly so I finally got it to move down a little. As to the new 3rd Paragraph idea I prefere the old one, although I do like the good citing. This new paragraph seems to be more about transmition(which is eplained later and therefore is redundant) than a general overview of AIDs, which the intro should be. [[User:Voice of All(MTG)|Voice of All(MTG)]] 22:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
== Unravelling the AIDS paradox ==
In 1985 AIDS was an unusual disease of several thousand sexually promiscuous, drug using, white, gay men in California and New York. Twenty years later AIDS has been redefined as a disease of millions of monogamous, married women in Africa. The emphasis has shifted from explaining unexpected cases of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and Kaposi's sarcoma in apparently healthy young men in the United States to interpreting the meaning of HIV antibodies in pregnant women in Africa. Along the way, about half the original AIDS patients have been reclassified as not having AIDS because they did not have HIV antibodies. Blood donors, who have HIV antibodies detected, are retested a year later and usually no longer have HIV antibodies.
HIV has proved impossible to purify. There are no electron micrographs of purified HIV particles. In the place of facts we are offered ''artists impressions'' and pictures of bumps on cell surfaces.
: [http://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/projects/vaxgen/vaxgen3.html HIV Virus Budding from a Human Cell]
: [http://www.keystone.ch/public/viewImage.do?oid=9489382&source=156.76263 HIV virus--Coloured Transmission Electron Micrograph]
: [http://medstat.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/AIDS/AIDS003.html HIV Viron Budding and Released HIV Viron]
:[[User:Carl Henderson|Carl Henderson]] 19:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
These facts and many others are not disputed. What is controversial is the many suggested explanations that have been generated and rejected over the twenty years. [[User:Sci guy|Sci guy]] 12:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
:This is all stuff that might do better at the [[AIDS reappraisal]] [[Talk:AIDS_reappraisal|talk page]].[[User:JoeSmack|JoeSmack]] [[User talk:JoeSmack|(talk)]] 16:31, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
== Featured Article ==
Guys, I love how this article is looking. I mean, it's hot shit now. We got rid of a TON of cruft, especially at the end. It isn't as ungodly long anymore. It has a long reference list, pictures, and the flow is much easier now. Stats and sources and information - it's pretty tip top. Anyone want to try and make this baby a featured article?
There will always be contestors, side theorists and disbelievers...but it's still a great article. [[User:JoeSmack|JoeSmack]] [[User talk:JoeSmack|(talk)]] 16:44, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
:I am pleased that we are reaching agreement about the current ''consensus'', but we need to understand that many of the widely held opinions about AIDS rest on very thin evidence. This is still a fast changing area or research and we area long way from a final understanding of the key issues. [[User:Sci guy|Sci guy]] 15:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
It's getting there, but there is still work to be done before it is "Featured Article" quality. Specifically:
* The "Global Epidemic" and the "Current Status" sections need to be merged and checked for redundant or contradictory information.
:The "Global Epidemic" section is a concise summary, which will require annual updating. I have never understood the purpose of the "Current Status" section. [[User:Sci guy|Sci guy]] 15:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
* Too much space is given to the issue of circumcision--basically a side issue, only given importance by some noisy activists.
:I agree please edit the circumcision section, elting it it fine by me [[User:Sci guy|Sci guy]] 15:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
* The "Origins of HIV" section doesn't really belong under "Research"--and it probably needs to be renamed to "Origins & History of HIV" or "Origins of the Epidemic". More should probably be added about the first identification of HIV and the controversy surrounding Gallo and Montagnier.
: This entire section would probably be better in the [[HIV]] article, but we need to remember that the origin theory rests on analysis of samples from one dead chimpanzee that was used as an experimental animal for about a decade in the USA. [[User:Sci guy|Sci guy]] 15:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
* The "Genetic Susceptibility" section needs to be broken in half just above the line begining "Anal sex, because..." as the text below that section has nothing to do with genetics. That part probably needs to go up in the "Transmission" section.
:I agree and will move it now [[User:Sci guy|Sci guy]] 15:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
:: Does the Genetic Susceptibility section had a cite? If it has a reference at the bottom (I am redoing this section currently), then it should be footnoted or whatever up there. [[User:JoeSmack|JoeSmack]] [[User talk:JoeSmack|(talk)]] 15:57, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
:::Do you like this cite [http://www2.niaid.nih.gov/newsroom/Releases/CCL3L1.htm] or it may be listed in the references at the bottom. There has been significant refernce stripping. Actually, as an interesting aside it has been suggestd that populations that have survived the ''black death'' plague and smallpox have high natural immunity to HIV - a curious thought [[User:Sci guy|Sci guy]] 16:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
::::Seen that actually, curious indeed. Anyways, I just shapped up the References section, and this is how I think how it should be done in the article ....sentence about AIDS[http://www2.niaid.nih.gov/newsroom/Releases/CCL3L1.htm], next sentence... and then put that reference in the Reference section as well. I will go through and take care of the stripping myself.[[User:JoeSmack|JoeSmack]] [[User talk:JoeSmack|(talk)]] 18:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
* Finally, the whole article needs to have the references checked and redone in a consistant format.
