Talk:HIV/AIDS
Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles.
 | Medicine FA‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Template:MedportalSA Template:MCOTWprev
 | HIV/AIDS received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | Software: Computing Unassessed | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | Spoken Wikipedia | |||
| ||||
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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.
Previous discussions:
- Archive 1 (July 23, 2002 to Feb 3, 2004)
- Archive 2 (Feb 3, 2004 to May 25, 2004)
- Archive 3 (May 25, 2004 to 20 May, 2005)
- Archive 4 (20 May, 2005 to 20 June, 2005)
- Archive 5 (20 June, 2005 to 10 August, 2005)
- Archive 6 (August 10, 2005 to October 20, 2005)
- Archive 7 (October 20, 2005 to May 3, 2006 )
- Archive 8 (May 3, 2006 to October 31, 2006)
- Talk:AIDS/treatment guidelines Current at 2005
- Talk:AIDS/verifying facts please cite you sources and NO breaking news
- Talk:AIDS/references - list of references used in developing this article.
- Talk:AIDS/circumcision - discussion of Circumcision in this article.
- Talk:AIDS/genetic ancestry - discussion of HIV-1 genetic ancestry dating
- Talk:AIDS/featured article - discussion featured article requirements
- 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
Origins Debate Stifled
I am naive in the various AIDS debates, though I have known some victims of the disease. However, having just watched the famous 2004 CBC documentary on Edward Hooper theories, the OPV AIDS hypothesis I found it very convincing and disturbing. I came to wikipedia for some reassurance and background, however, I was very dissappointed in the relevant party of this main AIDS article. The origins section and alternatives are very shallow. They do not even link to other wikipedia articles treating the subject in more depth. Alternative_theories_about_the_origin_of_AIDS, Category:AIDS_origin_hypotheses, AIDS_reappraisal, OPV_AIDS_hypothesis should at least be mentioned. I find this section really takes a side in the debate and departs from NPOV.
- Well, they are mentioned in there actually, to my dismay. To me AIDS reappraisal and its ilk represent a POV Fork (WP:POVFORK) in which a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others. They also are bad article ideas, as per (WP:BAI) because a new article is made to supplement an already existing one which you think is not putting your point across forcefully enough.
- I also don't see any of the 'alternate' AIDS theory articles giving lipservice to AIDS texts' as prominently as it to them, so take your pound of flesh and be happy. JoeSmack Talk 08:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, I don't think they're POV forks. The AIDS article describes the consensus understanding of the disease, as it should, and refers briefly to various controversies. AIDS reappraisal is not really an alternate viewpoint on that article; it's a description of a scientific/political/ideological debate that, even for those who think it's entirely regrettable, has gotten a lot of attention and had undeniable effects. Most of the material there would be totally out of place in the main article. It still needs a lot of work but I think it does what it should: convey to a reader what those people are talking about, and the historical context in which the argument arose. Similarly, the OPV article is not a POV fork because it conveys a lot of detail on this notable (by definition, since it was very widely publicized) theory - detail that would, again, be out of place in the main article but is certainly of at least historical importance. You don't call a sub-article a POV fork just because the people it describes are at odds with the subject of the main article; otherwise we'd have to choose between having, say, Civil rights movement and COINTELPRO. ←Hob 02:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Perticularly the quote: "Subsequently, this hypothesis has been refuted by examination of these original polio vaccine stocks and establishing that they do not contain material of chimpanzee origin.[114]" is out of context, it should be on the OPV page where it can be disputed or verified. There is dispute of this finding, the most obvious being the logical impossibility of finding a sample to test that was also used.
