Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 18

message: Blood transfer? Or do I even want to know?
-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk • contribs).
:Apparently you do want to know. Take a look at AIDS origin. MastCell Talk 20:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How did it jump from apes/monkeys to humans?

message: I would appreciate it if someone could shed some light on this issue. Is it true that AIDS or HIV spreads more easily among homosexual men than homosexual women? If so, why is that?
213.115.62.100 08:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand, it's because homosexual men are more likeley to participate in anal sex, which could possbily lead to bleeding.  Since HIV is  bloodborne disease, it travels easily through open wounds.  Phuzion 17:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Higher risk among homosexual men?

message: I just read in the Week that circumsicion helps prevent AIDS, is this true? I so, should it be added?
70.226.157.30 03:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prevention

message: I am naive in the  various AIDS debates, though I have known some victims of the disease. However, having just watched the famous 2004 CBC documentary on Edward Hooper theories, the OPV AIDS hypothesis I found it very convincing and disturbing. I came to wikipedia for some reassurance and background, however, I was very dissappointed in the relevant party of this main AIDS article. The origins section and alternatives are very shallow. They do not even link to other wikipedia articles treating the subject in more depth. Alternative_theories_about_the_origin_of_AIDS, Category:AIDS_origin_hypotheses, AIDS_reappraisal, OPV_AIDS_hypothesis should at least be mentioned. I find this section really takes a side in the debate and departs from NPOV. 
:Well, they are mentioned in there actually, to my dismay. To me AIDS reappraisal and its ilk represent a POV Fork (WP:POVFORK) in which a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others. They also are bad article ideas, as per (WP:BAI) because a new article is made to supplement an already existing one which you think is not putting your point across forcefully enough. 
:I also don't see any of the 'alternate' AIDS theory articles giving lipservice to AIDS texts' as prominently as it to them, so take your pound of flesh and be happy. JoeSmack Talk 08:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think they're POV forks. The AIDS article describes the consensus understanding of the disease, as it should, and refers briefly to various controversies. AIDS reappraisal is not really an alternate viewpoint on that article; it's a description of a scientific/political/ideological debate that, even for those who think it's entirely regrettable, has gotten a lot of attention and had undeniable effects. Most of the material there would be totally out of place in the main article. It still needs a lot of work but I think it does what it should: convey to a reader what those people are talking about, and the historical context in which the argument arose. Similarly, the OPV article is not a POV fork because it conveys a lot of detail on this notable (by definition, since it was very widely publicized) theory - detail that would, again, be out of place in the main article but is certainly of at least historical importance. You don't call a sub-article a POV fork just because the people it describes are at odds with the subject of the main article; otherwise we'd have to choose between having, say, Civil rights movement and COINTELPRO. ←Hob 02:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If anything the OPV hypothesis has been given much too much prominence in this article. It's very much a fringe theory that's been rejected by mainstream science. Lots of evidence contradicts it. Trezatium 21:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trezatium - now that you did such a nice job expanding and referencing that passage about OPV, I think it is too much! :) I mean, I think that kind of detail really belongs in the OPV hypothesis article. The AIDS article would be fine with a brief summary of what that debate was about; the fact that the consensus is now against it; and a "see" link to let the reader know that there is more detail available elsewhere. (I think an inline note like "See OPV AIDS hypothesis." would be best - adding a "See also" section at the bottom of the article, for something that at this point is not a very central issue, would be overkill.) ←Hob 01:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only expanded the section by adding the final sentence plus two references. I entirely agree that most of the OPV material should be cut. Trezatium 09:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've made the cuts. Trezatium 11:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins Debate Stifled

message: Hi, I think I saw a documentary on AIDS (maybe frontline?) that claimed that the dominant theory of AIDS transfer to humans was through consumption of primate meat. Can anyone confirm this? 
Can someone add the primate consumption theory to the article. I think I saw it on Frontline or another cable documetary. --Gogosean 01:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Primates are a common form of bushmeat in parts of Africa. It's quite easy to imagine someone cutting themselves during slaughter or butchery and thus getting the virus into their bloodstream. I've added a bit to the article to acknowledge this hypothesis. Trezatium 20:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is this recurring and disruptive anon? --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 07:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Primate meat consumsption

message: The death toll every single day in Congo is somewhere between the death tolls of Hurricane Katrina and the September 11, 2001 attacks
This would be  2752x365=1,085,145 a year, maybe the figure for whole africa
and the weekly death toll is about the same as the death toll of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake
that makes 186,983x52=9,723,116 a year, an absolutely ridiculous figure even considering only the number of the dead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.101.126.212 (talk • contribs).
:This information, if sourced, could be very useful for the AIDS in Africa article! :) JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 16:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congo Numbers 

message: Hi.
I really like this article, it's great. I read not even half of it but I came across two parts of the text that I would like to comment on:
* "The risk of HIV transmission from exposure to saliva is considerably smaller than the risk from exposure to semen; contrary to popular belief, one would have to swallow gallons of saliva from a carrier to run a significant risk of becoming infected." - Im not sure what "popular belief" is, but most people I personally know know that you can not get aids (easily) through saliva... how do you define "popular belief" in this particular article?
* "During a sexual act, only male or female condoms can reduce the chances of infection with HIV and other STDs and the chances of becoming pregnant." - I don't see what the use is of mentioning that only male or female condoms can reduce the chances of becoming pregnant, not to mention that this is, as far as I know, not even true... (not "only" condoms; see Birth_control). if this sentence isn't supposed to mean that, shouldn't it be re-phrased?
--bb 21:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably "During a sexual act, only male or female condoms can simultaneously reduce both the chance of infection with HIV and other STDs and the chance of becoming pregnant." would be clearer. - Nunh-huh 22:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two parts of the article that I would like to comment on 

