Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 24

Image HIV_epidem.png has been updated

The image AIDS_and_HIV_prevalence.svg is available. It is a vector image. However, it does not have a legend. Consequentially, that means prevalence is not spelled incorrectly on the legend. Someone who has edit rights should make a decision to replace/not replace. Romnempire (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

While File:AIDS_and_HIV_prevalence.svg is a vector image, it isn't necessarily an improvement on the currently used File:HIV Epidem.png. SVG is only helpful once the image is scaling up, but at the size those images are at it doesn't matter much. Having the legend on there isn't an improvement, see Wikipedia:Captions#Special_situations and the {{legend}} template. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose to include

in this article. This image uses absolute numbers, which give a reader a better image of how the world is affected. More so than a relative map such as the HIV epidem map does now, which almost makes it seem like India and China are on par with many European countries. Of course, many people might think of that by themselves...but then again, many people might not. So please, find a place for this image. Mallerd (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 81.68.255.36 (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

CDC states that HIV is more likely to be transmitted through anal than through vaginal intercourse

Perhaps in the prevention section it should be noted that the CDC states that aids is more likely to be transmitted through anal than through vaginal intercourse.

HIV is spread primarily by:

"Not using a condom when having sex with a person who has HIV. All unprotected sex with someone who has HIV contains some risk. However: Unprotected anal sex is riskier than unprotected vaginal sex. Among men who have sex with other men, unprotected receptive anal sex is riskier than unprotected insertive anal sex."

This may be something that should be posted in the prevention section, so that page readers can gain a fuller knowledge of how to protect themselves (given that some readers may have a practical interest in what they are reading). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesint (talk • contribs) 2010-07-01 03:56UST

It definitely should be stated there, and indeed is in the chart comparing exposure routes: receptive anal intercourse is riskier than receptive PIV is riskier than insertive anal intercourse is riskier than insertive vaginal intercourse is riskier than performing fellatio is riskier than receiving head. If you think that this should be represented in the prose as well, it would probably not overburden that section to add another subsection with a few sentences, stealing references from the chart and adding the CDC (note: I did not check the references just now, but I assume that they are solid). Better yet, if you find solid sources describing the risks of receiving/performing oral sex for/on a woman and maybe shared toys (though that would be a bit difficult to characterize - properly cleaned toys should carry pretty much no risk, while hot-swapping is presumably roughly as risky as receptive PIV), that would be great to add. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

How much info in Treatments and Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)

When discussing the CAM section above, I realized that there is an issue that should be discussed with respect to how much should be in each section. In general, I would think a good case could be made for including most things under treatments, or CAM, that have had a study performed with significant positive or negative results. If this is too much information, then it could be put into a sub-article, or list. This question touches on ethical and moral issues as to the dissemination of information about things which are either known to be helpful or known to be harmful. I'm not saying go out and look for things to put in. But if, for example, one sees a study that says doing X increases mortality by 50%, is there not an obligation to mention it if it is something people are reasonably likely to do? Makyen (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Many preliminary studies that achieved "significance" (a low p value, generally) are published in primary sources but are later found to be wrong (PMID 16060722), increasing the importance of respecting secondary sources; that section nicely discusses the avoidance of primary sources in discussion of controversial topics. Therefore, "including most things...that have had a study performed with significant positive or negative results" (as you suggest) would result of inclusion of a large amount of erroneous information. Reliable secondary sources should be our main sources of medical information. -- Scray (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Added Alternative Treatment Section

I added an alternative treatment section with valid references, feel free to improve...--Gniniv (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why my alternative section doesn't belong.. Check the referencing, it is all valid!!--Gniniv (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gniviv,

I've integrated your section into the "Complementary and alternative medicine" section with this edit.

Then, with this edit, I've removed the text, "See also Naturopathy, Osteopathy, and Alternative medicine", and I've also moved the references to be after the period in the sentence rather than before it.

One question: In the book, Rethinking AIDS, does it say, "They point to cases where AIDS symptoms were present without any sign of AIDS"? I suggest it might instead say, "They point to cases where AIDS symptoms were present without any sign of HIV."

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, that would sound better...--Gniniv (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to the "CAM" section, added by a user who does not appear to understand that Wikipedia must reflect the current understanding of medical science, not what we wish were the case. In addition to being part of the user's Wikipedia campaign to "constantly challenge the mainstream scientific and political consensus", this section violates our WP:WEIGHT policy. Wikipedia is not a forum for the promotion of AIDS denialism or "alternative medicine"; it is an information source that must convey current knowledge (i.e., the current consensus) about medicine. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

My edits have been reverted, so I'll try to be more clear: "complementary and alternative" treatments should be included under the subheading "experimental and proposed treatments". When there is evidence for efficacy, a treatment is no longer "complementary and alternative". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Er, I don't think your edits were reverted. Someone just went even further back than you in reverting, to remove all of the questionable material. MastCell ^Talk 21:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that CAM should be under experimental and proposed treatments (E&PT). I view E&PT to cover treatments which currently have experiments (trials) running, or are reasonably proposed for such within the mainline medical paradigm. Putting CAM under E&PT feels like we would be making a statement as to where we feel it rates within treatments. That could be viewed either positive or negative bias depending on the observer.

As to the proposal to remove CAM due to WP:WEIGHT: I believe that this was stated with respect to a version of the article which had a large amount of material added to the CAM section which was inappropriate for the article. CAM should be covered as it is used by 60% of patients. In CAM's current version there are 210 words with most of it being direct negative statements with supporting references. There are some positive statements, also with supporting references. It could use a bit of re-wording. Even better would be more material, both positive and negative, with supporting references (studies). There also appears to be a need for us to discuss what we feel comes under the heading of CAM. My expectation is that many people will feel that some things fall under CAM even when there is evidence of their efficacy. I would argue that this category could be considered by many to be as broad as anything which is not likely to be prescribed by a doctor for their patient irregardless of efficacy.

Makyen (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

CAM will generally fall in the E&PT section; as the NCCAM web site states in answer to "What is CAM?":

"CAM is a group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not generally considered to be part of conventional medicine. While scientific evidence exists regarding some CAM therapies, for most there are key questions that are yet to be answered through well-designed scientific studies—questions such as whether these therapies are safe and whether they work for the purposes for which they are used."