Anyway, I don't have the background to authoritatively change this, my reference is a TV show, albeit a good one. So I'm going to simply link these other wikipedia articles - even on a functional argument basis, the main AIDS trunk should lead to these branches. I'm not going to delete the offending quotation, because maybe it should be restated or by someone with a good reference to cite.154.20.109.121 06:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- If anything the OPV hypothesis has been given much too much prominence in this article. It's very much a fringe theory that's been rejected by mainstream science. Lots of evidence contradicts it. Trezatium 21:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Trezatium - now that you did such a nice job expanding and referencing that passage about OPV, I think it is too much! :) I mean, I think that kind of detail really belongs in the OPV hypothesis article. The AIDS article would be fine with a brief summary of what that debate was about; the fact that the consensus is now against it; and a "see" link to let the reader know that there is more detail available elsewhere. (I think an inline note like "See OPV AIDS hypothesis." would be best - adding a "See also" section at the bottom of the article, for something that at this point is not a very central issue, would be overkill.) ←Hob 01:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I only expanded the section by adding the final sentence plus two references. I entirely agree that most of the OPV material should be cut. Trezatium 09:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've made the cuts. Trezatium 11:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
QUICK CLARIFICATION
What is the person has received a BJ with a Condom on? Can he still get AIDS? Unable to detect username
- considering that condoms significantly reduce the chance of HIV infection, and that the normal receptive rate WITHOUT a condom for oral is 1 in 10,000, your making chances VERY VERY slim (but like most science, improbable doesn't mean impossible). JoeSmack Talk 06:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
What is the person has received a Hand Job without a condom. Can he still get AIDS or HIV infection? Please let me know ASAP.
- It's not impossible, but it's even more unlikely than the above case unless the person giving the hand job had open, bleeding wounds on their skin. --Robert Merkel
Primate meat consumsption
Hi, I think I saw a documentary on AIDS (maybe frontline?) that claimed that the dominant theory of AIDS transfer to humans was through consumption of primate meat. Can anyone confirm this? Can someone add the primate consumption theory to the article. I think I saw it on Frontline or another cable documetary. --Gogosean 01:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Ew, who would eat PRIMATE meat? Just asking, but is it a delicacy some where?
- Primates are a common form of bushmeat in parts of Africa. It's quite easy to imagine someone cutting themselves during slaughter or butchery and thus getting the virus into their bloodstream. I've added a bit to the article to acknowledge this hypothesis. Trezatium 20:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Who is this recurring and disruptive anon? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 07:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Congo Numbers
The death toll every single day in Congo is somewhere between the death tolls of Hurricane Katrina and the September 11, 2001 attacks This would be 2752x365=1,085,145 a year, maybe the figure for whole africa
and the weekly death toll is about the same as the death toll of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake that makes 186,983x52=9,723,116 a year, an absolutely ridiculous figure even considering only the number of the dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.101.126.212 (talk)
- This information, if sourced, could be very useful for the AIDS in Africa article! :) JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 16:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The number of AIDS deaths in sub-Saharan Africa is around two million per year, as correctly stated in the AIDS in Africa article. AIDS deaths in the Democratic Republic of the Congo amount to around 90,000 per year. I've no idea what 62.101.126.212 is referring to. Trezatium 19:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Two parts of the article that I would like to comment on
Hi.
I really like this article, it's great. I read not even half of it but I came across two parts of the text that I would like to comment on:
- "The risk of HIV transmission from exposure to saliva is considerably smaller than the risk from exposure to semen; contrary to popular belief, one would have to swallow gallons of saliva from a carrier to run a significant risk of becoming infected." - Im not sure what "popular belief" is, but most people I personally know know that you can not get aids (easily) through saliva... how do you define "popular belief" in this particular article?
- "During a sexual act, only male or female condoms can reduce the chances of infection with HIV and other STDs and the chances of becoming pregnant." - I don't see what the use is of mentioning that only male or female condoms can reduce the chances of becoming pregnant, not to mention that this is, as far as I know, not even true... (not "only" condoms; see Birth_control). if this sentence isn't supposed to mean that, shouldn't it be re-phrased?
--bb 21:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Probably "During a sexual act, only male or female condoms can simultaneously reduce both the chance of infection with HIV and other STDs and the chance of becoming pregnant." would be clearer. - Nunh-huh 22:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism
This article has been severely vandalized, and I'm not sure how to revert it. On the history page, it shows that the current page should be a correct one, but it isn't. Could someone fix it?
- Can you point out where the vandalism is, I can't spot any! Ollie 00:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- PS. don't forget to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~
- By the way, an easy way to revert is to find the last good version in the history and edit that version. Then just save it straight away, returning the current page to the state it was in before. Ollie 00:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Try reloading the page it my be that vadalism and was found & corrected earilar, but you need to reload the page, to see the latest version.Merc25 05:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Sources
from the main page: "in fact TCM have been proven to be able to cure AIDS totally."
