Talk:HIV/Archive 3

message: Under the transmission heading, I appended the sentence which said unprotected sex allowed HIV transmission to include the new research that condom protected sex used with spermicide negates the benefit of condoms, probably due to inflammation of the females mucous membranes. It could probably do with a better source though.
It was removed from where I put it without explanation. I readded it to the bottom of the section, along with the other info about condoms and circumcision.
:I reverted your changes, and it was not removed without explanation. My edit summary was this: "condoms + spermicide doesn't = riskier, it is when spermicide alone is used (thus unprotected sex)". Your source was this  which I read carefully. It states correctly that use of spermicides alone do not prevent HIV; in fact, it tends to make it a little easier to transmit due to the vaginal inflammation it causes to a female (no studies for males, but the membranes of an anus could be a similar situation). The source also goes on to say how it isn't useful with vaginal contraceptives like cervical caps and diaphragms. 
:When using spermicide with a condom, it is a bit of a different story. Condoms prevent semen from reaching a vaginal or anal wall whatsoever, while diaphragms/cervical caps are strictly cervical barriers. The semen still reaches a mucous membrane with these vaginal contraceptives. The irritation with the spermicide is present if used with a condom, but contracting HIV while using a condom is soooooo small that adding spermicide isn't going to increase the chance of contraction significantly. And DEFINITELY not enough to support your edit that "...the majority of HIV infections are acquired through unprotected sexual relations, or when condoms are used with spermacides."
:As for circumcision, see below for my comments on it and HIV. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 16:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The role of spermicide in HIV transmission

message: In a UNAIDS publication, AIDS epidemic update: December 2005, it says "of people living with HIV only one in ten has been tested and knows that he or she is infected."  Click here for reference.  That would mean 90% of people do not know they are infected right? --D1chow 06:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See, when i read through that i heard that only 10% of the total population infected has been tested (and thus knows they are positive)....wait....is that the same thing? you might be right here - it is a UNAIDS/WHO report which is usually pretty tip top. JoeSmack Talk 07:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A CNN article and a BBC article would also seem to support that 90% do not know they are infected.--D1chow 07:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Allow me to turn back the hands of time - reverted. Although the sources are credible (and i mean the UNAIDS/WHO one more than BBC or, ick, CNN), i think some original research or at least one with a sample size should be found for better support, especially if this is new data. JoeSmack Talk 07:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that using a high number is contentious. However, Peter Piot, executive director of UNAIDS, has used the number 90% before.  Data on HIV testing is hard to come by. The main focus of data is on how many and what groups have HIV and have died as a result of HIV.  There is some data on country and group specific awareness of HIV infection, which I assume are used to come to the global awareness of HIV infection. There are no graphs or tables that summarize the data like prevalnce rates. After a lot of searching, this seems to be the best source of data. I used Indicator 5.1. It can show you how many came back to get their HIV postive results in multiple countries. Of course, you have to do the math if you want the regional numbers. Most experts do seem to agree that well over 50% do not know they are HIV positive. I think at least "vast majority" should be used to describe the number of people unaware of their HIV infection. D1chow 00:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How many know they are HIV positive?

message: There are many barriers to obtaining useful data, and getting accurate data from UNAIDS is especially difficult. NotAIDS! Some of the reasons for this are inherent to data-gathering itself.  However, the UN makes the task almost impossible due to its erratic policy on how to diagnose HIV.  Each continent, and even each country will use different tests (Western blot, or ELISA).  
In Africa, it isn't necessary to actually test for HIV to be diagnosed with AIDS, but then these "cases' are then counted in the UNAIDS' HIV numbers.  "Circular reasoning scandal of HIV testing"  Making it even more complicated is the fact that while a test may be interpreted as positive in one country, it is negative in another.  
Finally, the test makers themselves do not claim that their test kits diagnose "the presence of HIV" in the body, only antibodies thereto.  "HIV tests becoming less accurate?"
Until these hinderances to a common vocabulary describing what HIV is and how it is diagnosed are resolved, it seems that estimating how many people have HIV, know they have HIV, or know they don't have HIV are questions without answers.--Worldprideday 04:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How accurate are UNAIDS numbers?  Does a reliable HIV syntax exist?

