Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 17

message: Under "symptoms and complications" we have the following:
"Without antiretroviral therapy, death normally occurs within a year." 
Nevertheless, the adjacent graph shows that death in an "untreated HIV infection" occurs after about 11 years. Any ideas? 
:Quite simple, HIV infection and AIDS are two different things. One can be infected with HIV and not be diagnosed with AIDS. --Bob 00:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet and yet. The 'on the street' understanding is that HIV is AIDS and AIDS is HIV, and there has to be a clear and referred to statement with backcup that the two are not identical, --Dumarest 21:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The ten-year span from HIV infection to development of AIDS applies in the absence of antiretroviral therapy. Johnson has been taking the medicine for years. His doctor is David Ho. See this recent news story for more details. Johnson was lucky; most of the celebrities who acquired HIV during the 80s are now dead, as this list testifies. Trezatium 14:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discrepancy

message: See http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1783649,00.html for new information on AIDS origin.
:Already mentioned in the article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: News

message: This line asserts that roughly half the human population has AIDS...
"In 2005 alone, AIDS claimed between an estimated 2.8 and 3.6 billion, of which more than 570,000,000 were children"
Am I misunderstanding this? The source link is broken, but either way this looks way, way too high!
:Just some vandalism that was more subtle than usual. It's fixed now. - Nunh-huh 03:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Half the world has AIDS? What? 

message: Humans with the Delta 32 gene are immune to infection. Could someone add this to the article please?
:No, they are not "immune": they are relatively resistant. The article already includes this information: "An example of this is people with the CCR5-Δ32 mutation; these people are resistant to infection with certain strains of HIV. " - Nunh-huh 07:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delta 32 

message: The soapbox issie was removed and relevant information left in with a reference. This is an important issue to include as it is semi-related to the catholic stance on this issue. --Bob 15:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Condom promotion

message: Does Wikipedia have no AIDS by country articles? savidan(talk) (e@) 05:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: We have two. I intend to write about China and Brazil but seriously, I created :Category: HIV/AIDS by country to help organize these as they get written. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIDS by country 

message: I haven't yet gone through, but unless someone beats me to it, much of this article should be updated to use the most recent UNAIDS report as the source for "current" estimates.  In particular, estimates of new infections and mortality for 2005 have been revised sharply downwards compared to the earlier reports we quote (see Ch. 2); we claim that there was a sharp increase from 2004, but this is no longer believed to be the case.  No doubt numerous other estimates have been revised as well. --Delirium 18:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Bob 23:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  update to the most recent report 

message: I recorded a spoken version of this article, but the formatting in the external links section prevents the speaker icon from showing up next to the featured star unless the links section is visible. Is there a workaround for this? Moulder 19:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it. It shows up now. - Ganeshk (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks and as I said in the edit summary sorry about all the edits - I thought if I substituted the template I could move just the speaker icon part, but apparently there are three levels of templates in use. An exception to the rule is better than a headache. :P Moulder 20:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links formatting 

message: Should it be noted that the current most substantial (and common) reason for the jump of the virus from primates to humans is that it came from the practices of many poor and starving Central Africans of going into the bush/forest and subsequent unchecked butchering of various animals for meat?  All kinds of animals, primarily primates, were indiscriminately consumed at home or sold at market this way and many people keep doing this.  The viruses probably jumped due to continued handling/eating of a certain monkey species which was locally infected.  This was mentioned in a Discovery Channel documentary on Ebola, AIDs, and other viruses of continental African origin.  Discuss?--Exander 00:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Transfer? 

message: If the article's protected, how are people still managing to vandalise it?  Exploding Boy 03:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is only protected from being moved. Raul654 03:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't protect featured articles as a matter of policy. See user:Raul654/protection Raul654 04:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with protecting featured articles. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Featured articles become juicy targets for vandals.  This is true, and a necessary evil.  Putting a featured article on the front page doesn't just show the article off to the Wikipedia community, it presents it for revision to the Wikipedia community.  Protection defeats part of the point. -MBlume 04:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. It makes it a better article, even if one has to shift through vandal edits. JoeSmack Talk 05:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course it's regularly vandalized - it's AIDS!  It's high-profile, contraversial, and has a perceived link with homosexuality that makes it an easy target for homophobes.  FA status is awarded to an article in its proper state, not based on vandalism or the lack thereof.  -MBlume 04:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This will happen right after the lion lieth down with the lamb, and the people beateth their swords into plowshares. - Nunh-huh 05:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected?