Surely statements like this should have a source - or else isn't it weasel words or something?
- i've removed this sentence, i believe it is vandalism that just slipped by. JoeSmack Talk 20:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Socio-Cultural/Economic factors
As with most dominant discussions of HIV/AIDS, very little is said on this page about the socio-cultural and economic causes of the spread of HIV (that is, that it spreads primarily due to poverty and the low social status of women). Discussing the HIV/AIDS pandemic as though it is sheerly a health issue delimits the range of solutions to those focusing on health (and therefore driven by the "Northern" or developed health and research system. Poor people in Africa are creating great solutions (many based around home-based care and the empowerment of women) to HIV/AIDS at the community level, but it is very difficult for them to access funding for them.
I'm hoping to write a short section on these issues when I have a little time in the coming weeks. If anyone has a suggestion about where on the page it might go, please suggest away.
Thanks Shannonbah 02:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps in the sections that cover those points already. --Bob 05:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- it spreads primarily due to poverty and the low social status of women
- No, it spreads exclusively through bodily fluids. You don't have to equalize the socioeconomic status of the globe to save those at risk to AIDS, you need to educate them. How POV is it to suggest that a human being is unable to make rational decisions simply because he/she is impoverished? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 07:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- What I will actually try to get across is that people (particularly women) who live in desperately poor circumstances are far less likely to be able to make rational decisions; she may not have such choices available to her. If a poor woman is completely dependent upon her husband for her (and her children's) livelihood and social status, it is extremely difficult if not impossible for her to be able to negotiate safe sex or condom use, no matter how well she may know the facts about HIV/AIDS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shannonbah (talk • contribs) 21:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
- Take a look at your logic please. If someone literally doesn't have any choice to make, then clearly there isn't even room for a rational decision to be made. That doesn't mean you can say, "[poor people] are far less likely to be able to make rational decisions." --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- What I will actually try to get across is that people (particularly women) who live in desperately poor circumstances are far less likely to be able to make rational decisions; she may not have such choices available to her. If a poor woman is completely dependent upon her husband for her (and her children's) livelihood and social status, it is extremely difficult if not impossible for her to be able to negotiate safe sex or condom use, no matter how well she may know the facts about HIV/AIDS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shannonbah (talk • contribs) 21:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
That is aleady covered elsewhere in the article --Bob 23:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Alternative treatment
The following edit deleted a sentence about vitamin C; I reverted and restored the sentence. The deleting edit was: " 06:00, 6 December 2006 Grcampbell (Talk | contribs) (we don't need to add every alternative medicine that has been tested. We don't even list every type of ART used! Revert reversion.)"
I agree that we don't need to add every alternative medicine that has been tested. If, however, someone wishes to do so, I see no harm in it; if it takes up too much space it can be moved to a separate page. Ideally, information about the results of the tests would also be provided. Similarly for conventional treatments.
However, that explanation does not justify deleting the sentence about vitamin C, since this sentence was very far from listing the large number of alternative treatments that have no doubt been tried. The sentence was giving one example of an alternative treatment (very high doses of vitamin C) -- one which has been found in preliminary clinical trials to suppress the symptoms of AIDS and markedly reduce the tendency for secondary infections. Any treatment which does this deserves mention, in my opinion.
The section on alternative treatments is already much shorter than the section on conventional treatments and is at the end of a section and without a separate heading, where it is likely to attract less attention. Rather than shortening the alternative treatments section, a more balanced article could be achieved by lengthening the alternative treatments section and placing it where it is more likely to be seen (with a separate heading, or a topic sentence menioning it at the beginning of the treatment section, for example). --Coppertwig 13:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- My feeling on this is that section on alternative treatments is long enough. Allowing a gazillion different ones would be disproportionate to the amount of suggested clinical treatment out there suggested: a vast majority being HAARTs. In addition to all this, the "High doses of vitamin C have been used, for example, to treat AIDS, with good preliminary clinical results." is cited from a 1984 source; i'm guessing the 'preliminary clinical results' were preliminary because no one really reproduced it. It is probably why doctors don't give a Vit C. horsepill with all the other HAARTs pills when someone comes to them for treatment. JoeSmack Talk 15:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with JoeSmack, therefore I again deleted the vitamin C reference. Preliminary results in 1984... yes, 22 years later I would hope that we would have gotten past preliminary results. Moreover, examples of alternative treatments are already given, try reading the article. Furthermore, we do not need to lengthen the quackery aspect of AIDS treatments, especially in an article of this length. --Bob 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've restored the sentence about vitamin C for the following reasons:
- Wikipedia articles are required to show a neutral point of view according to Wikipedia policy. Deleting part of the alternative therapies section when it is already much shorter and less prominent than the conventional treatments section contravenes this policy.