message: I'd like to request that someone compile a larger PER-ACT risk table (similar to the one in this article), covering as many major STIs as possible, AND the with-condom (/dam /finger cot /etc) vs. no-condom risk. Also, I would suggest adding cunnilingus ("oral intercourse" should be "fellatio" as listed; the two are not identical, and I am editing to that effect) and manual intercourse (both genders). Lastly, if possible, please use a range of statistics if there is significant disagreement about what the risk is - e.g. for fellatio as mentioned below, perhaps tit would be better stated as "0-0.5 / 10k". Thanks! --Sai Emrys 18:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comprehensive Risk Table request

message: The article says under transmission that "many experts believe that it is premature to recommend male circumcision as part of HIV prevention programs". "Many experts" is an unstated amount, and I think that if it's only the WHO and various other UN segments who advocate that opinion, "many experts" is a bit exaggerated; instead, it should be mentioned which experts (or their affiliations) advocate it, and it will be up to the reader to decide if it indeed is many experts. Ghent 23:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This interests me.. Transmission describes means by which you can be infected with HIV, they all require direct contact with blood or bodily fluids from infected persons.  Am I missing something, or are they trying to say that simply being circumcised reduces your chances of being exposed to HIV positive blood or fluids?  I certainly hope I'm missing something, because the notion that being circumcised reduces your chances of meeting infect people seems completely ludicrous to me. --NoEvidenZ 17:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, the jury is still really out on this one (although I can think of a few people on wikipedia who are diehard for AND a few against it). UNAIDS still thinks it's too early to decide, and evidence has been very conflicting. On one hand maybe yes, on one hand maybe no, on one hand the process of circumcision itself with unsterilized/reused tools may lead to more infections - and on and on and on. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 18:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: NoEvidenZ: you're missing something, but that's just because it's not in the article. The theory is basically that if your penis is exposed to HIV-infected body fluids, having a foreskin might make it somewhat easier for the virus to enter your system. There are two plausible reasons why that might be: the surface under the foreskin could be more physically permeable to infected fluids, because of (a) tiny skin breaks from the foreskin sliding around during intercourse or (b) irritation from other infections that can take hold there; and, the presence of Langerhans cells in the foreskin could make that tissue more susceptible to HIV. I don't think this all needs to be in the article, but some general notion would be helpful. This issue might even deserve its own linked sub-article, because there's been some fairly well publicized discussion with multiple opinions on what the evidence says and what if anything to do about it. ←Hob 02:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was told by an AIDS clinic worker that fluids build up under the foreskin. More fluids making contact means more chances for the virus to be transmitted. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 11:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|fact}} can't be used, but still... 

message: There is a lot of overlapping between the AIDS article and this one. Whole paragraphs, tables and figures are identical in both articles. This needs to be revised: information specific to the disease, should stay in the AIDS article (should as infection risk?) and information specific to the biology of the virus should be kept in this article (should as the origin of the virus). Dycotiles 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously there is overlap, but this is kept to a minimum and as such is ok as is. Infection risk is an important part of both articles, and specifics of the disease are talked about, and specifics of AIDS is expanded in the AIDS article. Symptoms of HIV infection and AIDS are two different things and the distinction and expansion in both articles is thus warranted and seen. --Bob 17:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overlapping with AIDS article

message: I just read through this article, after hearing a radio program (available online - ) on the topic of HIV, which included Anthony Fauci, Joel Gallant (Johns Hopkins School of Medicine), and Helene Gayle (International AIDS Society) as guests.  This article seems to have the major points covered that they brought up.  But, thought the program might be of interest to people working on this article, maybe useful as a reference?  Anyway, great job on this article. --Aude (talk contribs) 01:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference suggestion 

message: I'm not an expert at this topic but the links section was way too long and unorganized.  Per WP:EL, I've trimmed ones that only provided brief information (not much or anything beyond what's already mentioned in this article), broken links, and others that I though didn't meet the external links guidelines.  In all honesty, I think the links need to be trimmed further to just the first group, along with the PBS and New Scientist links, and probably keep the online textbooks (they seem informative).  Though, perhaps people working on this article would consider some of the other remaining links informative and worth keeping?  I also trimmed the three "News" links, thinking that these should either be used as references, or perhaps incorporated with the external links:
*Nov 2005 - Progress in HIV vaccine research -Recorded interview with Prof. Robert Gallo (HIV researcher)
*Jan 2006 - 3D structure of HIV is revealed - 3D map of AIDS causing virus revealed
*May 2006—HIV origin 'found in wild chimps'—HIV origin 'found in wild chimps'
The lengthy, unorganized links section would have been my one FAC objection, so hope this helps take care of that. --Aude (talk contribs) 16:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: "HIV is transmitted through direct contact of a mucous membrane with a bodily fluid containing HIV"  Is this a new discovery?  For years people were saying you needed at least small injuries in your mucous membrane to catch the virus.  It would be great if there was a reference for this statement.  --345Kai 12:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  contact with mucous membrane enough to transmit HIV? 