message: from the main page: "in fact TCM have been proven to be able to cure AIDS totally."
Surely statements like this should have a source - or else isn't it weasel words or something?
:i've removed this sentence, i believe it is vandalism that just slipped by. JoeSmack Talk 20:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Why has there not been any focus on the supposed discoverer of the virus , Dr Robert C Gallo. In 1975 he was working on Leukemia in context of retroviruses. And he holds 79 medical patents relating to Aids medical treatment. Conflict of interest? Also where is the issue over the Reagan administration in the early 80's who actively helped to create the term "Aids" They also helped Gallo with his patents. A LOT of material needs to be added here.--Redblossom 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any positive, or rather, non-negative information regarding the Reagan administration will be labeled "POV" and removed. That's just the way it works around here. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 14:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there's plenty of focus on Gallo - it can be found at Robert Gallo. If you have some previously published, reliably sourced, verifiable information you'd like to add about Gallo, that would be the place. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about Reagan - there's a section on AIDS in Reagan Administration. MastCell 18:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that a good way to address the concern raised above would be to briefly fit in the names "Gallo" and "Reagan" somewhere on the AIDS page and make them links to those other pages.  Wikipedia pages benefit from links to pages of related information.  --Coppertwig 01:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, here's a way to do it:  In the box of links at the bottom of the page, a link to Reagan administration#Response to AIDS can be added in the History section.  I don't see how a such a link could reasonably be considered to be POV.  No link to Gallo or Montagnier seems to me to be needed, since there is a link in the Origin section to the main article AIDS origin, which has links to the pages for both these scientists.  --Coppertwig 03:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr Robert C Gallo? 

message: The fact that AIDS was originally referred to as GRID and the reason the name was subsequently changed is mentioned 3 times in the article;  that's approximately 2 times more than necessary.  If subsequent mention is needed it can be expressed as a short phrase such as "Originally dubbed GRID, ..." below, rather restated as a sentence.  If possible two of the three similar stories can be simply edited away.  Here I'm simply trying to reduce repetition;  expanding one of the three versions with more detail can also be OK.
Under "CDC classification system for HIV infection":
*The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) originally classified AIDS as GRID which stood for Gay Related Immune Disease. However, after determining that AIDS is not isolated to homosexual people the name was changed to the neutral AIDS.
Under "Origin of HIV" it says:
*Originally dubbed GRID, or Gay-Related Immune Deficiency, health authorities soon realized that nearly half of the people identified with the syndrome were not homosexual men. In 1982, the CDC introduced the term AIDS to describe the newly recognized syndrome.
Under "HIV and AIDS misconceptions" it says:
* When scientists first recognized the syndrome in 1981 initially they termed it Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome, a possible source for the misconception holding that AIDS infects only homosexual men; scientists soon renamed the disease in recognition of transmission other than by male-male intercourse.  
Any objections to my editing two of these down?  Should I present the proposed edits here first?  If someone else wants to go ahead and do it that's OK with me, too.  --Coppertwig 03:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GRID repetitively mentioned 3 times 

message: This proposal came out of the "Alternative treatment" discussion above.  The proposal is to create a new page "Treatment of HIV/AIDS", and move the content of the "Treatment" section of this (AIDS) page onto it, and also move and merge the content of the "Treatment" section of the HIV page onto it.  On the AIDS page and on the HIV page, a short (few paragraphs) summary will remain along with a link to the new page.  See Wikipedia:Summary style.  Advantages of creating the new page:
*Fixing the current content fork where the similar topic of HIV or AIDS treatment is covered on two separate pages.
*More room to expand the material on conventional treatments.
*More room to expand the material on alternative treatments.
*Partially or completely resolving the ongoing dispute under "Alternative treatments" above, because one of the root causes of the dispute is whether there is enough room to include certain material on alternative treatments.
I'll also put a note on the HIV talk page, directing discussion here.
Comments? --Coppertwig 05:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you remove a valid, referenced point that conforms to the WP:NPOV it will be seen as vandalism and POV pushing. The Mills article is a valid source from  International Journal of STD & AIDS and describes the current knowledge on alternative treatments as presented in that paragraph (alluded to as [97] above). Unless we wish to cherry pick data to conform to a specific POV advocating alternative treatments, we must follow the evidence and present a neutral and factual article, anything less would be wrong and in violation or wikipedia policies. The article, in its current state, does this fine. --Bob 08:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In both the dispute about the deletion of the vitamin C sentence and the dispute about the deletion of the Mills sentence, what we need to do is discuss the issues here and try to reach a compromise, i.e. a version of the article everyone can live with. --Coppertwig 21:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Meanwhile, while this issue is in the process of being decided, how about this:  putting "See also HIV Treatment" in italics at the very top of the Treatment section.  (I'll also put the corresponding suggestion on the HIV talk page.) --Coppertwig 00:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Now that the last sentence of the Treatment section has been changed (the sentence with the Mills et al. footnote), one barrier to forming a separate Treatment page has been removed.  As far as I can see, the only issue remaining is whether to keep the Treatment section at its current length while also making a new, longer Treatment page, or to shorten the Treatment section into a "summary".  I've searched around in Wikipedia policy and haven't found anything definitive about this.  I'm hesitant about having a lot of similar information on separate pages;  I think Wikipedia policy tends to frown on that.  In this case there's also the HIV page treatment section which is another page with similar information.  If anyone can find clarification in Wikipedia policy about this situation I would appreciate it.  There's some releveant information at Wikipedia:Summary style, for example. --Coppertwig 16:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say POV Fork is a guideline to be wary of. I'd put an oppose up there for myself; creating a new article to expand on viewpoints because they aren't flying here isn't good. JoeSmack Talk 13:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed creation of page 'Treatment of HIV/AIDS'" 