- The vitamin C sentence is the most important sentence in the alternative treatment paragraph. Much of the alternative treatment paragraph actually has an anti-alternative treatment slant. If the paragraph is too long, perhaps some other part of the paragraph could be deleted. If there is too long a list of alternative treatments, perhaps alternative treatments that don't have citations showing promising results could be deleted -- though the alternative treatment paragraph is already much shorter than the conventional treatment section.
- Yes, I agree: I would hope that after 22 years, someone would have carried out a reasonably large randomized controlled trial of bowel-tolerance-intake vitamin C as an AIDS treatment. (Placebo control may not be possible for bowel-tolerance-intake levels, but randomized control is possible.) If someone can find a reference to such a study, it would improve this article. I encourage people to look for one. I It would be a sad state of affairs if no such study has been conducted after the encouraging results in the Cathcart study and the success of very-high-dose vitamin C with other viruses; although I hear it's almost impossible to get funding for such studies, and that any researcher interested enough in vitamin C to conduct a study using bowel tolerance intake levels is likely to have strong ethical concerns about placing anyone in the non-vitamin-C group when life-threatening illness is involved. If there has been a reasonably large randomized-controlled study of bowel-tolerance-intake vitamin C for AIDS which did not show any benefit, please mention it here and it may be a good reason for deleting the vitamin C sentence. Speculating that such a study might exist is not a reason to delete the vitamin C sentence.
- Being 22 years old does not invalidate the results of a study. However, I'm adding a reference to a more recent study (although it is a study of much lower doses of vitamin C). --Coppertwig 11:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm running out the door, but here's my take. I don't see this 'anti-alternative-treatment bias' that you keep on claiming. The section is proportional to the amount of suggested treatment in the real world (a majority being HAARTs). For similar reason's the reappraisal section is smaller than a majority of the article. I think deletion was a good call because the burden of proof lies on the editor and not the reader - doubly so for such a stringent scientific article. Using the word 'quackery' in the edit summary is hardly enough to call the bias-police. Also, especially in a case like this, it is a better idea to post the new source here instead of the article and dealing with a second revert and raised temperatures of editors. Like I said, I'm running out the door, but by first glance it is the same fellow doing in 1998 more of what he did in 1984 (note: we knew like nothing in 1984 about HIV/AIDS compared to what we know now). I'm thinking hes the only Vit C. fan out there in pertinence to HIV - any other scientists with peer reviewed journals who've supplied similar findings? JoeSmack Talk 14:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've restored the sentence about vitamin C for the following reasons:
- Why the emphasis on vit C? why not other nutrients/vitamins/minerals such as D or E? or selenium amongst others? I will modify the text so that the penchant for vit C is not glaringly obvious. --Bob 18:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I see that Coppertwig has cited the WP:NPOV policy as grounds for expanding the alternative treatments section. I think this is a misapplication of NPOV - specifically, the stipulation to avoid "Undue Weight". To quote, "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all... We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view". The idea that megadose Vitamin C can prevent, treat, or cure AIDS is the view of a small minority and has very little supporting evidence. To present it (or other unproven alternative therapies) on an equal, or near-equal, footing with treatments that have a massive amount of peer-reviewed literature behind them would be the NPOV violation. I think the current edit by Bob is appropriate. MastCell 19:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I apologize for mentioning bias on the part of editors. I retract the statements about such bias and have deleted them from the discussion above. (I hope such deletion doesn't contravene any guideline.) This is the place for discussing the development of an article which has a neutral point of view, not the place for discussing any characteristics of editors. I’ll try to be a little more collaborative.