message: I think an ideal article would say more about the differences between HIV-1 and HIV-2. HIV-1 may be more viral, but it doesn't say anything about which is harder to cure or which is more lethal. If it's about the same that should be in there too. Mackan 07:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HIV-2 

message: :Eventually, most HIV-infected individuals develop AIDS and die; however a small minority remain healthy for many years, with no noticeable symptoms.
This statement is very vague. What order of magnitude is this "small minority" ? Is it like 10% (then it wouldn't really be "small") or 1% or 0.1% or about how much ? Taw 17:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, one in ten. Data added with reference. TimVickers 18:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took out the phrase "What goofy science" as it is extremely vague and doesn't provide any supporting comments on 'the science' to which it refers. --Worldprideday 04:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. First of all, gay men without AIDS don't generally die in their 40's. Geez. As far as a random sample of the population, all blood donors are screened for HIV. They represent a generally healthy population in which the prevalence of HIV has been described. See the references here, at HIV test, etc for details, or just look online. MastCell 18:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Not really controversial, it is very well trodden. No cures exist despite the same 'we've got a cure (maybe)' type news headlines. No one has become HIV negative (no viral load, no antibodies) from HIV positive that didn't have a false positive on their test first. There has been a good number of studies looking towards why some people are 'immune' or turn into longterm nonprogressors in certain ways. One is a genetic mutation - very rare. Another is comorbid infection with certain other strains of other disease like hepatitis. There is probably a more, but it has been a little while since I've seen the most current research. Hope this helps. JoeSmack Talk 12:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "Cause of death", at least as construed on death certificates in the U.S., includes conditions which are directly contributory to the immediate cause of death. So, for instance, a "cause of death" might be "Acute respiratory distress syndrome, secondary to Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia, secondary to Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome." It's accurate to describe AIDS as a "cause of death" in that regard, and it's also common sense. MastCell Talk 20:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A small minority remain healthy for many years, with no noticeable symptoms 

message: One study of the homosexual lifespan is by Cameron, Playfair, and Wellum (1994) which used obituaries to compare the lifespans of gay men and lesbians to heterosexual men and women.  A critique by Paul Cameron of this study discredits the results of this study.
The results of the Cameron study cannot be trusted.  There are numerous reasons why obituaries are not a valid indicator of lifespans. One example is that there are more obituaries printed for heterosexuals than gay men.
There is an interesting essay that applies a mathematical formula to the CDC's statistics "Median lifespan of HIV positives 80 according to CDC statistics" that indicates 80 years is the potential average lifespan of an HIV positive.  This is longer than that of the heterosexual. 
--Worldprideday 04:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an "interesting" finding, and about as scientifically valid as the other AIDS dissident arguments on the web page you cited. MastCell 18:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul Cameron has made a life's work out of making...err... "questionable" unflattering statements about homosexuals. This study is no exception..... One must always be skeptical of studies made in pursuit of an agenda. - Nunh-huh 08:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lifespan of gay men and lesbians

message: I think there are a lot of research in HIV treatment. And some drugs are being developed or event tested now. Would nice to have some brief description of potential HIV treatment methods.
:I think the general feeling here is that covering developing treatments is closer to news coverage than it is to encyclopedic material. So many potential treatments are tried, and so few of them come to fruition, we'd be covering lots of things that wind up having no impact. The noise/signal ratio is high, and maintenance would be a headache.- Nunh-huh 22:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experimental Treatment 

message: This new bit in the Genetic variability section has me scratching my head:
:SIV infection of its natural hosts (African green monkeys (AGMs) or sooty mangabees (SMs)) results in very high levels of the retrovirus in the blood for the natural life of these monkeys without the development of simian AIDS. The immune systems of AGMs and SMs mount at most a very mild immune response to SIV, even though the destruction of naive CD4+ T cells is comparable to that observed in HIV infected patients [emphasis added]
The footnoted article (Kurth & Norley) is not readily available to me, but other articles I found on the same subject (, , etc.) seem to state clearly that the strains of SIV-1 native to these monkeys do not cause significant destruction of CD4+ cells, and are therefore not pathogenic in their native hosts; in other hosts, they do destroy CD4+ cells and therefore cause disease. Of course viral load isn't the same as pathogenicity, but I don't understand how you can have loss of T cells "comparable to that observed in HIV-infected patients" and not have progression of disease; if that is indeed true then it needs to be much better explained than this. The same editor added a similar claim to the SIV article, and I've deleted it pending a clarification. ←Hob 06:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SIV and pathogenesis 