message: Is there a reason the references are so spaced out?  It makes the wikitext impossible to read.  If nobody objects, I'll take away the spacing, which should also take out a few GB from the article size. See Cannabis (drug) for an example of what that would look like. --Rory096 14:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The references are like that exactly for that reason, so that it is easier to edit, and see where the references begin and end. This was a point previously raised and consensus was to leave as is. --Bob 17:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's easier to edit with them like this?  It's impossible, the wikitext is virtually unreadable! If you want to show where refs begin and end, you could use comments, like this:  and 
.  This would have no effect on how the article is displayed, but make the it actually editable. --Rory096 18:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: as is, it is editable, and easy to see where the refs begin and end and where the actual text is. Much easier like this than with all the refs jumbled up into the inline text. --Bob 18:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's editable, and it's probably even worse for people who just come along and see it and don't know wikitext.  Just having a comment at the beginning and end of refs would do it too. --Rory096 03:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I clicked through today from the front page and I must say, impressive article! Sometimes I wonder as to how FA articles qualified when they seem marginal, but I have no doubts here! Well done. --Falcorian (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This is a fantastic article and very informative. Kudos to all those who worked in it. (Wish I could write something this good) - Zone46 01:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impressed 

message: This is a very poorly written section.  Rather than spend time copyediting it now, I'll wait to see if consensus is to keep it or delete it first.  Ideogram 18:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You won't delete is because an article on AIDS requires such a section. If you don't like it, copyedit it. Don't delete it, as that would just be reverted instantly. --Bob 18:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say I would delete it.  I said I would wait to see if other people wanted to delete it before I fix it.  Ideogram 18:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a section that was required in order for the article to pass to FA status. --Bob 18:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's odd, I thought I saw it inserted after I read the article, which I got to by seeing it as the Featured Article of the Day on the Main Page.  Ideogram 18:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was deleted between last night and when I added it back in. --Bob 18:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this the original text or a reconstruction?  Can you point me to the version that was awarded FA status?  Ideogram 19:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the text when it was a candidate and here it was when it got through the featured article gauntlet, finally award FA status. All its discussion of what should and shouldn't be included are here. This can all be seen through the featured article template at the top of this page, and looking at dates in page history. hope this helps clear things up. :) JoeSmack Talk 21:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I really couldn't believe my eyes that this section was so poorly written compared to the rest of the article.  I'll go ahead and copyedit it now.  Ideogram 21:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  stigma section 

message: Someone probably already said this, so delete this if it's old news. The "AIDS in media" section is dreadfully short. I'm sure (in fact, I know) it's appeared in popular culture more than once. Brutannica 20:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AIDS in media

message: These numbers look strange as hell to me. I realise I'm not a doctor, and I don't know much about AIDS, but I cannot believe that there is only 1 chance in 2000 to get aids if your a man having unprotected sex with an infected woman. That sounds way, way, way too low. The source is mindnumbingly reliable so I don't doubt it, but can someone explain this to me, is there something I'm missing? Oskar 21:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How many people a day with HIV do you think have unprotected sex? I bet many times that of 2000. Add together all the days and the numbers start climbing. I thought it seemed small too, but if you look at the big picture it's actually very high. JoeSmack Talk 22:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Joe Smack is right. There are viruses that spread easier than HIV, but the sheer number of infected people and the times people have sex (or the number ofer people who are addicted to injectionary drug use and don't have access to clean needles) contribute to AIDS being a pandemic.--Johnnyw talk 14:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The accompanying text explains that transmission is much more likely to occur if the infected partner has a high viral load (e.g. in very early or late stage disease) or if the uninfected partner has another sexually transmitted infection. The 1 in 2,000 figure applies to a "best case scenario". Perhaps this should be made clearer. How about a note inside the table itself? Trezatium 21:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article says, "studies conducted in developing countries have estimated that per-act transmission probabilities are greater by a factor of 10 for both male-to-female and female-to-male transmission. Although the greater efficiency of male-to-female versus female-to-male transmission has also been observed in developing countries, a systematic review of the literature found a greatly enhanced efficiency of female-to-male transmission in the high-prevalence epidemics of Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The ratio of male-to-female summary mean transmission rates in the developing world compared to the rate in Western countries was 2.9, whereas for female-to-male transmission this ratio was 341." Shouldn't the table acknowledge this kind of data? Trezatium 21:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right that the numbers have to be thorougly checked and verified. Considering this: has this article been published in any peer reviewed journals? The site where the article is listed is reviewed by the author itself, or at least, the author's own university, UCSF. --Johnnyw talk 22:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not suggesting that we cite the UCSF article itself. It would be better to investigate its references (which have been peer reviewed) and cite those as appropriate. Trezatium 22:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another excellent source is this book chapter (check out Table 18.2). Trezatium 22:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange numbers 