- Perhaps we can come up with a section we all agree on (or at least can all tolerate). I suggest the following criteria as a compromise (reserving the right to change my mind later) :
- The section on alternative therapies (last paragraph of "treatment" section) to be very nearly the same length as in the version of 05:18, 5 December 2006 Antandrus (just before I added a sentence about vitamin C).
- The section will not contain any statement that any editor objects to on the grounds that the statement is false or highly misleading.
- The section will mention several alternative therapies, including the ones for which there is the most evidence that they may have benefit; possibly also some of the most popular ones.
- The section will provide several links or footnotes leading the reader interested in alternative therapies to further information on the topic.
- What do you think? Are there other criteria that need to be included?
- Other comments : The Mills (2005) reference says that up to 68% of participants in a nationwide USA survey admitted to using some form of complementary or alternative therapy. 68% can hardly be called a "tiny minority".
- Also: I would like to delete or change the last sentence "None of these treatments have been proven in controlled trials to have any effect in treating HIV or AIDS.[97]" because it is false or at least highly misleading: it implies that there are no controlled trials showing benefit from alternative therapies, when in fact there are such controlled trials showing benefit; and it implies that it is talking about all alternative therapies, when the Mills (2005) article referenced in the footnote specifically excluded examination of "trials of antioxidant and vitamin therapy", and for the therapies it did examine, did find some evidence of benefit for some of the therapies. --Coppertwig 02:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Vitamin and mineral statements have been included above the alternative treatment section in a manner that is more than adequate for the amount of research and data that has been put forward about these. there is also a reference to a review article should anyone want more info on this topic. This should close any further debate on the issue. As the vitamin section is no longer within the scope of alternative treatment, the mills article should stand. Also, as the statement regarding the Mills article states that they do not have any effect in treating HIV and AIDS, which is still true, then that statement should also stand. Quality of life and treatment of HIV are two different things. --Bob 03:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's not clear to me whether you are commenting on the list of criteria I suggested. If you wish to suggest different criteria, or if you wish to suggest an alternative means of resolving this dispute other than using a list of criteria, please state that clearly.
- Since no one has (as far as I understand) objected to the list of criteria, I'm planning to write a paragraph which in my opinion satisfies the criteria, and present it here for review.
- Since one of the complaints is the length of the article, one thing that may help (partially) resolve this dispute is putting some material about alternative treatment for AIDS on other pages, with links from this page. Does anyone here object to the idea of me putting material on that topic on other pages (already existing pages and/or page to be created)? If you object, please state clearly that you object, what exactly you object to, and what is the grounds for the objection. Of course, such other pages would be subject to all the usualy Wikipedian editing etc.
- In reply to Bob: I disagree; in my opinion the amount of information given about vitamins and minerals does not adequately provide information about the amount of research and data that exists about them. A reference to a review article, which is not easily and quickly obtainable over the Internet, is not adequate in my view. Several links to other Wikipedia pages with extensive additional information on the topic would be good, in my opinion. Debate on this issue is not closed: I am still not happy with the article as it stands. I don't understand what you mean by "the vitamin section is no longer within the scope of alternative treatment." I recognize that there is a very brief mention of vitamins just above the paragraph about alternative treatments and I think this can also be considered to be within the scope of this discussion. (i.e. I suggest we discuss the nutritional and alternative sections together here. If you prefer to discuss them separately perhaps you could start a separate section for one of them on this talk page, though I'm not sure they can easily be logically separated.) It's fine with me to retain a footnote to the Mills article; in fact, I may insist on it; however, it should not be accompanied by statements I consider to be false. It is not true that CAM have no effect in treating HIV and AIDS. For example, from the Mills article, p. 396, re Antoni, 2002 and stress management: "Men receiving stress management had significantly higher immune marker levels after six to 12 months follow-up."--Coppertwig 02:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be concerned that starting a new article on alternative treatments would be a POV fork - a strongly discouraged method of dispute resolution. What might be a very good idea is spinning off a sub-article on "Treatment of HIV/AIDS", which could be linked from this page. The treatment of AIDS, which is a complex topic, could be dealt with in more depth there. There could of course be a section on "alternative" treatments, but it would likely be significantly smaller/less detailed than the sections on proven treatments, based on the undue weight policy. MastCell 18:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Making a separate page "Treatment of HIV/AIDS" as you suggest sounds like a good idea to me. It would have several advantages. (1) It would leave room for the conventional treatment section to be expanded as well as the alternative treatment section. (2) Currently, the HIV page and the AIDS page each have material on treatment. It seems a good idea to combine this material onto a single page, leaving a short summary on each page with a link to the treatment subarticle; this would avoid having pretty well the same subject covered on two different pages. (3) It would shorten the AIDS article, which is rather long.