message: A new study came out saying that most HIV patents will live 24 years, not 10. as people newly infected with HIv view this page, it should be updated promptly by someone qualified to update it.
The article I learned this on is here:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/11/10/hiv.costs.ap/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.144.195 (talk • contribs) 
:Well, no offense, but CNN doesn't always have their facts straight. They don't reveal the explicit studies used in their article, but I'd love to see em. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 05:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dug it up; i don't have access to it, but what do others think?  05:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As it is projections, and they have no actual human cohort, it is just a projection. how much faity do we put in projections? Do projections from one group constitute worthiness for an encyclopaedia? Should we not instead rely on actual reported clinical data? --Bob 21:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer hard evidence in this case personally. This is also very new info, so its reliability isn't 100% JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 22:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life cycle of HIV needs major rewrite 

message: I've been looking at the origin section, and I think it could be improved a bit.  For one thing, I don't think it's accurate to say that the Aids epidemic was discovered on that date, but rather something like: "Official investigation into what would eventually become known as Aids began with ..." .  Does anybody else agree? I just think saying they discovered that it was an epidemic then is a tad much.  Can't quite say I'd use discovery in regards to an epidemic anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 06:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin section 

message: See the discussion on Talk:AIDS#Proposed creation of page 'Treatment of HIV/AIDS'" which involves moving the content of the "Treatment" section of this page onto a new page, merging it with content from the AIDS page and leaving a short summary here with a link to the new page.  Discussion on this proposal will take place there.  --Coppertwig 05:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed creation of page "Treatment of HIV/AIDS" 

message: I'm curious, about the risk section... is it saying that there is a 50/10000 chance of transmission through receptive anal intercourse assuming coitus interruptus is not practiced (ie seminal contact with anal tissues), or just the average risk for all receptive anal intercourse? If it's the former, that's a much smaller risk (1/200) than I had previously been lead to believe by activists. That doesn't mean I'm going to go engage in a spree of unprotected receptive anal intercourse, but it does mean that the panic in the gay community is exaggerated -- Assuming that only one in every 10 of your sex partners is HIV positive, and you are exclusively a receptive partner and each of them ejaculates inside of you only once (admittedly very simplified situation, but I am not a statistician so I don't know how to factor in all the over variables), if you had unprotected sex with a total of 2000 sex partners, you would likely only be infected by one of them.
That means that gay guys who get HIV are either incredibly unlucky, are bugchasers, are total whores (I mean, 2000 is a lot, and to not have at least one partner who wasn't OK with barebacking would be rare), the percentage of their sex partners who are positive is exceptionally high, or they engage in a lot of barebacking with only a total of 10 people (ie, if you had unprotected receptive anal sex 2000 times total, 200 times with each partner).
Of course, over time, the risk will probably grow as the %age of infected population grows (what's important here is that everyone engages in protected sex -- I'm not sure, but I think if even 50% of the population used condoms, the number of new infections would go down). --Node 10:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: read the associated reference. That is what it is there for. --Bob 14:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't insult my intelligence. I can't read it -- it's in a journal to which I don't have access. --Node 19:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really? 

message: Is it possible to test negative for HIV 2 years in a row and still have the infection ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.148.144.63 (talk • contribs).
:The odds over two years of testing a false-negative twice is extremely extremely small. See HIV_test#Accuracy_of_HIV_testing for what extremely small fraction of a fraction it is to get it even once on a test, let alone twice over two years. Hope that helps. JoeSmack Talk 06:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HIV 

message: Hi! It says in the article that the window period is usually 3 months, yet a month can be 28,29,30 or 31 days.
So my question is, does '3 months' translate as 12 weeks? I know i'm being picky but can anyone help with that?
Also out of interest, roughly what percentage of people have tracable antibodies after 11 weeks?
Thank you very much to anyone who can help with this!!!!! 
Jamiboxer 16:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One doctor I talked to said consider all months to be 30 days in length (he understood that not all months were equal.) Take that as you like. With modern tests, at 11 weeks over 80% would have detectable antibodies, and at 12 weeks+ the percent goes up to the higher levels; and at 129 days the percent of detection is around 95% (that's about 18-19 weeks.) And finally, to quote a doctor on Medhelp.org "The antibody tests almost always are positive within 4-6 weeks of exposure, and always positive within 2 weeks of onset of symptoms." (http://www.medhelp.org/forums/HIV/messages/838.html) So, anything past the double-digit mark in weeks is pretty convincing, all in all. Yes, I know these are in a little bit of conflict, but HIV is a highly complicated organism and you really can't tie things down nicely for all cases. Sad as that sounds. 206.156.242.36 15:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about the window period...... 