So, where CAM is the subject of a reliable (preferably secondary) source, it may be appropriate (based on WP:WEIGHT) to include in Treatments and other sections. -- Scray (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! That is all I am proposing. We need to include all perspectives on AIDS treatment (per Wp:Weight of course) to ensure neutrality.--Gniniv (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I reverted your addition because it was focused on denialism, not CAM. I do think that well-referenced material on CAM, shown in properly-conducted trials to reduce symptoms in a manner that's safe and effective, would be a valuable addition. The chart on CAM use in the US is helpful. -- Scray (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Two WILDLY differing statements in the "Prognosis" section

"Without treatment, the net median survival time after infection with HIV is estimated to be 9 to 11 years, depending on the HIV subtype."... "Without antiretroviral therapy, death normally occurs within a year." OK, one of these statements is incorrect. They both need to be severely qualified and/or the exact author/source stated, because they completely contradict each other. 9–11 years is not the same as 1 year. Please fix. Softlavender (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• UPDATE: Found the missing info (in the HIV article) and added it. Softlavender (talk) 08:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

HIV vaccination

A new vaccine has been made available on trial bases to volunteers, and overall their study shows a drop in 31.33 recuring percent of the chances of picking up HIV.. is this okay to add to the article, or too early because the medication has yet to be approved by drug controllers in any country? The link is here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8272532.stm. Thank you.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This is covered in the HIV vaccine article, i.e. here, and that article is linked from the AIDS page already. Whether more specific commentary belongs in the AIDS article itself is not clear to me. -- Scray (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

HIV to AIDS progression question

This article says that "In the absence of antiretroviral therapy, the median time of progression from HIV infection to AIDS is nine to ten years". So the first diagnosed cases of AIDS in the US in 1980 to 1985 actually initially got HIV between 1970 and 1975, on average? This is very surprising to me, although I'm obviously not an expert on the subject, but it conflicts with the timetable and assumptions in the famous book I've read on the subject ("And the Band Played On") which seem to suggest a much faster progression of 4-5 years from infection to death.

But it would sort of explain how Robert R. died of AIDS in 1969... if he was just an extremely fast-progressing outlier of the people who got infected just as the disease came into the country, his incredibly early demise would actually make perfect sense. Is there any place I could read more about this in at least quasi-nontechnical language? --74.138.214.5 (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Be aware that Shilts' book was published only 6 years after the first cases were recognized, and only a few years after HIV testing became available; thus, very little was known with confidence about the natural history of HIV infection. Also note that "median time" means that half the people take less time than that, and half take longer. The range is huge, and many of the reasons for that are now known (some are not) - there are some details and links in our HIV article, particularly the second paragraph of the Prognosis section.

As far as further reading, you'll have to be the judge of what "quasi-nontechnical language" is, but here are some relevant links from reasonably reputable sources: the U.S. CDC, HIV Insite at UCSF, and The Body. Hope this helps, and if these sources cover things (supported by reliable sources) that would improve our article(s), please be bold or make suggestions on Talk pages like this one. -- Scray (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Outdated anti-viral therapy data

Please note that the anti-viral section is quite outdated and does not include present and near future therapies such as Integrase inhebitors, entry inhebitors, CCR5 blockers and nanoviricides —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.195.83 (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It can be difficult to keep up with the latest treatments. If you have information from reliable sources, please help keep the article current. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 01:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jamawa, 24 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change "Anally Injected Death Sentence (AIDS)" to "Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS)" which is its proper medical name.

Jamawa (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. Pending changes, anyone? - 2/0 (cont.) 16:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Research to AIDS vaccine

Research is being done to a AIDS vaccine (eg by the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative]], 2 key antibodies are discovered (GP9 and GP16) see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090903163730.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by KVDP (talk • contribs) 11:00, 25 January 2010

Interesting find. --Devourer09 04:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

AIDS is not a red ribbon

AIDS is an immune deficiency syndrome, not a ribbon or an awareness movement. I understand the ribbon's cultural connection with AIDS awareness, but since the ribbon doesn't illustrate the subject itself, what's the justification for it being the lead pic? Townlake (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Scien801, 20 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Microbial translocation causes to an IL-10-dependent inhibition of CD4 T-cell expansion and function by up-regulating PD-1 levels on monocytes which leads to IL-10 production by monocytes after binding of PD-1 by PD-L1.

Scien801 (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Did you want that included in the article? If so what section? Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

AIDS in the public eye...

Im sure that there used to be a section within the main article with regard to well known people / celebrities who have succumbed to this illness, kenny everett, eric 'eazy-e' wright and freddie mercury to name but a few, i believe it was under the heading of 'notable sufferers of AIDS' or something similar?? 95.149.1.223 (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Found it! It has been moved to its own article, List of HIV-positive people.

A wikilink to it is in the template, {{AIDS}}, that appears on the bottom of many AIDS related articles.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Addition Request

Was just looking at the aids.gov article. Can you add a link to this article under the related articles section? The aids.gov article says it is not an orphan and needs links....this page seems to me it would be a good place from which to link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2Labradoodles (talk • contribs) 02:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible cure with stem cell treatment

One patient got cured from AIDS with stem cell treatment (he is HIV negative since 3 years now), though further research is still ongoing. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122602394113507555.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/health/14hiv.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.45.252 (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at including recent material on that based on that at AIDS#Experimental_and_proposed_treatments . I came across stub articles at "Timothy Ray Brown" and "Berlin patient" that were both prime for deletion under WP:ONEEVENT, and have redirected both articles to that section. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This belongs in a section at the end labeled research and have moved it to such. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks for letting me know, I'll retarget the redirects. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Doc James - Edit wars

Just added Doc James's disputes and my defenses

Medical articles on Wikipedia must be cited by the best available evidence and written in a consistent format. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. Additionally, the diberri tool will aid in the formatting of references; all one needs to do is cut and paste the results. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern on references. For the sake of record, I'm one of the early Wikipedians (13th or so) and English is not my native language. The major problems with Wikipedians are that 1. Majority of them believes in Google and wants references (Tamil and related topics are one of the worst affected in these aspect; as olden Tamil people were so adverse to document their names and many Tamil articles are not yet translated and can't stand for Google Test), 2. Others are always wrong mentality--instead of trying to contribute or improve, 3. Reverting without reading the article--just because it contradicts their belief (Remember Science itself is a changing thing and olden theories are now lies). Sorry for the lengthy lamentation; but, I hope you can understand the problems and solutions. Thanks. --Rrjanbiah (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You have added "Siddha medicine claims to have cheapest available treatment." a second time to the lead of the article on AIDs. There is a number of problems with this. One it is unreffed. Two it is not mentioned in the body of the article. Three even if you can find someone who says it is cheap to use I can think of a cheaper treatment ( its called nothing and it is free ). If on the other hand you are referring to a cost benefit analysis you would need a review article from the last 5 years published in a major journal. This is how Wikipedia works. Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The desire for references are not "a major problem with Wikipedians" they are essential. They are require to create a reliable source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary notes

12:07, 26 December 2010 Rrjanbiah (talk | contribs) (136,382 bytes) (Undid revision 404198852 by Jmh649 (talk) Read the article & links and then revert) (undo)

15:46, 26 December 2010 Jmh649 (talk | contribs) (136,313 bytes) (Reverted to revision 404198852 by Jmh649; it did read it and still do not see a ref, and more important who cares what they claim?. (TW)) (undo)

It's a Wiki and it's a collaborative effort. If somebody do not add a reference, other person may add reference. If nobody cares about such claim why do you bother having that note added? --Rrjanbiah (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Or if the person who has added the info originally did not add a ref someone can come along and remove the text as done here.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