- Is there a template or something that can be put up to indicate that splitting off a subarticle is being discussed? What do other people think of this idea? --Coppertwig 02:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- I object to any criteria that wishes to lengthen the article. However, the current length passed FA not that long ago.
- There are many topics that are not discussed in detail in this article, ones far better researched than vitamin and nutritional supplements. These include the role of CD8 cells and exposure times in relation to long term progression, the role of Tat in disease progression, the role of IL-4 and IL-7 in increasing viral load and quickening the progression to death. The effects of coinfection with CMV and combination antiretrovirals and ganciclovir, the effect of host genetic mutations such as CCR2-1-2518-G allele or polymorphisms of the CX3CR1 gene amongst many others. Regarding treatment, there is a plethora of research on HAART that isn't mentioned in this article, including mitochondrial disease, because this article is a summary of the important points regarding AIDS. Create your subarticle with your fetish for vitamin C within it and link to it from this article from the more than adequate attention this article gives it. The Mills article states suggest that stress management may prove.... I have to emphasise to you that it doesn't say that it def. does, one very small, poorly managed study doesn't make it so. The article also goes on to state Despite the widespread use of CAM by people living with HIV/AIDS, the effectiveness of these therapies has not been established. Vis a vis CAM's popularity, the paucity of clinical trials and their low methodological quality are concerning.. Now if you wish to argue that large scale clinical trials have been carried out and that CAM's are equivalent to or even close to treatment with HAART, and their effectiveness has been proven through tried and tested methods then your edits will be reversed quickly like edits inferring that HIV doesn't cause AIDS are reversed. I will refer you to WP:NPOV --Bob 04:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- I object to the personal remark Create your subarticle with your fetish for vitamin C within it by user Grcampbell (Bob) above. This is inappropriate and I take it as violating the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please restrict comments to discussion of what will or will not appear on the article pages and do not make remarks about Wikipedian editors. --Coppertwig 05:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
If no one objects, I'll create another heading on this talk page "Proposed creation of page 'Treatment of HIV/AIDS'", and also put a note on the HIV page directing people to discuss the proposal to create such a page here. --Coppertwig 23:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Dr Robert C Gallo?
Why has there not been any focus on the supposed discoverer of the virus , Dr Robert C Gallo. In 1975 he was working on Leukemia in context of retroviruses. And he holds 79 medical patents relating to Aids medical treatment. Conflict of interest? Also where is the issue over the Reagan administration in the early 80's who actively helped to create the term "Aids" They also helped Gallo with his patents. A LOT of material needs to be added here.--Redblossom 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Any positive, or rather, non-negative information regarding the Reagan administration will be labeled "POV" and removed. That's just the way it works around here. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, there's plenty of focus on Gallo - it can be found at Robert Gallo. If you have some previously published, reliably sourced, verifiable information you'd like to add about Gallo, that would be the place. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about Reagan - there's a section on AIDS in Reagan Administration. MastCell 18:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
GRID repetitively mentioned 3 times
The fact that AIDS was originally referred to as GRID and the reason the name was subsequently changed is mentioned 3 times in the article; that's approximately 2 times more than necessary. If subsequent mention is needed it can be expressed as a short phrase such as "Originally dubbed GRID, ..." below, rather restated as a sentence. If possible two of the three similar stories can be simply edited away. Here I'm simply trying to reduce repetition; expanding one of the three versions with more detail can also be OK.
Under "CDC classification system for HIV infection":
- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) originally classified AIDS as GRID which stood for Gay Related Immune Disease.[citation needed] However, after determining that AIDS is not isolated to homosexual people the name was changed to the neutral AIDS.