message: "...use of dirty needles by public health services was the main cause of transmission in the study period, with sexual transmission accounting for just 30% of infections." 
It is also known that that poor medical practice accounts for many infections in the underdeveloped parts in China too. 
I know the UN has rejected many of these reports in Africa. But I still think its important that this discrepancy gets some discussion, and if it has already then I am sorry for missing it. But this is something that needs to be addressed if it has any truth to it.  --JonM 14:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some information on the topic under "Transmission", "Exposure to Bodily Fluids" with a citation to the WHO report. If there's more you'd like to add, you could propose it here or just be bold and add it (don't take it personally if it gets edited or removed, though - this tends to be a closely watched article). MastCell 16:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No talk of poor medical practice as a cause of infection in Africa and China? 

message: I heard that if one drinks two liters of someone's HIV-positive saliva they might get infected, is that possible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bob diablo (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, drinking 2 liters of someone else's saliva isn't possible. MastCell 04:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think it would be a matter of probabilities:  that the probability of getting infected from two litres of saliva would be approximately double the probability of getting infected from one litre of saliva, and thousands of times the probability of getting infected from a drop of saliva.  Presumably all rather small probabilities. --Coppertwig 02:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would guess that would have more chance of infection than drinking a drop of saliva, but less than getting a drop of blood on an open wound.  I think any open wounds in the mouth or digestive tract greatly increase the risk from swallowing such fluids. --Coppertwig 02:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, I see -- it's not so much the saliva, as traces of blood in the saliva from bleeding gums.  Another reason to consume plenty of vitamin C.  --Coppertwig 11:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIDS urban myth 

message: The footnotes are not displaying correctly.  In the last paragraph of the Treatment section are two references to an article with author Saltmarsh and title "Voodo or Valid?", but this article does not display in the list of references.  I've tried with two different browsers.  It appears as footnote 93, but footnote 93 display as a different article.  Perhaps there is no superscript for footnote 94.  --Coppertwig 03:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've figured out what the problem is.  Two different references are named "Saltmarsh".  I'll fix it.  I also checked through the other references and found a couple of redundant ones, which I'll likely re-check and abbreviate later today.  --Coppertwig 18:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've repaired the Saltmarsh reference and abbreviated a few identical references.  Near the end of the Stigma section, attached to the phrase "even sex between two uninfected men.", I found a footnote containing two citations, the second of which was not displaying.  I repaired it to display as two separate footnotes;  I'm guessing either both, or just the second footnote was intended to be cited here.  The second source seems to me to definitely support the statement, while the first may also be relevant. --Coppertwig 19:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malfunction of footnote display 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMOD
Could this be a possible cure? I just stumbled upon 2 minutes ago. If so, then the treatment paragraph should be changed. Or atleast give this IMOD as a possible cure.
--63.170.80.2 21:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMOD 

message: At "Draft alternative treatment paragraph" above, I suggest moving the two sentences about vitamin supplements from the end of one paragraph to the beginning of the next paragraph.  The positioning of these two sentences is under discussion, along with the rest of the draft paragraph, and this issue is not yet resolved.  Please do not move these sentences to any other position, or make any other changes to the section under discussion (last paragraph of Treatment section plus last two sentences of second-last paragraph) until consensus has been reached.
Please discuss on the Talk page.  As Joe Smack said above, "...it is a better idea to post the new source here instead of the article and dealing with a second revert and raised temperatures of editors.".  --Coppertwig 00:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please avoid making changes to sections that are under discussion. 

message: well guys lets keep our fingers crossed that this experiment works this time.Maverick423 18:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Billions of dollars have been spent on cure/vaccine research, and nothing has worked to date. Every couple of months a new BBC/NY Times/SF Chron article comes out about the latest thing, and thats the last you hear of it. See earlier talk page discussions, here and archived, about this reoccurring phenomenon. Flash in the pan stuff isn't notable, and if we did include it we'd have a list of 10 pages of stuff. JoeSmack Talk 18:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know -- maybe you could write about it at Wikinews if you want.  --Coppertwig 03:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think it's relevant here, too.  I think readers would be interested to see a link to the article about the test of the vaccine.  It could be in a section with a name such as "current research". --Coppertwig 11:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree. Wikipedia isn't here to interest people, it is here to be an encyclopedia (WP:5P). A section called 'current research' would date the article, never be up to date, and be a smorgasbord of flash-in-the-pan claims, treatments and cures. JoeSmack Talk 16:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIDS VACCINE 