As per the Wiki spirit, what will actually happen is 1. the article will get other person's control, or 2. the person who controls the article will become mature to accommodate other thoughts, or 3. the person who controls the article will search for the truth and add relevant details/references. It might take years, but either of them will happen. Personally, I'll be happy if the last thing is happened, as there will be bunch of hidden texts will be translated and reach the world. --Rrjanbiah (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

edit request for "Estimated Risk of Aqcuisition stats"

Just like hospitals refine labels so that consumption of medicine is less misread, I think the table should indicate that statistics for transmission rates of oral sex performed on a woman are not available. Although the table has an indicator to show that the oral sex statistics are only for those performed on a man they can be easily misread as I did this and was falsely operating under the impression that the transmission rates were for both sexes. I don't know how I misread it but I did. The table seems like a complete list as it has 2 numbers for oral sex transmissions. I think it should be expanded and have a N/A under "oral sex performed on a woman" I am not sure how to make such an edit myself in wikipedia

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeUser5050 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Tigerfri13, 31 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} There was no article published in the Journal Blood about the "cured" HIV patient. In fact, the article appears in the New England Journal of Medicine http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0802905 I think this should be corrected. Thank youTigerfri13 (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Tigerfri13 (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Partly done: The NEJM paper was a detailed case history published Feb 2009; the Blood article mentioned is a subsequent follow-up. See this page. I've added a convenience link to the Blood paper in the article Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

AIDS as a Disease of Poverty

I am planning to contribute a substantial part to this article on AIDS as a disease of poverty. Currently, AIDS is listed as an example on the diseases of poverty page because of its extremely high prevalence rate in developing countries. I want to expand on this idea and provide examples of the diseases and infections that predispose people in poverty to HIV/AIDS. I will be using Eileen Stillwaggon’s “Race, Sex, and the Neglected Risks for Women and Girls in Sub-Saharan Africa” (2008) as a starting point for creating this Wikipedia section. Specifically, I want to write about malnutrition—both on the macro (protein and energy deficiencies) and micro level (iron, zinc, and vitamin deficiencies)—and parasitic infections such as malaria, intestinal parasites and schistosomiasis. Additionally, I hope to add a section on increased risk of HIV infection for women and children. It would be really nice to get advice on how to best fit my contribution into this article. Should I make a new section here or try to fit it in the diseases of poverty article? Thanks a lot! MonicaHe (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a very important topic, but it's hard to know how to incorporate without seeing content. How about using your sandbox/subpage to draft something, with a link from this page to attract some eyes to chip in and help - both for content editing and conceptualizing links from other articles? Once there's consensus, it could be mainspaced. -- Scray (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that adding to this article in terms of AIDS been a disease of poverty could be linked to the denial of AIDS. The denial of AIDS' section is tiny and doesn't touch on some of the main issues. Now I know AIDS is a real disease but from my understanding the denial of AIDS is prevelent in South Africa because many Africans believe that AIDS is just a term to hide the main cause of African suffering which is (and here's the link) poverty. It is not cause the people are too stupid to accept the truth but you must see it from their point of view, why bother putting so much attention and resources on AIDS the disease when clearly poverty has the largest role in South African deaths. I suggest reading "An Epidemic Of Disputes" by Guy Butler for a clear understanding of AIDS denailism to gain a South African point of view. I'm tempted to start editing myself but I have never edited on such a touchy subject and it would take some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Budgiefan (talk • contribs) 18:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, please ensure that whatever you added is factual information from reputable sources, and not original research/opinion, or synthesis.Jbower47 (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

More sources

• Landau, Elizabeth. "HIV in the '80s: 'People didn't want to kiss you on the cheek'." CNN. May 25, 2011.
• Park, Madison. "HIV in 2000s: Love, betrayal and a calling." CNN. June 5, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose to include

in this article. This image uses absolute numbers, which gives a reader a better image of how the world is affected. More so than a relative map such as the HIV epidem map does now, which almost makes it seem like India and China are on par with many European countries. Of course, many people might think of that by themselves...but then again, many people might not. So please, find a place for this image. Mallerd (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.68.255.36 (talk)

Mortality Rate

Please include a mortality rate statistics and explanation. This page can not be considered complete without it and a time line to the deaths, hopefully by continent.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albalma (talk • contribs) 20:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Title?

Howcome this isn't spelled out but adhd is? 68.43.222.187 (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, WP:UCN dictates how we should name articles. I believe AIDs is the common name for this particular topic. The adhd talk page may be receptive to moving their article to the shorter version, but you'd have to show that a preponderance of reliable sources use the acronym rather than the full name. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

#'s infected

I've reverted from the recent introduction of factual and grammatical errors in the introduction (which is in any case the place for an overview rather than a place for detailed discussion of year-to-year trends). The UN AIDS publication found here, sourced to WHO, illustrates quite nicely that the number of people living with HIV was higher in 2009 than 2004. - Nunh-huh 22:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 85.210.9.198, 26 August 2011

Hi there - On the AIDS page the word 'bachelor' is misspelled with a 't' in it in 'Eden junior, a lifelong batchelor'. 85.210.9.198 (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Changed, thanks. Yobol (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

the cure

Hello. I just read an US patent no. 5676977 and some articles about it, and some facebook pages about it and I'm convinced that the article about AIDS is wrong when it says that there is no cure for AIDS. Read the patent and correct it please.

Do you have any reliable sources per WP:MEDRS? Patents are not evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

To elaborate, patent no. 5676977 is a crock, it doesn't work, it doesn't cure AIDS. A patent means a government has granted an exclusive right to exploit an invention or product. It doesn't mean that the invention or product works. In the case of patent no. 5676977, it's an eleven year old patent that has not led to any commercial use, because...it doesn't work. So, no, the article is correct, and the patent is wrong, so we won't change the article, and it's beyond our power to correct the patent. - Nunh-huh 00:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean that the people described in the patent application were not cured? Is that data false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.236.25.72 (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