Under "Origin of HIV" it says:
- Originally dubbed GRID, or Gay-Related Immune Deficiency, health authorities soon realized that nearly half of the people identified with the syndrome were not homosexual men. In 1982, the CDC introduced the term AIDS to describe the newly recognized syndrome.
Under "HIV and AIDS misconceptions" it says:
- When scientists first recognized the syndrome in 1981 initially they termed it Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome, a possible source for the misconception holding that AIDS infects only homosexual men; scientists soon renamed the disease in recognition of transmission other than by male-male intercourse.
Any objections to my editing two of these down? Should I present the proposed edits here first? If someone else wants to go ahead and do it that's OK with me, too. --Coppertwig 03:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Biblical Belief
I know that it's not a widely accepted belief but a small group of people, namely white South Africans have taken to the belief that God sent it and maybe this theory should be included? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.27.56.178 (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
Proposed creation of page 'Treatment of HIV/AIDS'"
This proposal came out of the "Alternative treatment" discussion above. The proposal is to create a new page "Treatment of HIV/AIDS", and move the content of the "Treatment" section of this (AIDS) page onto it, and also move and merge the content of the "Treatment" section of the HIV page onto it. On the AIDS page and on the HIV page, a short (few paragraphs) summary will remain along with a link to the new page. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Advantages of creating the new page:
- Fixing the current content fork where the similar topic of HIV or AIDS treatment is covered on two separate pages.
- More room to expand the material on conventional treatments.
- More room to expand the material on alternative treatments.
- Partially or completely resolving the ongoing dispute under "Alternative treatments" above, because one of the root causes of the dispute is whether there is enough room to include certain material on alternative treatments.
I'll also put a note on the HIV talk page, directing discussion here. Comments? --Coppertwig 05:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose deleting the contents of the treatment. Copy and expand elsewhere but do not delete any of the contents. --Bob 07:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Conditional support: I think creating a new page is worthwhile because the topic is complex/detailed and it will improve readability for both articles. The material in the current AIDS article on treatment could be summarized, with more in-depth info on the new page. However, even on a new page we need to observe WP:NPOV and undue weight - in other words, a new page wouldn't be a license to expand the alternative treatment section out of proportion to its relevance. MastCell 18:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Conditional support: I support the proposal I described above assuming it includes a message in italics at the beginning of the section such as "For main article see ..." with a link to the in-depth article. I oppose any duplication of the sentence "None of these treatments have been proven in controlled trials to have any effect in treating HIV or AIDS.[97]" which I would like to delete or change and which is under discussion above under "Alternative treatments". If duplication, rather than moving or summarizing, is to occur, I would like to see more about Wikipedia policy or guidelines as it applies to the situation of having sections of two articles covering almost exactly the same topic or a section of one article covering the same topic as another whole article. I've found Wikipedia policies or guidelines covering closely related situations but they don't seem to me to bear on this exact situation. By the way, I apologize if I've misused the term "content forking"; I simply intended to use it to mean the existence of more than one article covering the same topic, and on reading further into Wikipedia policy I see that it may usually mean something a bit different I didn't intend, and I apologize for any misunderstanding that may have occurred as a result. --Coppertwig 02:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
AIDS Cure
Over the course of about 2 years I have heard reports that the cure for completely eliminating AIDS has been found. Paul Harvy News was the first I heard of this. Then I also read from BBC a article about the cure however it was deleted shortly after. CNN has never had a article to my knowlege of such a issue. My friends say it might be a Hush Hush thing that the US governmet is doing. However I have to know. Can anyone besides me and my friends and a couple of people from around my town, verify that the cure has been found??
thanks Maverick423 21:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry to say, no, there's no such thing. - Nunh-huh 23:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. You shouldn't believe anything you hear on Paul Harvey!!! Most of it's distorted beyond recognition.
- To be honest, 4 times a year another 'miracle cure'/vaccine is found for HIV. Lots and lots of money is spent on research behind them, and so when they think they are onto something they smear it all over the press world. Years later nothing no research has progressed, tests have failed, and everybody is back to square one. I don't mean to be cynical, but I've stopped even reading that kind of stuff until it has gotten through a significant amount of trials. JoeSmack Talk 23:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)