message: IMOD is already being marketed. And it is not a "cure". Rather a treatment..
So it wouldnt hurt to mention IMOD in the treatment section.--Zereshk 19:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the AIDS talk page where this is currently being discussed. JoeSmack Talk 19:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IMOD

message: I would also like to highlight a few areas of concern about the text in the ‘TREATMENT’ section of this article:
1: After mention of the US study on survival times, can I, in the interests of balance, suggest the inclusion of something along the following lines:
“A separate Danish study [Lohse N et al. Survival of persons with and without HIV infection in Denmark, 1995-2005. Annals of Internal Medicine:146: 87-95, 2007.] has suggested that in settings where there is easy and free access to care and HIV medication (commenced at 250 cells/mm3), a young adult diagnosed with HIV (but without HCV) has an estimated median survival rate of more than 35 years and that, whilst this is still 10 years short of general life expectancy, death is now unlikely to be directly related to HIV.”
The reference to HCV may seem trivial here, but it is important. HCV is a complicating factor and HCV infection rates are quite significantly lower everywhere in the world, outside of the USA.
2: The article states: “In developed countries where HAART is available, doctors assess their patients thoroughly: measuring the viral load, how fast CD4 declines, and patient readiness. They then decide when to recommend starting treatment.”  
Department of Health and Human Services gudielines are then refernced; but thankfully most of the world does not follow Department of Health and Human Services gudielines and definitions (nor indeed does the Department of Health and Human Services represent the international gold standard, or follow WHO and UNAIDS agreed guidelines and definitions … even on something as basic as what constitutes AIDS).
In reality, viral load has little, or no, upfront influence on the decision to recommend the commencement of HAART therapy. The important factors for consideration would be CD4 cell count and CD4 cell percentage (as an indicator of the rate of disease progression) and and the actual symptoms being experienced by the patient. Monitoring of viral load only assumes a position of any real importance once HAART thearpy has commenced.
This is simply not true.  I'm speaking from personal experience here.  After four months and three order of magnitude increases in my VL, even with steady CD4 abs and %, my doctor and I decided to initiate HAART.  The reason was because there was starting to be an impact on non-CD4 cell counts.  Initiating HAART is not just a numbers game limited to a single data point.  There are many data points that go into that decision, and many factors that help make that decision.  This is why it is highly recommended to seek advice from a specialist in the field, vs. a general practitioner who may not have experience with the multitude of data sets involved in the decision to start HAART.  If anything the statement you quote should be expanded to cover an even greater set if tests are are involved in the decision to start HAART, but I believe that in relationship to the rest of the article these points do cover the focus of testing. --ZacWolf 17:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment 

message: Where do you get home hiv test kits? I have all the symptoms of HIV and was tested in the past but i don't trust my doctor even if HIV showed up he wouldnt tell me because he don't like me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.240.144 (talk • contribs).
:Er... if you don't trust your physician to be honest with you, find another doctor. MastCell 21:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HIV TESTS

message: What are some other conditions that have the same initial symptoms of HIV?  such as FLU, fever, orah thrush(white tongue), chronic skin rash?
(unsigned question)
For more on the symptoms of primary HIV infection, see Are the Most Common Symptoms of Primary HIV Infection?. Other diseases that have some symptoms similar to HIV during the primary infection include the cold, flu, and mononucleosis. However, realize that this is only true for the signs and symptoms of the brief "primary infection" phase of HIV. HIV infection can be reliably distinguished from other diseases during that "primary infection" phase and after by techniques like PCR to count HIV viral load, antibody testing once the individual has seroconverted, and the distinctive immune profile. Says : "[T]he specific immunologic profile that typifies AIDS--a progressive reduction of CD4+ T cells resulting in persistent CD4+ T lymphocytopenia and profound deficits in cellular immunity--is extraordinarily rare in the absence of HIV infection or other known causes of immunosuppression." (They cite Fauci AS, "CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia without HIV infection ..." N Engl J Med 1993;328(6):429-31. Laurence J, "T-cell subsets in health, infectious disease ..." Ann Intern Med 1993;119(1):55-62.)
AIDSvideos 11:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HIV MIMICS OTHER DISEASES

message: Is it just my imagination or does the number "2" appear twice in that image?  Is this some kind of joke, or is it an illusion?  Dionyseus 06:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is neither. What you see is simply a stylised representation of the A-form geometry of RNA’s single helix.You will see a similar representation here: http://www.aidsactioncoalition.org/images/hiv_virus.gif.. or a more conventional representation here: http://www.med-ars.it/virus/hiv.jpg Orpingtonian 07:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about the main image 