As Gerald Pierone, M.D. succinctly states, "Tetrasil is a quack product which does not cure AIDS.".[1] Patent applications do not demonstrate efficacy, and clinical information that proves efficacy would be reported in reputable refereed peer reviewed scientific journals in reproducible controlled studies, not in patent applications. You should read this page and the linked discussions if you are still curious. - Nunh-huh 01:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I realize that what is written in the patent is not very convincing. The problem is that what Gerald Pierone, M.D. says is even less convincing. I expect some research. The fact that modern AIDS therapies are a source of constant income for drug companies might be the reason why dr Pierone is trying to scare the reader ("this is really scary stuff!") instead of giving any evidence. My father was diagnosed with spondyloarthropathy (if I translated well) he couldn't stand up for too long, had neck pains and hand numbing. The doctors said, here is your neck brace, get used to it because you will use it until you die. Some time later he found dr. Kwasniewski's Optimal Diet and he never had a neck pain since then. The funny thing is that people with diabetes that are sentenced to insulin therapy stop taking insulin after a few days of Optimal Diet and stay healthy for decades with no diabetes - and this is supposed to be a chronic disease with no cure! What is more, after reading the book, I understood why and how it worked in thousands of cases already. This is a cognitive dissonance I have to deal with when dealing with the modern medicine. How can I believe Dr. Pierone or Dr. Young when all they say is "stay away from this stuff"? It's like they were adding "because it can harm our masters' profits". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.236.25.72 (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly up to you what you wish to believe, and on what basis you wish to believe it. For the purposes of informing, rather than misinforming, the public, Wikipedia requires reliable sources for information placed in its articles. In the case of health claims, that means peer reviewed science rather than anecdotes, self-published claims, or claims made in patent documents. The specific page regarding such sources can be found at WP:MEDRS. - Nunh-huh 09:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.236.25.72 (talk) 12:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Number infected map

This map presents misleading information. The map should be changed to show %infected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.149.148.7 (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the map just above that shows prevalence, which is another way of saying % infected. The number of infected map shows where the overall burden of HIV infection is greatest. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

New research

The idea suggests that if the cholesterol membrane of the HIV virus is stripped from it, then the immune system should return to normal: VOA article, actual paper (only abstract, requires registration): "Over-activation of plasmacytoid dendritic cell inhibits anti-viral T-cell responses: a model for HIV immunopathogenesis." This discovery is said to allow creating an actual vaccine in the future. -Mardus (talk) 11:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Intriguing and appears to be high-quality lab research, but it does not satisfy our criteria for inclusion in a WP article on a medically-related topic. It's primary research and exclusively in vitro - there is no evidence that any therapeutic benefit will be forthcoming, and it is unclear whether this work accurately reflects pathogenesis in vivo. It is interesting - but we're not here to discuss that. -- Scray (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No cure for HIV?

In the article on Gene therapy it says, "In 2007 and 2008, a man being treated by Gero Hütter was cured of HIV by repeated Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (see also Allogeneic stem cell transplantation, Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation, Allotransplantation) with double-delta-32 mutation which disables the CCR5 receptor; this cure was not completely accepted by the medical community until 2011.[31] This cure required complete ablation of existing bone marrow which is very debilitating." ScienceApe (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"Very debilitating" is one thing, but "side effects not infrequently include death" is the problem. Even if it works, it is not a practical method for dealing with the infection. HIV/AIDS is now sufficiently treatable that from a "quantity of life" standpoint that cure is simply not viable. Quality of life, well... there's that stigma issue. I guess you could have the article say "no practical cure" but that would beg the question. Oddly enough, WP:BLP1E in mind, that particular case might make for an interesting encyclopedia article. Don't suppose we have one... SDY (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Pandemic

According to wikipedia, an epidemic is when new cases of a certain disease, in a given human population, and during a given period, substantially exceed what is expected based on recent experience. And a pandemic is, by definition, and epidemic. While it may be technically "wide-spread", although it inhabits a strenuously small part of humanity, Aids cases certainly do not exceed what is expected so it is by definition, not a pandemic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.47.34 (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There are ample reliable sources that describe AIDS as a pandemic. For example: PMID 21763938, PMID 20397957, PMID 20018391, PMID 16760441, [2], [3], [4], etc., etc., etc. Please see pandemic for more information. — Scientizzle 17:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources is debatable, but if it is true, may I suggest changed the definition of either pandemic or epidemic to include this miraculous exception of a disease? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.47.34 (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Pandemic = epidemic over a large area. Multiple continents. Fits AIDS perfectly fine. — Scientizzle 18:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If you read my first paragraph, an epidemic must substantially exceed what is expected based on recent experience. This does not describe AIDS therefore AIDS is not an epidemic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.47.34 (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If it hasn't been made clear already, we call it what reliable sources call it. If you want a change, find reliable sources that say otherwise. Yobol (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As i understand it, reliable sources are not the only basis on which changes can be made, but like I said, AIDS does not fit the Wikipedia definition of an epidemic. Either the definition is wrong or the description is wrong, something needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.47.34 (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Your argument that it is not a pandemic appears to merely be a troll from an IP address, but I will respond briefly (in addition to the above responses).

This article is not intended to debate the definition of pandemic, or epidemic. It describes AIDS as a pandemic because it has been described as such by relevant, authoritative sources which are cited in the article, and more provided by Scientizzle above.

The discussion of "is AIDS by definition a pandemic" is baseless as it relies on your unstated assumed definitions of "a given human population", "a given period", expected, and "recent experience". Definitions can be chosen for those which would make almost any situation not an epidemic. To have a conversation about this (which is useless and inappropriate here as it is not a forum) one would first have to discuss the definitions of those terms.

I would suggest we end this conversation here. Makyen (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Typical Wikipedia, if anyone opposes mainstream science it is immediately dismissed. Whether AIDS is or isn't a pandemic is not a debate but a simple matter of comparison to a definition,(which fyi I took from the Wikipedia pageEpidemic and it is completely appropriate despite your conceited misgivings. This is an IP adress shared by hundreds of people so don'tbe so quick to blow the troll whistle.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.47.34 (talk • contribs)

Pandemic?

In the lead section it claims: AIDS is now a pandemic. As of 2009, AVERT estimated that there are 33.3 million people worldwide living with HIV/AIDS, with 2.6 million new HIV infections per year and 1.8 million annual deaths due to AIDS.

According to Aids.gov, which is a MUCH more reliable source than AVERT estimates that only 1.7 million Americans have aids. Quit frankly, AVERT has an agenda and it consistently lies about data and information to get support. I am going to change the article to support the realistic, .gov supported data. AIDS is number 17 on the World Health Organizations list of deadly diseases and has been dubbed one of the most preventable diseases in existence.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh, those numbers came from the WHO and UNAIDs, see here. Will change the article to properly source the origin of those numbers. Yobol (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I misread, it said world-wide and I thought it said in America, still, this article plays AIDS out to be a much bigger problem than it is. Very good source for this article : http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=20701--[[User:Jacksoncw|Jacksoncw]] (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A "book preview" on WorldNetDaily is about as far away from a reliable source for medical claims as I can think of. Yobol (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Medical claims? Scientists know exactly how it's transmitted, who is most at risk and how to prevent it. That is a well-known fact, there were no medical claims cited by that material. Also if you had actually read it, it is an article quoted from a Book of a well known political-analyst, I just cited the website because you can't read the book for free online.--Jacksoncw (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I will simply put the source as the ISBN code of the book, would that be reliable enough?--Jacksoncw (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Why would a book published by a talk-radio host in 2004—one that confuses "cure" and "means of prevention" in its very first sentence—be considered a reliable source of medical information in 2011? Simply put: it wouldn't. It isn't. We have higher standards.- Nunh-huh 17:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Saying condom and needle exchange programs "give the wrong message" is a medical claim. A book by a political activist does not meet WP:MEDRS. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with the guideline before asking more questions. Yobol (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Saying that condom and needle-exchange "give the wrong message" is the opinion of the reliable source Phil Valentine, how can you even accidentally interpret that as a medical claim? Even if a Doctor said that, it wouldn't be medical advice. Your argument makes no sense, I read WP:MEDRS and this statement is completely appropriate.--Jacksoncw (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