message: Congrats to everyone who helped this article survive the Main Page Challenge(tm)! I dare say it is a much better article now because of the resulting contributions. Here are the changes, see for yourselves. Good job to all!  :)  JoeSmack Talk 19:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  main page survival 

message: * I want to protest how two of my additions to this article have been treated. I added two links to GOVERNMENT STATISTICS that show that hetero-sexual contact contributes only 15% to the number of AIDS cases and the two links were removed. I request that the incident be reviewed
I'd further like to add my support to this request.  While this statistic may seem anti-gay, or something like that, if people are using statistics to validate the very causes of things, they they should also definately be allowed to use statistics for the simple sake of understanding all valuable data.  That being said, the above statistic, if true, is significant.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darrenmwong (talk • contribs).
: I've got two words for you: factual sophistry. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 07:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Heterosexual sex and AIDS

message: I have a question but before I get into it I want to make it 100% clear that I do not believe any fraction or piece of the beliefs I am about to say need adding to the article. Now that I've said that... Several small, radical, and vocal Christian groups make the claim that AIDS is some form of judgement from God to kill those who sin (extramarital sex, homosexual sex, drug use, etc). As an example, this article. While they are distasteful IMO, they are a decent-enough sized and well-known sect of the population that they are worthy of mention in the article. Maybe under "Stigma" or "Alternative theories" as a subsection? I'll write this section, but I wanted to make sure I hadn't missed a previous discussion on this topic in the various archives. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fringe views of fringe religious groups belong in their respective articles, not in the article on AIDS. There are simply not important enough to be here, unless they've had a significant effect (such as Catholic condemnation of condom use). - Nunh-huh 22:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *But that's precisely my point. They are not fringe views, they are a rather sizeable, if nasty, group of folk. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No further addition required in this article, especially as it is more than adequately covered in the current stigma section.--Bob 22:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are fringe views, and are peripheral to any actual discussion of AIDS. Such views are appropriately treated in their articles; see Westboro Baptist Church. By all means, if you can find a religious group with peculiar views on AIDS which are not in their article, add it to that article. - Nunh-huh 23:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Potentially controversial, but needed, addition

message: I heard on the news that they have found some monkey-type that has something that is kinda like aids in some african country and they on the news said that that is where it most likely came from namely a monkey most likely bit a hunter and by doing so gave him aids. For anyone who actually wants to look into this and find sources I wish you good luck, I just heard it on the news. (FishHeadAbcd 17:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin

message: The article here has different POV on AIDS.  I don't see it on this article.  Anomo 22:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See AIDS reappraisal, linked in this article. There's a lot about AIDS that is not in this article (including most of the therapy) because of the summary style required in such a large article. InvictaHOG 03:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article in question is not a "different POV", it's a fount of misinformation. The section on Koch's postulates is particularly ignorant. - Nunh-huh 00:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to know if it's real or hoax?  Anomo 01:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's real only in the sense that some people believe it. It's complete bullshit, of course! - Nunh-huh 01:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: sucks. It's not what's in it, it's what is kept out by a small cabal of, in all probability well meaning, but sadly dim, individuals. --Tess Tickle 02:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, most reasonable people think that keeping misinformation out of the article is an improvement. Chacun à son goût. - Nunh-huh 02:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that I am being unreasonable? What misinformation are you referring to? Je peux écrire en langue étrangère aussi. Est ce le wikipedia anglais? --Tess Tickle 17:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what did you mean exactly when you typed This page sucks. It's not what's in it, it's what is kept out by a small cabal of, in all probability well meaning, but sadly dim, individuals.. Explain yourself if you expect decent replies and for people to take you seriously. --Bob 17:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you another username for Nunh-huh?--Tess Tickle 19:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you? - Nunh-huh 17:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're asking me if I am another username for you? Hmmmmm......... --Tess Tickle 01:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on now, quit it both of you. Let's assume good faith here. JoeSmack Talk 01:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This page

message: There has been some concern about the paragraph dealing with AIDS in the main Roman Catholic Church article. The paragraph reads:
:Some criticize the Church's teaching on fidelity, sexual abstinence and its opposition to promoting the use of condoms as a strategy to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS (or teen pregnancy or STD) as counterproductive. On the other hand, the Church's insistence on abstinence as practiced in Uganda shows that so far it has been one of the most successful strategies against AIDS.
I request the help from any editor to work on that paragraph, if it needs any work. More criticism of that section can be found on the RCC talk page. Thanks.--Andrew c 14:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review of [[Roman Catholic Church]] request 

message: In the aftermath of a recent GLBT health conference in my city, I heard a lot of statistics being thrown around about the number of heterosexual women contracting HIV yearly exceeding the number of homosexual men. I went searching for documentation to back these figures, because I think if they are true, it would be a very important citation for this article indeed. This quote from the WHO says that "60% transmitted through vaginal intercourse", but I cannot seem to find these statistics, even as an estimate, on the WHO site.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LeaHazel (talk • contribs) .
:The WHO stats quoted in that source date from fifteen years ago. For more recent information see this discussion. The consensus is that heterosexual transmission accounts for the majority of global infections, though I don't know of any precise estimate. Trezatium 15:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that's very helpful. The discrepancy is probably due to the differences in transmission between Africa and the Western World. - LeaHazel 20:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HIV Transmission Statistics 

message: There's nothing on Wikipedia about what this is and google search is giving bad results since google sucks.  I've heard this mentioned on TV a lot.  What is Super AIDS? Anomo 23:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever it is, it is not a medical term and doesn't describe any disease that I know. I suspect it's some sensationalistic name for multiple drug resistant HIV, but don't honestly know. InvictaHOG 00:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the [[Super AIDS]] ? 

message: "...contrary to popular belief, one would have to swallow gallons of saliva from a carrier to run a significant risk of becoming infected."
This seems like a HUGE statement to make that references a study from 1996. It could affect many people. I would consider removing it as it seems irresponsible and that many people could assume they are immune if they don't swallow or if they have oral sex with someone who's infected but swallow thinking it's safe since it's not "gallons." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.107.54.98 (talk • contribs).
:Wooooah there. Think. You believe it's wrong. It doesn't make it wrong. And it's not. The amount of HIV virions in salivia are so low, and the the amount neccesary to infect someone else (which isn't 5-10 or something, in case you were wondering), makes salivia a non-issue in HIV prevention. This is why casual contact and kissing isn't a problem for prevention. You would have to swallow gallons of salivia in order to get enough of those virions into you to chance it (which, once they hit your stomach acid, would probably be moot).
:Now, in terms of swallowing semen or at least getting into one's mouth: this does run a very distinct but very very low risk. It is  1:10,000 for the receptive party, and 1:20,000 for the insertive party. Keep in mind, however small this may be, it is worth mentioning. This is a seperate issue from your salivia issue; salivia does touch the penis or vagina in oral sex, but, again, not enough to even come close to calling it transmitable. It would have a risk into the hundreds of thousands if not millions. 
:Hope this helps clear things up. JoeSmack Talk 16:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Information accuracy re swallowing?"