message: The introduction says that "AIDS... is caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)". But towards the end of the article there is a reference to "Alternative Hypotheses" where it is made clear that this is still debated among a (very small) number of scientists. This makes it look like Wikipedia is taking sides in this debate. I suggest either the "Alternative Hypotheses" section is removed entirely or else the introduction is amended to say something along the lines of...
"AIDS... is widely believed to be caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)."
The Alternative Hypotheses have either been debunked or they have not. The introduction as it stands seems to say that they have been. And if they have been debunked then why include them in the article at all? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hne123 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Hne123 that there is a problem here.  A Wikipedia article should not contradict itself and should not take sides.  Although putting "is widely believed" near the top of the article would solve this, to me it sounds too weak in this case.  How widespread is the minority view?  Rather than "is widely believed", near the top of the article it might sound better to put something like "has been determined by medical science to be..."  Can the Alternative Hypothesis section be written to mean "Some people believe X, but they are wrong"?  The Myths section is like that.  However, for the Alternative Hypotheses section, that seems a bit too POV to me.  Maybe just renaming the heading of the Alternative Hypotheses section might help.  What about the hypothesis that, although HIV is one factor causing AIDS, the presence of HIV alone is not enough to cause AIDS?  I'm surprised this more reasonable hypothesis isn't mentioned, when the more extreme one is.  In summary, I agree that there's a problem here but I don't know how to fix it.  --Coppertwig 11:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How can you say there is no real problem here when you are indirectly acknowledging that the "POV pushers" of the majority view have the only voice in the introduction? I worry about your use of the term "POV pushers" as in my mind this looks like you may not be a neutral observor in this debate.Hne123 08:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'majority view' is scientific consensus. We're not going to lie in the intro to satisfy an alternative hypothesis that is for the most part bumpkis, nor is 'undue weight' a valid NPOV arguement, nor should weasel words like 'it is widely believed' be anywhere in this article.  This has been argued again and again, nothing more than the test of time has shown that the specific wording, AIDS is caused by HIV, is the best way to phrase it. Dive through the talk page archives to see previous discussions. JoeSmack Talk 13:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Hne123 has a common misunderstanding about WP:NPOV. The actual policy mandates that we don't give undue weight to fringe theories. The view that HIV doesn't cause AIDS is that of a small fringe/minority, and is primarily a political rather than scientific movement at present. Given that, its mention at all, and the article dedicated to it, probably represent undue weight, but there you go. The idea of "cofactors" as an "alternative" hypothesis is too vague - the course of every infectious disease is modified by host cofactors, but here it seems to be some kind of code implying that HIV is harmless. There is evidence on the progression of HIV in drug users, those with Hep B or C, etc, and perhaps this warrants a sentence or two. MastCell 17:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are correct, I misunderstood WP:NPOV. "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject" So I suppose you could argue that encyclopedias are not impartial but are simply records of the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain. Accordingly, I back down and accept that the introduction as it stands is correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hne123 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV problem

message: ok guys i have a question here
as we recall on a earlier conversation about saliva and infection. 2 liters of saliva isnt enough to get infected if ingested orally. in the same note it is more probable to get infected through a wound. meaning the mouth and digestive system might be stronger to the threat of aids. however breastmilk when ingested can give a child the virus. what is the diffrence between these if they are both ingested orally?
yes i read the article but i cant seem to find it anywere Maverick423 18:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is more in the child than the breastmilk as i understand it. If you were to down 2 litters of breastmilk now you'd probably be fine. However, in the first 6 months or so of a baby's life, it gets a strong dose of natural antibiotics through the mother's breastmilk. The baby uses this essentially to keep it from getting lots of diseases before its immune system is up to its own snuff. If this breastmilk has a HIV virons and the baby is still quite young, it makes for some pretty infectious chances. JoeSmack Talk 18:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: During the first few months of life a baby consumes dozens of litres of breast milk. In addition to having undeveloped immune systems, babies also have immature digestive tracts which are more vulnerable to infection. The risk of transmission is highest among babies who are fed other foods or liquids as well as breast milk, probably because these other substances irritate the digestive tract, or contain other microbes that facilitate transmission. Also I believe that the concentration of HIV in saliva is lower than in breast milk, though I don't know of any specific figures. Trezatium 22:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oral Ingestion and Breastmilk 

message: Dose anyone know if aids research money raised by charity or given out by governments ever goes to drug companies or dose it all go to researchers in university's. If some of the money dose go to a drug company dose that change the company's patent on new drugs? Maybe this is a question for an IP lawyer but any answers or links are appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.219.159.72 (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aids research money  

message: How long do you survive with retroviral drugs after the diagnosis of aids is made? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.243.90 (talk • contribs).
- 5 years?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.241.183 (talk • contribs).
the most i heard of a person surviving is 8 years. cant confirm this though sorry Maverick423 19:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added one estimate to the article. Trezatium 20:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact most studies have concluded that life expectancy for people on HAART is around 20-30 years after infection - that is at least 10 years longer than without treatment (e.g. , , ). I'm not sure why the study I cited in my edit () gives such a lower estimate. This may be due to different definitions, different methods or different source data. Any suggestions? Trezatium 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added another reference and widened the estimated range of survival benefit. Trezatium 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: How long is a piece of string? --Bob 02:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed - I referenced the Lohse article in my comment above. By all means add it to the article if you think it worthwhile. Trezatium 12:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  survival time after diagnosis of AIDS 

message: Re: footnotes 122 and 123, just a quibble but important to those of us pursuing history and origins. 
The presence of AIDS in in a blood sample from an adult male in Kinshasa, Zaire (then Leopoldville, Belgian Congo)in 1959 has not been independently confirmed. The virus was found using some of the early testing methods, which produced false positives due to the so-called "sticky sera" problem. Also, there are strong suggestions that the individual may have had G6PD deficiency, as well as possibly suffering from malarial-induced anemia. 
See:
Williams, G. Stretton, T.B. Leonard, J.C. "AIDS in 1959?"Lancet1983: 1136
(link at http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/aids-coverups/David_Ho_Paper_Nature_Rebuttal.html
Balter, Michael. "Virus from 1959 Sample Marks Early years of HIV".Science. 1998: 279:801.
The other famous case from 1959-60, that of the "Manchester sailor," was of course refuted by Dr David Ho in 1993. See "How scientists discovered false evidence on the world's "first AIDS victim,"" Steve Connor, Science Correspondent, The Independent (INDT), London, March 24, 1995 (link at: http://www.aegis.com/news/misc/1995/IN950301.html)
As for the first AIDS case in the US, researchers at Tulane in 1988 were able to isolate antibodies to a virus closely resembling AIDS from autopsy specimens preserved since 1969. The victim, a teenaged black male from the Midwest, had died after a 16-month illness bearing many similarities to modern AIDS. The timing of the patient's illness and death (his illness dated to 1968, though the actual date of infection could not be determined), his apparent lack of risk factors associated with the current epidemic, and small differences in histology suggest that his case cannot be considered as among the progenitors of the present epidemic (his doctors believed that he had sexual behavior risk factors, but could not confirm their suspicions through interviews with the patient and his family). However, this case does serve to refute origin theories  suggesting the virus emerged "suddenly" or "all at once" in the late 1970s/early 1980s. 
See:  R. F. Garry, M. H. Witte, A. A. Gottlieb, M. Elvin-Lewis, M. S. Gottlieb, C. L. Witte, S. S. Alexander, W. R. Cole and W. L. Drake Jr
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA 70112; JAMA, October 14, 1988, vol. 260, p. 2085 (link at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/260/14/2085)
stacie dotsonStaciedotson 08:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early AIDS Cases 