@Nunh-huh, he didn't confuse those two terms, he was being satirical, as is his wont. Secondly there is NO medical advice cited or in the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksoncw (talk • contribs) 17:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

We're discussing medical "information", not medical "advice". Unless you're being satirical. "AIDS has a cure" is medical information...in this case, misinformation. We don't source our medical information here to satirists. - Nunh-huh 17:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, he is being satirical, he is not claiming that science found a cure and if you continue to read, that is blatantly obvious.--Jacksoncw (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

And like I said, we don't quote satirists for medical information. If you think you can form a consensus on this talk page that radio talk-show host Phil Valentine's 2004 book Right from the Heart is a reliable source for medical information, then, and only then, should you consider adding information sourced there to the article. There would also be the hurdle of importance: even if reliable, is Valentine's assertion of sufficient importance to require inclusion. My suggestion is that you not waste much time in the attempt. "AIDS has a cure", indeed. - Nunh-huh 17:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not medical information. You must not understand, AIDS does have a cure, not medically but behaviorally is what he is suggesting. I think that is of significant importance and definitely worth mention. Seeing that 64% of people with AIDS are homosexuals who widely have multiple sex partners, and most of the rest are drug users (needle transfusion) I would agree with him.--Jacksoncw (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I assure you I understand him all too well. He's wrong, of course, but that's besides the point: the point is he's a radio commentator with an opinion and no medical qualifications, and no particular qualifications that make his opinion important. Frankly, his statement is disgusting, and dismissive of the worth and importance of people who actually have AIDS, who most assuredly will not be cured by abstinence. - Nunh-huh 21:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Most people who have AIDS brought it upon themselves. There are indeed horror stories of people contracting AIDS through blood transfusions, but those cases are extremely rare (about 0.5 percent of all AIDS cases). That's not to say that we shouldn't have compassion for people afflicted with this disease. But like I said, 64% of AIDS cases are homosexuals and the rest are mostly intravenous drug users. It is one of the most preventable diseases in existence yet the US government spends ten times more federal research money on AIDS than it does for all Cancers combined.--Jacksoncw (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your political viewpoint by now is quite clear. Unfortunately, because you choose to concentrate only on (selected) American statistics, your viewpoint is woefully parochial; your statement that "64% of AIDS cases are homosexuals and the rest are mostly intravenous drug users" is just staggeringly, stupefyingly wrong. Africa, I suppose, is as of little importance as people who actually have AIDS are to people who would make statements like "AIDS has a cure" and "Most people who have AIDS brought it upon themselves". In any case, as much fun as palavering with you is, none of this is germane to you finding a reliable source to back up your opinion; there's probably not much point in continuing this dialog until you think you've found one. - Nunh-huh 21:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact is, more than 90% of people who have AIDS did bring it upon themselves, look at the statistics. AIDS is mostly transmitted by sexual intercourse and Africa isn't absent of homosexuality. As entertaining as your self-righteous sharades are, I will get back to the point. Phil Valentine didn't make these statistics up or do his own research he got them from reliable sources which are indexed in the back. My cousin is currently borrowing the book but when I get it back I will look at these sources first hand so you won't be able to play this off as an unreliable source, which the book most certainly isn't. BTW, I got the statistics I am saying from his updated version of the book from 2008/2009 don't remember.--Jacksoncw (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"90% of people who have AIDS did bring it upon themselves" isn't a statistic, it's just something you made up and pretended was a statistic, because it reinforces your prejudices. It's a moral judgement pretending to be a statistic. If you want to continue to pretend that most cases of AIDS aren't transmitted by heterosexual sex, it doesn't matter; many people feel more secure when they blame the victims of illness; it's only when you try to use Wikipedia to disseminate this misinformation that it becomes an issue. In any case, it's clear that Valentine's musings are not going to be useful here; his opinions and interpretations are guided by no particular expertise that would make them part of a "reliable source". - Nunh-huh 02:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This source is not reliable for making medical claims, including statistics about infection. Please review WP:MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You clearly decided to ignore the statistics, and ignore the second half of my paragraph. Phil Valentine doesn't do original research, in his book, The Conservative's Handbook (Published in 2008), he has legitimate statistics from legitimate sources, he simply compiled them. But as I said, when I get my book back, I will find the source for his AIDS information which he has indexed. I will simply put this as the source so you won't be able to let your political viewpoints tamper with your judgement and call him an unreliable source, because he wasn't the source, he simply compiled the information.--Jacksoncw (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

@yobol You have been whining "not a reliable source for medical claims/advice" this entire time. There are no such claims nor advice given, please specifically point out where any such case occurs.--Jacksoncw (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

@Nunh-huh I also suggest you see this article: http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/kmreason.htm referenced by University of California at Berkeley retrovirus expert Peter Duesberg and Nobel Prize winner Walter Gilbert. It may enlighten you, unless you choose to right them off as unreliable as well.--Jacksoncw (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Duesberg, king of the denialists. I think we're done here. Yobol (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

@Jacksoncw- you must not have read all 3 of Duesbergs papers or what his peers at Berkeley and world wide had to say about it unless you are writting all of those learned doctors, you would have to reference the actual paper and not just what virusmyth put on their web site. In a nut shell it was ripped to shreds.

And for the record Alfred Nobel was known in his time as "The Merchant of Death" and "The man who became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before." because of his invention of explosives. His creation of the peace prize was PR work. The Article on Wikipedia about AIDS is riddled with misinformation- please see edit request below. If you want real knowledge of non HIV related AIDS look up Aimee K. Zaas, MD, MHS. She is at Duke University and the foremost authority on the subjects and has written a number of brilliant papers. I think you are just a homophobe and hater at large. — Bilingram (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC) comment added by Bilingram (talk • contribs) 09:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am currently reading the talk page for Misconceptions about HIV and AIDS and it seems blatantly obvious to me according to them that the major cause his homosexual intercourse between males as well as intravenous drug use.--Jacksoncw (talk) 03:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you're going to get much traction here unless there's some evidence that you're to try to build a serious, respectable reference work. This thread isn't doing you any favors. MastCell ^Talk 04:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Those who might be able to improve this article are likely to either [1] have accurate knowledge about the subject, [2] have command of the literature on the subject, or [3] have the ability to recognize which sources are useful and informative, and which are bombastic and polemical. Those who laud Duesberg's publications on AIDS have pretty much failed on all three criteria. - Nunh-huh 10:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As much as I respect your extremely bias, misinformed opinion, the fact that you don't respect a University professor/expert and a Nobel Prize winners' opinions means nothing to me. It seems you are in denial of the facts.--Jacksoncw (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You're wasting your time here, Jacksoncw. You may find Conservapedia more receptive to your views. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't start editing Wikipedia to inform a group of people who are seemingly already informed. They more than likely already have this information sources, I came to inform the misinformed editors of this article. Please do not try to reject and isolate me by redirecting me to a group of people who may accept my ideas simply because you do not. Please do not try to isolate me because you ignore the facts and statistics and haven't the ability to refute my evidence other than with shanty terms like "king of denialists". I will come back with absolutely reliable sources with undeniable conclusions, AIDS is not a pandemic, it inhabits less than 5 percent of the world's population.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you've pretty much isolated yourself. You started off by accusing AVERT of lying, when it turned out you'd just made a basic error in reading sources. You then rather ironically accused us of being "misinformed". Then you gave the impression that you consider WorldNetDaily and The Conservative's Handbook appropriate sources for serious, encyclopedic medical information, as well as virusmyth.com. I think we'd welcome reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