message: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=2897109
And a pretty good quote: ""This is an extraordinary development," said Dr. Kevin de Cock, director of the World Health Organization's AIDS department. "Circumcision is the most potent intervention in HIV prevention that has been described."" 206.156.242.36 19:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and the guy's name is Dr. Kevin de Cock? Awesome! You couldn't make this stuff up. MastCell 19:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New info from WHO 

message: The chapter begins by stating that: "According to research of old bloodsamples HIV did not exist before year 1978 in United States of America" but later in the chapter it is clearly stated that "HIV found in tissue samples from a 15-year-old African-American teenager who died in St. Louis in 1969.[19]" Further more the London Times-theory is presented nearly as a truth "HIV-infections is still officially unexplained phenomenon but HIV-infections appeared exactly the same time in different areas of world and they also matched exactly the smallbox vaccine program of World Health Organisation (WHO)" even though the later studies have made this highly unlikely: by an analysis of genetic mutation in primate lentivirus strains that indicates with 95% certainty that the origin of the HIV-1 strain dates to about 1930. I think the chapter needs a major rewrite. In the main article (AIDS origin) the small pox theory is not even mentioned. --Joonasl 13:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of AIDS 

message: The top 4 elements of the table in this article read:
Blood Transfusion 9,000
Childbirth 2,500
Needle-sharing injection drug use 67
Receptive anal intercourse 50...
next to the article, which states that 
"The majority of HIV infections are acquired through unprotected sexual relations"
This doesn't appear to make sense...
Have I misread it? Jddriessen 20:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably have. What part doesn't make sense to you? The table lists acts by order of associated risk, not by how often or how frequently they occur. Millions of people have sex for each time a blood transfusion occurs, so the millions of times makes up for the lower per act associated risk.  - Nunh-huh 21:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible error in describing proportions of infections 

message: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=hiv%20blocker&btnG=Search+News ¦ Reisio 23:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fyi, news 

message: The table in the "Transmission" section says for instance, that the infection rate per 10 000 exposures in "Insertive penile-vaginal intercourse" is 5 cases. If I'm understanding it correctly, that's a 0.05% chance of getting HIV from unprotected sex with an infected woman. How can that be true? Isn't that way, WAY too low? 
I mean, I have no idea. Is that a truly correct figure? Anyone? -- Xompanthy 22:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Per act risk 

message: New analysis shows that what was previously thought to be a definite increase in protection against the spread of HIV caused by circumcision is in fact "statistically irrelevant once the study controls for the number of prostitutes in a country". The AAAS provides the layman summary, and links to the freely available journal article hosted by PLoS. Circumcision, HIV, and other Wikipedia articles definitely needs to be corrected/updated with this information. Their ultimate conclusion:
"This paper provides strong evidence that when conducted properly, cross country regression data does not support the theory that male circumcision is the key to slowing the AIDS epidemic. Rather, it is the number of infected prostitutes in a country that is highly significant and robust in explaining HIV prevalence levels across countries. An explanation is offered for why Africa has been hit the hardest by the AIDS pandemic and why there appears to be very little correlation between HIV/AIDS infection rates and country wealth."
 — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-20 13:39Z
:See discussion at Talk:Circumcision. Jakew 14:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Circumcision protection now shown as irrelevant - "[[It's the economy, stupid|It's the prostitutes, stupid!]]"