message: I seen that someone recommended this for deletion and I agree, it's too jumbled up or too long. I wish the article had a rumors section so we can see some of the myths and evolution. Also, if it was out since 1981, why wasn't there any songs about it and why did it not get mention till the 1990s although The Blob had condoms for random reasons.74.195.3.199 17:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIDS 

message: I suggest a rewrite of the "Diagnosis" section, mainly based on this article. Trezatium 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that such a move could have the potential to greatly improve the section.  Orpingtonian 14:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification section

message: Where do you go about getting tested for HIV? and is there a home test kit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.240.144 (talk • contribs).
:Ask your doctor. If you don't have one, go to your local urgent care center. MastCell 21:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also if you're in the US you can phone 1-800-CDC-INFO (1-800-232-4636) for advice and addresses, and if in you're the UK you can phone 0800 567 123. Please note that Wikipedia isn't really an appropriate place to ask for personal advice. Trezatium 22:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And for Canada see this link. Trezatium 22:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if you are in the UK, then home test kits are currently illegal. You can only test where you can receive pre and post test counselling. Orpingtonian 23:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HIV TEST

message: i posted this about a cure for aids derived from frogs that i heard on paul harvy *im sure some of you remember* anyways i was only able to find a very small refreance to it here http://www.howstuffworks.com/bye-bye-kermie.htm
it is stated on the very bottom of the article i think on the 3rd to the last paragraph. if i can find more on it i think it might be worth noting on the article? user:maverick423
:An "anti-HIV effect" can be a lot of things that are a very long way short of a "cure". Simple pain killers and antibiotics can have an anti-HIV effect .. but all they do is mask progress of the disease and prevent certain AIDS defining conditions. Orpingtonian 23:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just found this: http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/reporter/index.html?ID=4254 (dated September 30, 2005) which seems to refer to  developing a means of preventing HIV transmission, not a cure. I'll do some more digging, but I don't recall seeing any further developments on this. Personally I suspect that this story has a lot more to do with getting people interested in saving frogs than it does serious HIV-AIDS research. Orpingtonian 23:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Realistically, if an effective new treatment for HIV/AIDS comes out, it will be very easy to find reliable sources describing it. Until then, if we have to dig like mad to find tidbits, it's not ready for prime time (nor for this article). MastCell 04:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  If people won't fund studies about it or write about until after they're convinced it's an effective treatment, and if people also refuse to be convinced until after there are studies and reports, then there may well be effective treatments without easy-to-find reliable sources describing them.  --Coppertwig 13:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, that sort of feels like a chicken before the egg perspective. I think MastCell is right; it is an Occam's Razor thing. JoeSmack Talk 13:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t think MastCell is suggesting any sort of suppression or lack of worth - merely that the fact that extract of frog may, or may not, have anti-HIV properties, and may have found its way into an experimental environment, isn’t really of any particular relevance to this article .. although it could perhaps be of interest in an article about frogs.When stories like these crop up, they are, more often than not, seeded to highlight the importance of protecting biodiversity .. not to report an important medical discovery.If a chemical compound has been identified in nature and subsequently used in medicine (nothing even remotely unusual in that), then it is highly unlikely that it will forever be flagged as ‘extract of frog’ (in preference to its chemical name) .. or that there will be an easily identifiable trail back to the original reports about frogs. The fact that it isn’t now identified as ‘extract of frog’ doesn’t mean it hasn’t (or wont) receive a mention.Anyway, I have had a quick look through the material that I have access to and I don’t see any obvious sign of the frog connection cropping up again. Orpingtonian 16:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well put. JoeSmack Talk 20:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous post 

message: can a man be infected by going down on a woman and lickin her outStrike-through text —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.97.7 (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oral sex 

message: Proposed edit to fourth and fifth paragraph of Treatment section:
:Daily multivitamin and mineral supplements have been found to reduce HIV disease progression among men and women. This could become an important low-cost intervention provided during early HIV disease to prolong the time before antiretroviral therapy is required.
 Some individual nutrients have also been tried.(Selenium:)   (Vitamin C:)  Anti-retroviral drugs are expensive, and the majority of the world's infected individuals do not have access to medications and treatments for HIV and AIDS. It has been postulated that only a vaccine can halt the pandemic because a vaccine would possibly cost less, thus being affordable for developing countries, and would not require daily treatments. However, after over 20 years of research, HIV-1 remains a difficult target for a vaccine.''
:Research to improve current treatments includes decreasing side effects of current drugs, further simplifying drug regimens to improve adherence, and determining the best sequence of regimens to manage drug resistance. A number of studies have shown that measures to prevent opportunistic infections can be beneficial when treating patients with HIV infection or AIDS. Vaccination against hepatitis A and B is advised for patients who are not infected with these viruses and are at risk of becoming infected. Patients with substantial immunosuppression are also advised to receive prophylactic therapy for Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (PCP), and many patients may benefit from prophylactic therapy for toxoplasmosis and Cryptococcus meningitis as well.
--Coppertwig 01:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment section 