AIDS affects around 33 million people, .5% of 7 billion (approx the world's population) is 35 million. So AIDS affects just under .5 percent of the world's population, I wouldn't call that a pandemic, just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.24.190 (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but scientists differ with your opinion. The designation pandemic is based on trends, not absolute numbers. Increasing numbers + worldwide dissemination = pandemic. - Nunh-huh 22:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 26 October 2011

"Acquired immune deficiency syndrome or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is a disease of the human immune system caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).[1][2][3]" Please check this for the following: A syndrome is not a disease. A disease can be part of a syndrome but not required to meet the criteria. AIDS is not a disease.(Center for Disease Control(CDC), US National Library of Medicine, World Health Organization(WHO),Pan American Health Organization(PAHO), United Nations) HIV does not cause AIDS. HIV can be a contributing factor to the development of AIDS but is not a cause in and of it's self. (CDC, US National Library of Medicine, World Health Organization,Pan American Health Organization, United Nations)

There are several markers the CDC use to classify AIDS- CD4, CD8, Platelet counts, are but a few. When the numbers or percentages of these markers drop below a certain level someone is said to have AIDS.(from the CDC markers and flags in communicable diseases 1981) Graves Disease, Lupis, Crones Disease, Microscopic Polyiiangitis, Agammaglobulinemia, Hypogammaglobulinemia, the list goes on. As of 2004 there were 100 disease exclusive of HIV infection known to suppress the immune system that could lead to AIDS. (US National Library of Medicine 2004, Internal Medicine Journal Volume 34, Issue 6, pages 348–354, June 2004- opened for public use, CDC,WHO)

Bilingram (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Bilingram (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: You have not followed the instructions you were shown when you submitted this edit request. In addition, please read AIDS denialism, as well as the FAQ near the top of Talk:AIDS denialism. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where we say that antivirals help reduce risk to partners and help pregnant women reduce risk to children.

This is a significant benefit of antivirals and probably something we should say directly. For example, please see following news article. And yes, I would like to get additional medical sources to supplement this. Cool Nerd (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton calls for ‘AIDS-free generation', Rob Stein, Washington Post, Nov. 8, 2011.

" . . . recent research has shown that antiviral drugs can prevent infected pregnant women and nursing mothers from spreading the virus to their children. Last year alone, more than 114,000 mother-to-child transmissions were prevented, Clinton said. . . "

" . . . Antiviral drugs have been shown capable of protecting men having sex with other men and of protecting the heterosexual partners of infected people. . . "

You're quite right; the logical place to discuss the use of antiretroviral medication to prevent vertical transmission would be under Prevention: Mother-to-child, and there's nothing about it there. This is by no means recent research; single dose neviripine was demonstrated to halve the rate of HIV transmission in the HIVNET 012 trial (conducted in Uganda between 1997 and 1999), and remains the only practical choice in areas with minimal medical resources. In areas with better resources, it was recommend that HIV positive pregnant women be given AZT with an additional dose of neviripine for mother and child perinatally, and the child started on AZT after birth. These regimens are outlined in WHO's 2010 Guidelines for preventing mother to child transmission, which are summarized by AVERT at [5]. - Nunh-huh 04:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That's what I've read. Both reduces risk of transmission to a fetus for a pregnant woman and reduces risk to a sexual partner. And yes, I do recall hearing something about this quite some time ago. Cool Nerd (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Trial shows antiretroviral treatment prevents transmission of HIV, World Health Organization, Western Pacific Region:

“GENEVA/MANILA, 12 May 2011—Results announced today by the United States National Institutes of Health show that if an HIV-positive person adheres to an effective antiretroviral therapy regimen, the risk of transmitting the virus to an uninfected sexual partner can be reduced by 96%. . .

“ . . . Only people living with HIV with a CD4 cell count of between 350 and 550 (thus not yet eligible for treatment for their own health, according to latest WHO guidelines) were enrolled in the study. The reduction of sexual transmission of HIV was so significant that the trial was stopped 3-4 years ahead of schedule. . .

“ . . . Treatment for Prevention needs to be used in combination with other HIV prevention options. . . ”

posted by Cool Nerd (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

preventing transmission during pregnancy and childbirth

In the Cause
Perinatal transmission, we include:
"when the mother takes antiretroviral therapy and gives birth by caesarean section, the rate of transmission is just 1%," citing a 2004 N. Engl. J. Med. article. Maybe we should include it the Prevention section as well.Cool Nerd (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Antiretroviral therapy (ART) for treating HIV infection in ART-eligible pregnant women

http://apps.who.int/rhl/hiv_aids/cd008440_munderip_com/en/index.html

Reproductive Health Library Commentary by Munderi P, Dec. 1, 2011.

“In many developing countries with generalized HIV epidemics, a significant proportion of HIV-positive adults who require antiretroviral therapy (ART) are women of childbearing age. At the same time, HIV infection in women is often diagnosed for the first time during a pregnancy, . . .

“ . . . All three regimens resulted in excellent and comparable HIV virological suppression to below 400 copies per ml in the mothers at the time of delivery (96%, 93% and 94%, respectively) and throughout breast-feeding (92%, 93% and 95% respectively) (3).

“The other studies had compared a triple therapy regimen with a prophylactic (short course) ART regimen to assess the risk of MTCT. They confirmed the higher efficacy of triple therapy ART . . . ”

A little technical, but not a bad start, and let’s see if we can find a couple of recent sources to supplement our article. Cool Nerd (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Study in Malawi Finds Drug Regimens Effective in Preventing HIV Transmission Through Breast Milk,
CDC, Page last reviewed: January 24, 2011.
http://www.cdc.gov/prc/prevention-strategies/study-in-malawi.htm

“ . . . In the Breastfeeding, Antiretrovirals, and Nutrition (BAN) Study, pregnant HIV-positive women from Lilongwe, Malawi, who had not developed AIDS and whose CD4+ lymphocyte count was ≥250 cells per cubic millimeter were eligible for the study. Enrollment started in 2004, and ultimately 2,369 breastfeeding mother-infant pairs were randomly assigned . . .