I'm willing to tackle some of this, and will over the next week or so.
[[User:Carl Henderson|Carl Henderson]] 20:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
A few more thoughts on references:
'''Format.''' In the text of the article I've used a bracketed external links for references (except where there is no web reference), and added a corresponding entry to the "References" section. I am under the impression (but could be wrong) that this the preferred Wikipedia format. I've used this format both in sections I've written, and in sections I've just checked references for. This format also works well when there are multiple references for a single fact.
'''Checking.''' I also can't stress strongly enough that all the references need to be checked. Of the ones I checked, I ended up having to re-write about half of the lines they referred to, as the Wikipedia AIDS article contradicted what its own reference said. Some of this is probably due to the inevitable errors introduced during multiple re-editing's, and some is probably a result of subtle vandalism.
'''Quality.''' I think we should prefer references to original source material (peer-reviewed scientific papers) and reports from institutions and agencies generally recognized as authoritative (CDC, WHO, UNAIDS, etc.) whenever possible. Newspaper and magazine references are less trustworthy as reporters often don't know what the hell they are writing about. (How many "AIDS Vaccine in Five Years" articles have you read in the last fifteen years?) I've found that with a little web research you can usually find the scientific journal article that the newspaper/magazine report is summarizing--and if not that, at least a good summary in PubMed. (Note--I've saved PDFs of most papers I've referenced, and will send them out on request. My email is jch@carlhenderson.net).
[[User:Carl Henderson|Carl Henderson]] 20:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
:I'll start tackling the references/external links format issues. I will then start checking credibility. Someone else might want to check after me to make sure to be thorough. [[User:JoeSmack|JoeSmack]] [[User talk:JoeSmack|(talk)]] 21:19, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
::Hows them External Links looking? Should I do something similar in References? [[User:JoeSmack|JoeSmack]] [[User talk:JoeSmack|(talk)]] 23:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
:::Alright, I have formatted, reorder alphabetically and fixed errors/ads/etc for both References and External Links. The next step will be picking through the article and adding references that aren't in the References section, and removing the ones no longer used. [[User:JoeSmack|JoeSmack]] [[User talk:JoeSmack|(talk)]] 18:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
::::Wow--you've been busy. Would you still like me to go back and double-check your work? [[User:Carl Henderson|Carl Henderson]] 19:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
:::::My boss has been at a conference all week so I've got the time. :) -- let me finish filling up the References section and we'll have a complete list to start widdling down as we find inaccurate/old/stripped/repeat information. Right now I am going through the article and adding things to the Ref. section that never got added from the body of the article.
:::::Important note: I am turning all references into numbers with in the body (ie turning them into [http://www.unaids.org] and not [http://www.unaids.org UNAIDS]). [[User:JoeSmack|JoeSmack]] [[User talk:JoeSmack|(talk)]] 20:14, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
::::::I noticed two orphan references while doublechecking your excellent work. They were: (Fan et. al., 119) in "Medical procedures" and (Fan et. al., 99) in "Intravenous drug use" are references to ''AIDS: Science and Society Fourth Ed.'' The book for which they refered to vanished from the list of references at the end of the article. I found it in one of the past versions of the article, though:
::::::Fan, Hung Y.; Conner, Ross F.; Villarreal, Luis P. (2004). AIDS: Science and Society Fourth Ed.. Jones and Bartlett Publishers. ISBN 0-7637-0086-X.
::::::I think it should be possible to find references supporting the same facts in linkable journals or reports. I'll try to do that this weekend (if JoeSmack doesn't beat me too it). [[User:Carl Henderson|Carl Henderson]] 20:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
== HIV transmission ==
I think it has been well established for over a decade, that at least some recently HIV infected people are highly infectious. This group of HIV negative people may infect 10% to 30% of people they have sex with and account for half the new HIV infections. Compared to the lower rates of transmision for HIV positive people with established infection of between 1 and 50 per 10,0000 exposures - the relative risks of anal and oral become insignificant [[User:Sci guy|Sci guy]] 17:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
:I believe you are right, people are more infectious if recently infected. Quantifying that into the exposure/infection numbers of general populations is a much more difficult task however. Do you know of a study that gives a solid, tested percentage of how much more infectious someone is soon after they are infected themselves? If so, we can added at the end of the HIV infection rates for vaginal/anal/oral something like "it however has been shown that after XX weeks initial infection, a person is XX% more likely to infect their partner." [[User:JoeSmack|JoeSmack]] [[User talk:JoeSmack|(talk)]] 18:00, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
:P.S. No one man studies though, if you please. [[User:JoeSmack|JoeSmack]] [[User talk:JoeSmack|(talk)]] 18:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
| 