message: Surely there should be a prognosis section? Including expected lifetimes and effects of treatment? Thedreamdied 11:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both these aspects are definitely already in the article, a prognosis section would just be a different way to organize information. Is there a compelling reason why it needs to be reorganized? JoeSmack Talk 12:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say compelling - I just think it would be clearer and more accessible that way. Thedreamdied 22:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prognosis 

message: Why isn't this page semi-protected, it's highly vandalized, and it continues to be. If this is just a way of catching vandals or something, that's weird.Blindman shady 02:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Doesn't it bother anyone that this article acts as though there is no correlation between homosexual contact and AIDS?  The facts about the rate of HIV among homosexuals can still be presented without passing any kind of judgment on homosexuals.  Chicken Wing 22:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already contains this sentence: "In many developed countries, there is an association between AIDS and homosexuality or bisexuality, and this association is correlated with higher levels of sexual prejudice such as anti-homosexual attitudes."  You seem to feel the correlation exists worldwide, and it does not. Most cases of AIDS worldwide are contracted by heterosexual intercourse. - Nunh-huh 22:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "You seem to feel the correlation exists worldwide..."  You seem to be wrong.  Fact remains, HIV is easier to transmit through homosexual intercourse and the population of HIV-infected individuals that are homosexual is disproportionate.  There's no reason to respond to my comment by pointing out loopholes (i.e., I also said "homosexuals", when technically, the trend is only true among male homosexuals) in my comment.  You can respond on the merits, or you can prove my point for me.  Chicken Wing 23:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'm not interested in having a debate with you as to whether the article adequately reflects your biases.  I've responded on the "merits" of your suggestion. Your assertion that "HIV is easier to transmit through homosexual intercourse" (presumably, "than heterosexual intercourse") is true if and only if you equate "homosexual intercourse" with "anal sex", an equation which is not exact. The risk of any sex act is determined by the nature of the sex act, and not by the sexuality of the persons performing it. We supply all the information needed to compare any two sexual acts.  All the information you claim is lacking from the article is actually there.- Nunh-huh 00:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "only if you equate "homosexual intercourse" with "anal sex"..." Again, a refusal to respond on the merits.  Looking for the technicality for an out instead.  Are homosexuals over-represented among AIDS patients in the United States?  Is it easier to contract HIV from anal intercouse?  Then there's also the fact that homosexuals, by the percentages, have more partners and less frequently use protection and engage in other dangerous sexual activities.  I must have missed the bus to the world where the facts are biased.  For example, pointing out that African-Americans commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes in America isn't biased.  Someone genuinely concerned about ending violent crime within the African-American community might point this out.  Yet somehow when we talk about homosexuals, everyone here seems to be reaching for the panic button (screaming "bias").  Chicken Wing 00:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a "technicality" that the risk of any sex act is determined by the act. This encyclopedia is not the place to grind your axe. - Nunh-huh 04:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not my point, and if you don't understand that then please do not respond anymore as you're only wasting everyone's time.  The sex act is what determines the risk, but I wasn't disputing that.  The technicality was your insistance of quibbling about terminology. You still have yet to make an argument on the merits.  You skipped everything I said about the facts and made one semantic argument. Chicken Wing 05:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright alright. Please, propose what the addition/deletion/change is exactly that you want to make here on the discussion page and we'll draw consensus on it. It's as simple as that. JoeSmack Talk 05:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll get on that tomorrow.  So, don't think I'm putting it off.  But, I've got other stuff to do, and then I'll get the sources lined out and try to write it as NPOV as possible.  Chicken Wing 06:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Just as not mentioning it at all makes people wonder.  I'm not saying the article needs to say that HIV is divine retribution or that gays are inherently prone to HIV - not at all.  But, statistically they participate in intercourse with more partners and without protection, and in the western world that has led to them being disproportionately represented among HIV patients.  It's not like this is fringe information.  It was the news just today. The fact that it is wholly lacking in the article is suspect.  Chicken Wing 02:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "not mentioning it at all" seems to be in your head. Exactly what part of "in many developed countries, there is an association between AIDS and homosexuality or bisexuality" do you find lacking? - Nunh-huh 06:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chickenwing in the comment below raises an important point.  It seems to me that this sentence is ambiguous: "In many developed countries, there is an association between AIDS and homosexuality or bisexuality, and this association is correlated with higher levels of sexual prejudice such as anti-homosexual attitudes."  Does "association" mean a scientifically established statistical correlation, or does it mean that people tend to associate the two things in their minds?  I think the wording should be changed to make this clearer, one way or the other.  And then, if it doesn't mean scientific correlation, perhaps as Chickenwing suggests a sentence about that needs to be added somewhere -- probably not in the Stigma section.  Listing the risk of anal intercourse in the chart is also useful, but it's not the same thing:  it depends also on how often the average homosexual engages in such an act.  (Hard to figure out where to put my comment) --Coppertwig 16:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, that sentence that you're referring to doesn't mention that there is actually a statistical correlation between homosexuals and HIV, it mentions that those who think that are anti-homosexual.  While that might be true, it doesn't mention that the correlation actually exists.  Furthermore, the sentence right after the one you mentioned is highly inflammatory and dubious.  I'm not saying it's wrong, but a source for it sure wouldn't hurt.  Chicken Wing 06:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant bias 