“ . . . 3. control group: mothers and infants received standard antiretroviral therapy during labor and delivery and for seven days post-partum. . .

“ . . . The risk of HIV transmission to the infant between 2 and 28 weeks post-partum was 6% in the control group, 3% in the maternal regimen group, and 2% in the infant regimen group, . . . ”

and during breastfeeding vs. risks of diarrhea/dehydration or malnutrition from questionable water or not enough formula

Maternal or Infant Antiretroviral Drugs to Reduce HIV-1 Transmission, New England Journal of Medicine, Charles S. Chasela, Ph.D., Michael G. Hudgens, Ph.D., et al., June 17, 2010.

[METHODS]
“All mothers in labor and their newborn infants received a single dose of oral nevirapine. In addition, all mothers received zidovudine and lamivudine as a single tablet (Combivir, GlaxoSmithKline) containing 300 mg of zidovudine and 150 mg of lamivudine every 12 hours from the onset of labor to 7 days after birth. All infants also received twice-daily zidovudine (2 mg per kilogram of body weight) and lamivudine (4 mg per kilogram) for 7 days. . .

“Women in the maternal-regimen group initially received Combivir twice daily and nevirapine . . . replaced with twice-daily nelfinavir . . . replaced with twice-daily lopinavir plus ritonavir . . .

“Infants in the infant-regimen group received a dose of nevirapine that increased according to age, ranging from 10 mg daily in the first 2 weeks to 30 mg daily for weeks 19 through 28.”

[RESULTS]
“By 2 weeks, infants in each of the three study groups had a similar estimated risk of infection: 5.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.9 to 7.4) in the control group (reference group), 5.5% (95% CI, 4.1 to 7.2; P=0.97 with the use of a z statistic) in the maternal-regimen group, and 4.4% (95% CI, 3.2 to 6.0; P=0.35) in the infant-regimen group. Among infants who were HIV-1–negative at 2 weeks, the estimated risk of HIV-1 infection by 28 weeks was 5.7% in the control group (reference group), 2.9% in the maternal-regimen group, and 1.7% in the infant-regimen group. . .

“Although the study was not designed to compare the two intervention groups, there was a borderline indication that the rate of HIV-1–negative survival among infants was greater when the infant received prophylaxis than when the mother received the antiretroviral regimen (P=0.07 by the log-rank test) (Figure 2D). . .

Figure 2 http://www.nejm.org/action/showImage?doi=10.1056%2FNEJMoa0911486&iid=f02

“The causes of death among all 37 infants were pneumonia (in 12 infants, of whom 5 were HIV-1–positive), sepsis (in 9 infants, of whom 1 was HIV-1–positive), meningitis (in 3 infants), diarrhea (in 2 infants), malaria (in 1 HIV-1–positive infant), unknown causes (in 6 infants, of whom 1 was HIV-1–positive), and drowning, diabetes insipidus, organophosphate poisoning, and severe anemia presumably caused by trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole toxicity in 1 infant each. (For details, see Table 6 in the Supplementary Appendix.)”

---

Just to ask a very basic question, what is the lag time for HIV infection? That is, if an infant becomes infected during the later stages of pregnancy or at birth itself, what are the chances that will show up at two weeks?

And although this New. Eng. J. Med. article probably doesn't direct address it (have not read entire article), I know from looking up some material for our articles on Cholera and Oral Rehydration Therapy (ORT) that these are big issues. It's not a question of risk vs. nonrisk. It is very much a question of risk vs. risk.

I AM NOT A DOCTOR. I want to make that clear. I'm just an individual who's pretty good at looking up material. And then I try and excerpt and summarize in straightforward fashion. Cool Nerd (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 December 2011 regarding AIDS

Hi, i would like to bring it into your notice that under the heading "Tumors" it says: "...appearance of this tumor in young homosexual men in 1981 was one of the first signals of the AIDS epidemic. Caused by a gammaherpes virus called Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpes virus (KSHV), it often appears as purplish nodules on the skin, but can affect other organs, especially the mouth, gastrointestinal tract, and lungs." Would it not be more suitable if it said: ...appearance of this tumor in young homosexual men in 1981 was one of the first signals of the AIDS epidemic, caused by a gammaherpes virus called Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpes virus (KSHV). It often appears as purplish nodules on the skin, but can affect other organs, especially the mouth, gastrointestinal tract, and lungs. I humbly request you to forgive me if I am wrong. Thank you.

182.177.85.35 (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, I think you are wrong. If one rearranges the sentences as you would like, they would imply that the "signal" was "caused by a gammaherpes virus". But what we want to say is that the tumor was caused by that virus, not that the signal was.

would:

"...appearance of this tumor in young homosexual men in 1981 was one of the first signals of the AIDS epidemic. Kaposi's sarcoma—caused by a gammaherpes virus called Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpes virus (KSHV)—often appears as purplish nodules on the skin, but can affect other organs, especially the mouth, gastrointestinal tract, and lungs."

be less confusing? I think it's fine as it is, which avoids the constant repetition of "Kaposi's sarcoma".

- Nunh-huh 18:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Pathophysiology

This section is a nice summary of the pathophysiology of HIV/AIDS, but one phrase that jars is "The pathophysiology of AIDS is complex, as is the case with all syndromes."

What does the fact that the acronym AIDS includes the word "syndrome" have to do with the complexity of the disease process? Are diseases with the word "syndrome" in their name any more complex than diseases that don't? Suggest shortening the sentence to "The pathophysiology of AIDS is complex." On A Leash (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is sort of redundant and I have removed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. On A Leash (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS

The third paragraph of the introduction begins "The virus and disease are often referred to together as HIV/AIDS." I don't believe that is quite correct. A disease is not the same thing as a virus that causes that disease. My understanding is that the term HIV/AIDS refers to the full spectrum of disease associated with HIV infection, which includes acute HIV infection, asymptomatic infection, symptomatic disease short of an AIDS definition and AIDS itself. Worth changing? On A Leash (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Religion and AIDS? Rewrite?

Needs a major overhaul as I can see it. The first paragraph is PLAGIARISED from the first link. Aside from that, it's also problematic. Many prominent religious leaders oppose condoms? How many is many? Who are these leaders? Ambigous wigglewords. Source 191 links Catholics as opposing condoms but the source itself doesn't substantiate that claim - inappropriate usage. Yes I agree Catholics may oppose condom usage but you have to prove it.

As for scientists saying condoms are the only means of stopping the epidemic, a quick Google shows epidemiologists Whiteside and Parkhurst calling for a mere month long abstinence period to cut new infections by up to 45%!!! Seems to me there's no universal scientist consensus.

What are the issues of having 'religious' participation in health care and collaborative efforts? Aside from the fact it's plagiarised?