message: I agree with Brian0918 that the HIV page's current discussion of circumcision as a means of HIV prevention is out of date, but primarily in a different way. The current language on the page: 
(1) mentions that trials are being done in Uganda and Kenya, but fails to mention that those trials have now concluded showed HIV risk reduction rates of 48% and 53% respectively and were halted early as a result. See Male Circumcision Significantly Reduces Risk of Acquiring HIV. 
(2) says that UNAIDS thinks it's premature to recommend circumcision as a means of HIV prevention. That statement in the wikipedia article is based on an 2006 WHO statement, but that statement was issued before the two trials were halted early in December 2006, at which point the WHO issued a December 2006 statement saying "WHO, the UNAIDS Secretariat and their partners will review the detailed trial findings and will then define specific policy recommendations for expanding and/or promoting male circumcision."
It is important that wikipedia's writeup include accurate, up-to-date information about these important recent findings that medically-performed male circumcision with counseling is a safe and effective means of preventing HIV transmission through heterosexual sex.
Note that Eurekalert article cited by Brian0918 is really addressing different questions than "is medically performed male circumcision an effective means of HIV risk reduction?" It's addressing how RELATIVELY important are:
(1a) the rate of male circumcision, and 
(1b) the percentage of prostitutes in the population and their rate HIV infection
... as means of explaining the current HIV prevalence rate in the general population. It may well be true that (1b) is more important than (1a) in explaining how HIV came to be highly prevalent in some countries today. But that does not mean that medically performed male circumcision with counseling isn't an effective tool for HIV prevention in heterosexual sex. Controlled clinical trials have proven that it's effective.
The article also makes a strange statement: "reducing single encounter transmission rates alone cannot control the epidemic. The reason is that individuals in highly infected countries have multiple contacts with the infected so reducing transmission rates only defers the inevitable." Well, first of all, we know of NOTHING that alone can control the epidemic. Condoms alone can't control the epidemic (think for example about sex workers who choose not to use them), but they're still a useful tool for slowing its spread. And "deferring the inevitable" is in fact a highly useful thing because it buys time for us to come up with a vaccine or microbicides that could help prevent further spread better.
Nothing in the article changes these facts: (1) Controlled clinical trials in South Africa, Kenya, and Uganda have shown that medically performed male circumcision with counseling is a safe and effective way to reduce the risk of HIV transmission through heterosexual sex by 60, 53, and 48 percent respectively. (2) WHO "will review the detailed trial findings and will then define specific policy recommendations for expanding and/or promoting male circumcision."
AIDSvideos 13 July 2007
Just found a more recent statement: "the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UNAIDS Secretariat convened an international expert consultation to determine whether male circumcision should be recommended for the prevention of HIV infection. Based on the evidence presented, which was considered to be compelling, experts attending the consultation recommended that male circumcision now be recognized as an additional important intervention to reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men."
AIDSvideos 13 July 2007
As in all stories involving circumcision, statements are generally being made based on ideology rather than established fact. The relationship between AIDS, circumcision, and prostitution is more complex than is being depicted here. Furthermore, the understanding of this relationship is still evolving ; it's inappropriate to merely parrot the latest study as if it were the final word, whether or not you sympathize with its conclusions. - Nunh-huh 01:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Medically performed male circumcision with counseling has been shown safe and effective for HIV prevention through heterosexual sex

message: It's more than obvious that the "introductory paragraph" is far too long, as the Editorial staff make clear.  Here's my suggestion on it:  The first paragraph can be left there, but with a brief summary of the major points of the article included where it hassn't already been done, pursuant to the general encyclopaedic formatting of an article.  
As far as the remaining three paragraphs are concerned, I looked reviewed their content and concluded that paragraphs 2 and 4 of the intro fit belong in the Transmission section, although there's a good possibility that alot of what was said in the earlier may have already been covered in the latter, thereby rendering it superfluous altogether, but in any case those two paragraphs quite clearly belong in Transmission.  In regards to Paragraph #3, I couldn't locate one precise Subject to relegate it to, but a larger, two-fold problem exists in that in an article which is supposed to be about HIV, it seemingly randomnly interjects - without references or sources - that AIDS is one of the greatest pandemics in history with 25 Million deaths.     
How did we get to talking about AIDS?  And has the author attempted to verify such a statement regarding a subject which is irrelevant  to the article to begin with? An article like this cannot be taken lightly.  Thanks, Alan. --24.184.184.177 00:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lengthy and problematic Intro  

message: I think the tag (lock symbol) has been removed from the article, because I was wondering why it wasn't protected and noticed while editing that there is a notice saying the article is semi-protected.  If no-one contests I would like to put the symbol back up.--Kkrouni 01:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection status 

message: I'm a little concerned that the references used in the table of transmission rates, here and at AIDS, don't always seem to support the numbers in the table. I checked the references for "Receptive penile-vaginal intercourse", and none of the three references seem to have much to do with a 10 in 10,000 transmission rate, unless I'm missing something really obvious (it's happened before.) It's very important that these are referenced properly, as, well, that transmission rate is a lot lower than I thought it would be given the rate at which the disease has spread. Perhaps that discrepancy could be discussed more in the article as well. Thanks for your help, Grandmasterka 02:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The table reproduces figures found at <http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5402a1.htm#tab1>. Your personal incredulity aside, these figures are in line with those published elsewhere. - Nunh-huh 01:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's all I needed. A few of the numbers still don't make much sense to me, but... It doesn't get much more reliable than the CDC. Grandmasterka 01:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That reference, by the way, was already in the table. This article has been looked at and edited by people with some expertise in the matter, and it's unlikely that information that's been in the article for a long period of time is going to be out-and-out wrong. - Nunh-huh 01:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, I know... I checked the references next to each number first, didn't really find what I was looking for, and then didn't scroll down far enough on the top reference. Sorry about that. I edited that top reference to jump directly to the table, I hope it helps. Grandmasterka 08:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of transmission rates 