message: I'm curently writing a book, and I'm anal about keeping all story elements accurate, and the question rose , if a person already has Cancer, then conatracts AIDs, will the AIDs cause the current Cancer to worsen at an accellerated rate? 
I've spent hours on multiple Wikipedia AIDs pages, and I've found much information about contracting AIDs, then Cancer, though none about the other way around. I would very much appreciate any information on this subject on that you have. - unsigned
:In brief, probably not for most cancers, but probably so for AIDS-related cancers such as cervical cancer. It's possible that some others may be accelerated, but this has not been convincingly demonstrated yet.  See  Cancer Surv. 1991;10:151-60. HIV infection and cancers other than non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Kaposi's sarcoma. Rabkin CS, Blattner WA.Viral Epidemiology Section, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 20892. "In populations with non-HIV immunodeficiency, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and soft tissue sarcoma, especially Kaposi's sarcoma, are the most prominent tumours, but Hodgkin's disease, gastric carcinoma, squamous cell skin cancer, malignant melanoma, hepatoma, myeloid leukaemia and/or colorectal carcinoma have been linked in various studies. Population based cancer registries and cohort studies of HIV infected persons have generally failed to detect HIV related increases in total cancer incidence or in specific tumours other than non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Kaposi's sarcoma; however, associations with anal carcinoma, hepatoma and Hodgkin's disease have been suggested by some studies. Although not indicating increased risk, HIV induced immunosuppression has been linked to an acceleration of cervical and anal neoplasia and to increased aggressiveness of Hodgkin's disease with a relative excess of the mixed cellularity type. Advances in treatment for HIV infection will delay progression to AIDS and may allow an altered natural history to emerge, including the occurrence of excesses of additional cancer types." PMID: 1821320; JAMA. 2001 Apr 4;285(13):1736-45. Association of cancer with AIDS-related immunosuppression in adults.  Frisch M,  Biggar RJ,  Engels EA,  Goedert JJ;  AIDS-Cancer Match Registry Study Group. Danish Epidemiology Science Center, Statens Serum Institut, 5 Artillerivej, DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark. mfr@ssi.dk CONTEXT: Large-scale studies are needed to determine if cancers other than Kaposi sarcoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and cervical cancer occur in excess in persons with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). OBJECTIVES: To examine the general cancer pattern among adults with HIV/AIDS and to distinguish immunosuppression-associated cancers from other cancers that may occur in excess among persons with HIV/AIDS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND SUBJECTS: Analysis of linked population-based AIDS and cancer registry data from 11 geographically diverse areas in the United States, including 302 834 adults aged 15 to 69 years with HIV/AIDS. The period of study varied by registry between 1978 and 1996. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Relative risks (RRs) of cancers, calculated by dividing the number of observed cancer cases by the number expected based on contemporaneous population-based incidence rates. We defined cancers potentially influenced by immunosuppression by 3 criteria: (1) elevated overall RR in the period from 60 months before to 27 months after AIDS; (2) elevated RR in the 4- to 27-month post-AIDS period; and (3) increasing trend in RR from before to after AIDS onset. RESULTS: Expected excesses were observed for the AIDS-defining cancers, but non-AIDS-defining cancers also occurred in statistically significant excess (n = 4422; overall RR, 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7-2.8). Of individual cancers, only Hodgkin disease (n = 612; RR, 11.5; 95% CI, 10.6-12.5), particularly of the mixed cellularity (n = 217; RR, 18.3; 95% CI, 15.9-20.9) and lymphocytic depletion (n = 36; RR, 35.3; 95% CI, 24.7-48.8) subtypes; lung cancer (n = 808; RR, 4.5; 95% CI, 4.2-4.8); penile cancer (n = 14; RR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.1-6.5); soft tissue malignancies (n = 78; RR, 3.3; 95% CI, 2.6-4.1); lip cancer (n = 20; RR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.9-4.8); and testicular seminoma (n = 115; RR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.7-2.4) met all 3 criteria for potential association with immunosuppression. CONCLUSION: Although occurring in overall excess, most non-AIDS-defining cancers do not appear to be influenced by the advancing immunosuppression associated with HIV disease progression. Some cancers that met our criteria for potential association with immunosuppression may have occurred in excess in persons with HIV/AIDS because of heavy smoking (lung cancer), frequent exposure to human papillomavirus (penile cancer), or inaccurately recorded cases of Kaposi sarcoma (soft tissue malignancies) in these persons. However, Hodgkin disease, notably of the mixed cellularity and lymphocytic depletion subtypes, and possibly lip cancer and testicular seminoma may be genuinely influenced by immunosuppression. PMID: 11277828 - Nunh-huh 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIDs and Cancer 

message: Perhaps the word Receptive Anal Intercourse should be used in place of any reference to Homosexuality in general. That would make the task of editing a whole lot simpler. Gays and the gay life style are not to blame. It isn't useful to blame anyone.  Randy Bugger 10:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That kind of sounds like a non-NPOV idea.  At this stage, it's a well established fact that MSM are in a high-risk category for HIV infection. 209.59.33.221 19:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Receptive Anal Intercourse 

message: Do do you think that a chart and or section on aids funding since its onset is a good idea. It is pertinent to the main article and I am surprised that one does not exist already. I think it should be done with discretion. It would also help negate any reasonable objection(s) from aids dissidents.
Moses Weintraub 09:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how I feel about it, but throw it up here on the talk page and we'll discuss. :) JoeSmack Talk 15:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aids Funding Section/Chart 