The religious approach, say rather Catholic\Christian unless it can be universally demonstrated, is correct but horribly written. Angled Menglish anyone?

London Churches? Okay seems like we're still on the topic of christianity not religion. Are these actual churches or sects? Synagogues are Jewish last I heard.

Good luck maybe changes. 118.208.177.8 (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Minor update. Another article said the pair were researchers rather than epidemiologists so scientists but not epidemiologists. 118.208.177.8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC).

I'm not sure what the "Religion and AIDS" section is doing in what is already an over-long encyclopedia article about a disease. Look to me like trolling for an unresolvable debate which belongs outside of the scope of the article.On A Leash (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

last change: Prevention: change table to percentages, much less confusing that way

you did it wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.155.149.168 (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there were some arithmetical errors in that edit. I've  Fixed those and double-checked the figures against the original source ([6]). Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Recording this Article for Spoken Wikipedia

I have recorded section 2 of this older revision Please lets record the other sections and then merge them into one audio file. Maximilianklein (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is the introduction. Not 100% I uploaded this correctly...I can't seem to edit the template that describes the duration of the file and voice of the reader. MichChemGSI (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

And here is pathophysiology. -Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

And here is history and origin. Michael Barera (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Signs und Symptoms! AzryckAnin (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Prevention by User:Pixor MichChemGSI (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Null comment to prevent archiving. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I combined what we have normalized and audio-compressed the files and stuck it on the article page. Maximilianklein (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

AIDS is a syndrome, and there are other routes to AIDS other than HIV; this page needs decoupling.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, are there not other routes to AIDS as well? Currently it is predominantly through HIV; but AIDS is a syndrome where the immune system has been annihilated.

If another cause than HIV has annihilated the immune system, would this syndrome not also be AIDS?

While I do feel there is a clear coupling from HIV to AIDS (especially not following antiviral treatment), AIDS is not necessarily caused by HIV.

This page seems to be more about HIV than it is about AIDS. I would propose a decoupling if my assertion (HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS) proves correct. I am unable to access PubMED currently, and I'd appreciate it greatly if someone could verify this assertion.

94.214.196.189 (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You've been confused by the naming; when AIDS was first described, it was indeed a syndrome without a known cause; it is now a disease with a known cause, but it hasn't been renamed to reflect that fact--it would be too confusing to do so at this stage. - Nunh-huh 22:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

What you assert seems to be true, for non-HIV causes generally immunodeficient is preferred as term. Doesn't that mean the article should be merged with the article on HIV though? There seems to be significant overlap between the two (which I previously asserted). Although presumably that could lead to an article that could be considered 'too long'. But right now it more or less seems to largely be a content fork. I still can't help wonder the naming does not increase scientific clarity (since it's acquired immunodeficiency rather than say hereditary), but you're right, that's not a discussion to hold on wikipedia, but something the scientific community should pick up on. 94.214.196.189 (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

As you say, such an article would be too long: also as a general rule we have articles about organisms and articles about the diseases they cause, and generally they're separate. vide Herpes simplex and Herpes simplex virus, chickenpox and shingles and varicella zoster virus, etc. - Nunh-huh 07:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I too agree that the article should be left as it is. Most other forms of immunodeficiency are more specific (such as Lymphoma), and hence are classified separately. Since the term "AIDS" is almost universally reserved for end-stage HIV (both in common and medical use), there's little point on pressing the point. LiamSP (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Circumsision and AIDS

Among the scientific community, there is no consensus that circumcision reduces AIDS transmission from women to men (this doesn't take into account men to women). Rather, there is are some studies, where the methodology was immediately questioned, that came to that conclusion. In science, any result must be repeatable. The result has been shown not to be repeatable.

[7] Page 18-19: "The following studies either show no relationship between HIV infection and circumcision status or show a higher risk of HIV invfection in circumcised men." - 13 studies listed with no relationship, 4 studies listed with HIV infection HIGHER in circumcised men.

The circumcised men in the "60%" study were taught safe sex practices where the un-circumcised men were not. Condom use reduces AIDS transmission by 80%. Therefore the study shows that teaching safe sex practices reduces AIDS transmission - not that circumcision reduces transmission.

We have an entire article on this subject on Wikipedia, the consensus of that article should be related in the main article (Reviews of these studies have reached differing conclusions about whether circumcision could be used as a prevention method against HIV). Circumcision_and_HIV Denaar (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken, on several counts. First, there is scientific consensus that circumcision reduces the risk of female-to-male HIV transmission, as can easily be confirmed by examining Cochrane reviews, meta-analyses, and the WHO/UNAIDS recommendations. Prior to 2007, opinion was divided fairly evenly; now, only a fringe minority of authors (such as the psychologist and the retired airline pilot who wrote the JLM article that you're citing) dispute it.

Second, in addition to the three randomised controlled trials, there have also been more than 50 observational studies. While the majority of these studies found a protective effect, it is quite true that not all have done so. As noted by the authors of the 2003 Cochrane review on the subject, however, these studies are inherently susceptible to confounding. Clearly it would be unreasonable to expect wholly consistent results from studies that are inherently unreliable.

Third, your claim that circumcised men in the "60%" study (presumably you mean Auvert et al., 2005) were taught safe sex while uncircumcised men were not is false. Jakew (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

We have a recent Cochrane review based on evidence from Africa that supports the effectiveness for HIV prevention in heterosexual males Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between policy making groups, the popular media, and the scientific community. There is no consensus in peer-reviewed scientific journals except to say it needs further study. Different studies come with different results. The scientific method requires that results be repeatable. For example, here is a scientific take from 2011 (not a policy group take) that mentions the on-going controversy, and how RCT's can't be the only data used for policy implementation: [8]. It also mentions some of the problems with the RCT's and the Cochrane reviews - but overall takes neither a highly critical or highly supportive stance, which mirrors most of the scientific community. For a contrasting policy group example, USAID is still promoting male circumcision, even AFTER their OWN study in 2009 found "increased HIV infection among circumcised men in 10 countries". [9].

If we're looking to stop HIV infection, then this study [10] found that circumcision increased male-to-female transmission of HIV. According to USAID, in sub-Saharan Africa, HIV/AIDS disproportionately affects women, who represent 60 percent of the region’s infected individuals.

To reaffirm: among the scientific community, this is hardly a closed or done deal. It's still pending investigation. Denaar (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As noted previously, there is scientific consensus. Jakew (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I have again removed the Boyle and Hill article. Given the limited space in the discussion, we should not be citing a fringe minority viewpoint, per WP:UNDUE. In addition, it is extremely misleading to state: "Three randomized controlled trials showed that male circumcision lowers the risk of HIV infection [...] However, 17 other studies came to different conclusions regarding male circumcision and HIV prevention", because it implies that the three RCTs were anomalous, and that every other study found different results. The RCTs built upon an earlier body of work consisting of 50 or so observational studies which collectively indicated a protective effect. Jakew (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)