message: I propose an external link to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's Bloodborne Infectious Diseases Page  where users can find info on needlestick and sharps injuries, universal precautions, research, regulations, legislation, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tisdalepardi (talk • contribs) 20:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Occupational Exposure External Link

message: I believe there is an error in the per-act risk table in the article. The first two acts are fine (9000 and 2500 cases of infection per 10000 cases), but the rest seem to have been calculated in percents rather than in actual number of infections. If you compare the table with the one here (http://depts.washington.edu/hivaids/post/case5/fig1d.html) you'll find that the numbers match exactly, only the numbers in the table I linked to are calculated in percents.
Someone please review this to make sure I'm not in error and edit if possible. I believe this is giving people seriously wrong information and potentially creating dangerous misconceptions.
~Slava, 14/10/07 23:50 GMT  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.200.206 (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The numbers match exactly, and they all are risks per 10,000 exposures to an infected source. They also exactly match the source cited . (The source you give is probably taken from the source we used, so that's no surprise.) What makes you think "the rest seem to have been calculated in per cents"? - Nunh-huh 01:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Per-act Risk Table 

message: Under the heading on genetic variability, it might be nice to mention HIV group O, which is a blanket grouping for subtypes other than 1 and 2 that do not show up on diagnostic tests.  It is *extremely* rare and has not been seen outside of Africa (as of 2007) to my knowledge, but some of the newer test kits can detect it.  Blood donors are screened for possible exposure by asking about travel or other exposure to countries where it has been seen (Chad, Central African Republic, Congo, Niger, Nigeria, and a few others).  Given the length of the article, it might be appropriate to create a separate article for HIV subtypes.
150.148.0.27 17:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HIV Group O

message: Recently, there have been massive improvements not only in the treatment of HIV, but also in the possible cure. Perhaps the treatment section of this article should be revised to include the most recent developments?
Citing ScienceDaily, 
"ScienceDaily (Oct. 21, 2007) — With the latest advances in treatment, doctors have discovered that they can successfully neutralise the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The so-called ‘combination therapy’ prevents HIV from mutating and spreading, allowing patients to rebuild their immune system to the same levels as the rest of the population."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071020103343.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.86.140.54 (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though the press has hyped it, there's really not much that's new there. () Other studies have been more cautious in their conclusions. - Nunh-huh 01:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Developments

message: The section on circumcision is very pro-, and my citiations of criticisms and the increased likelihood of transmission to women by circumcised men is repeatedly deleted.  This is not a neutral presentation as long as it does not deal with the criticism of the circumcision recommendation.  --Scottandrewhutchins 15:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I pointed out to you on your talk page (rather than on the talk pages of three separate articles you were inserting identical boilerplate into), you were relying on a webposting of an AP report of an oral report of a preliminary study that reached no statistically significant results, and which will probably never be printed in a refereed peer-reviewed journal, which is an unreliable source. Furthermore, your summation of that source was (and is) incredibly misleading, reflecting either a lack of understanding or intentional deception. The report simply does not say what you wish it said. The current article incorporates all points of view that are supported by reliable sources with emphasis according to the numbers of people holding those views. Reporting a preliminary study with no statistical significance as though it were conclusive gives undue weight to a fringe view and is incompatible with a neutral point of view. - Nunh-huh 15:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Circumcision Neutrality

message: Under section 7.1 (Cell entry) the following sentence needs a verb somewhere : "The interactions of the trimeric envelope complex (gp160 spike, discussed above) and both CD4 and a chemokine receptor (generally either CCR5 or CXCR4 but others are known to interact) on the cell surface.[48][49]"
:Fixed now, I think, though it would be good if others double-checked. - Nunh-huh 17:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence sense

message: If it is new, it should be included, but I'm not sure how important or valid this info is or if it's actually new.
"Professor Jens Lundgren from the University of Copenhagen, together with other members of the research group EuroSIDA, have conducted a study, which demonstrates that the immune system of all HIV-infected patients can be restored and normalised. The only stipulation is that patients begin and continue to follow their course of treatment."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071020103343.htm
The Lancet - Vol. 370, Issue 9585, 4 August 2007, Pages 407-413  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JavOs (talk • contribs) 04:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this new?