message: I don't see any kind of chart or summary of the demographic breakdown of the infected population, i.e., a breakdown of victims by ethnicity, by gender, by age, by sexual preference, by income, by education, etc. The "Estimated per act risk for acquisition of HIV by exposure route" table in the "Transmission and prevention" section displays quite well the infection risks for particular behaviors, but I'm looking for a categorization of people already infected based on multiple criteria. It may be that some of this info is in the article, but it is not presented as a section by itself. — Loadmaster 18:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: It's possible, albiet very rare, for HIV to be transmitted by organ transplant.  Since it is technically possible, perhaps it should be added to the list .  68.116.112.32 23:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transmission via organ transplant 

message: Why are there (almost) no links to sister wikiprojects? Is this on purpose? --Eleassar my talk 14:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which "sister wikiprojects" are you talking about? There seem to be about sixty links to the articles in versions of Wikipedia in other languages. - Nunh-huh 14:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What about them? Did you have a specific link in mind that you think is pertinent? - Nunh-huh 15:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Starting from any Wikipedia article, click on "Main Page" at the upper left and then scroll down to the bottom to find links to some sister projects.  Individual article pages don't have those links.  If you want to discuss that, maybe the Wikipedia:Village Pump would be a better place. --Coppertwig 16:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, the "advertisements" for the "sister" projects. Let's look at them. The Wiktionary link should be eliminated, as the Wiktionary "AIDS" entry is irrelevant and adds nothing! Did you look at it before adding the link? It's actually rather embarrassing. You really want to send people looking about information on AIDS there, to find out only that "aids" is an anagram for "said" and is the "plural of aid"? You want to send people to Wikiquote, where there are four not-particularly-interesting quotes about AIDS, all unsourced? I think it would be more responsible to send people only to places which would supplement the information here in a meaningful way. - Nunh-huh 18:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Now that the links are in, I see what you mean.  I think they're useful.  The wiktionary one has been fixed to go to AIDS rather than "aids".  The quotes in Wikiquote may be poor;  but if this page encourages people to go there and look at them, some of those people may improve the Wikiquote quotes.  --Coppertwig 21:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the advertisements may drive traffic to the "sister" projects, and so might improve those pages to the point where linking to them is actually of benefit to our readers. But I think it's rather unseemly to take advantage of our readers in that way; our first duty should be to them and not to ancillary wikis. Sending someone to a "dictionary" that contains less information on the subject than the page they are reading, and no additional information (even in the "fixed" link) is giving them a link in bad faith. By having a link, we suggest there is information worth consulting there, and there simply isn't. - Nunh-huh 05:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to sister wikiprojects 

message: Moved from the article:
:Results published in PLoS ONE in June 2007 indicate that "the number of female commercial sex workers prostitutes as a percentage of the female adult population is robustly positively correlated with countrywide HIV/AIDS prevalence levels." The paper continues:
::"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."
This paper seems to be controversial, to say the least. From Nature, vol 447, 28 June 2007, pp1040-1. To quote one comment: "The paper is total drivel, it should have been picked up in the review process," claims Tim Farley, an official in the World Health Organization’s HIV-prevention team in Geneva. "And coming from PLoS One gives [the views in the press release] a public perception of validity. In public health there are severe dangers in such stuff getting through."
It seemed best to simply remove it, as documenting arguments for and against one paper is somewhat tangential... Jakew 18:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth noting, however, that it's been pointed out that circumcision in America certainly doesn't seem to have slowed the spread of HIV, that studies claiming that circumcision is an effective tool in fighting HIV infection elsewhere have been questioned, and that Jakew is something of a supporter of circumcision.  Exploding Boy 18:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from article

message: German scientists find a way to kill the virus inside infected cells: German newspapers and science write it:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5833/1912
212.95.99.39 09:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New way 

message: http://aids.gov/
Access to information on Federal HIV/AIDS prevention, testing, treatment, and research programs, policies, and resources.
http://hivtest.org/
Find an HIV testing site near you.
19:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link Recommendation for HIV/AIDS Resources

message: BBC NEWS reported -
World 'losing fight against Aids'  
 
Dr Fauci says there must be greater effort to boost prevention 
The world is losing the battle against HIV/Aids, US President George W Bush's top adviser on the virus has said. 
Dr Anthony Fauci told a conference in Sydney that progress had been made but more people were being infected with HIV than were being treated. 
--Florentino floro 05:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK....is there something specific you wanted to add? 71.93.238.53 23:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Loosing Battle

message: How would one know that donated blood is contaminated of H I V if blood is donated with in safe period--Vijaypandey 14:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. JoeSmack Talk 21:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIDS 

message: Skypher is right: these are weasel words: "These claims are considered baseless by the vast majority of the scientific community. The medical community argues that so-called "AIDS dissidents" selectively ignore evidence in favor of HIV's role in AIDS and irresponsibly pose a threat to public health by discouraging HIV testing and proven treatments.".  I was surprised to find that the two footnotes attached to these sentences do not purport to establish a scientific consensus in favour of the HIV/AIDS theory.  Rather, they contain quotes by people who do not believe that HIV causes AIDS.  Relevant footnotes (at least) are required (or directing the reader to another section of the article perhaps for verification?) Or, if the required information is contained somewhere within the cited articles (I didn't read the whole things) then maybe the footnote needs to contain a quote. --Coppertwig 13:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) I've gone ahead and beefed up the references, and restructured the paragraph a little. The most notable aspect of AIDS denialism is really the impact it's had politically in South Africa, so I mentioned that. It's a little bit like finding a reference clearly demonstrating scientific consensus that the moon landings were real, but things like the Durban Declaration are probably the best references. MastCell Talk 17:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative hypotheses section