Talk:HIV/Archive 2

message: I have edited the text to agree with the reference cited, "defer retroviral treatment in patients with no symptoms who have more than 200 T-cells". Actually I prefer the original text, but as the reference supporting it has been removed, I am editing to the reference, apparently preferred by other editors!  Sci guy 16:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is wrong, see revised version, and thus the importance of talking about the WHO system of classification. --Grcampbell 21:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  treatment guidelines 

message: Here is a kinda hacked together job of the HIV Genome. Critiques anyone? Should I put it in?
left|thumbnail|350px|The HIV Genome.
::It looks ok --Grcampbell 21:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it from the UCSC lecture slides? --Grcampbell 21:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  HIV Genome 

message: I've heard that HIV cannot be transmitted through mosquitos (and I guess other biting insects). And this appears, based on AIDS rates not spiraling out of control in mosquito-intesive areas, to be true. My question: How does that work? -Litefantastic 23:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why mosquitos cannot transmit AIDS --WS 00:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

text: AIDS rates are spiraling out of control in mosquito-intesive areas, because diseases endemic in these areas (some of with are transmitted by mosquitos) can produce antibodies that cross react in HIV antibody tests. Sci guy 13:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mosquitos

message: It would be helpful if editors could agree on a summary list of what is important today about our current understanding of HIV - and whether this knowledge is based on experimental data, the consensus of expert committees, or suggestions. So many things have been suggested about HIV over the last 20 years, do we need to record every blind alley? Also we need some logical allocation of the 30K across the main issues - and a list of issues that need to be explored in greater detail in other other articles Sci guy 15:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: at the moment the article is 35kb, my last edit, with about half that being references and external links. --Grcampbell 16:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: developing a process

message: The list of major HIV genes is headed with
:"HIV has several major genes coding for structural proteins that are found in all retroviruses, and several nonstructural ('accessory') genes that are unique to HIV."
but it is never specified which genes are common and which are unique. Kapow 13:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, but see also the discussion above about moving the bulk of the genome section into HIV genome. Currently that article exists but hasn't been linked to, because there was disagreement over how the cuts were made, but I think the plan is still to make the move - so any edits to the genome material should be mirrored in the sub-article. (And I think the answer to your question is that they're all unique except for parts of gag and pol, but I'm not sure.) ←Hob 13:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unique genes

message: Since discussion has been moving rather slowly but no one seemed to disagree with the notion of splitting off sub-articles, I've made some rather drastic edits to summarize and split off the entire HIV#HIV structure and genome section into HIV structure and genome. The sub-article was formerly HIV genome, but the structure section made numerous references to individual genes, which referred to individual proteins, etc. (see the new talk page for my thoughts on further reorganization). All the citations that were only used in the moved sections are now in the sub-article, and not in the main one.
The summary text I left in the structure/genome section is of course a first draft. I was trying to capture the main points in a way that's readable to the average user without being technically inaccurate.
The length of the main article is now 26K. That's not incredibly long, but still I strongly suggest splitting off at least one more sub-article, just so we can provide a better overview while preserving the excellent level of detail we have. I suggest HIV#Life cycle of HIV, possibly incorporating HIV#HIV tropism. I don't mean eliminating the entire topic from the main article, just summarizing to highlight the central points for a casual reader. ←Hob 00:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest leaving the article as is and stripping off some of the external links. --Bob 00:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pruning some links would make the article shorter (and many of those links are probably already in AIDS or should be), but that wasn't really my main concern. I was thinking more that the "life cycle" section is quite technically detailed, and it's great for WP to have that kind of information, but it's the kind of thing that is often given its own article so that the main article can provide a slightly simpler overview for less specialized readers. Right now the Introduction section gives a very brief summary of the viral life cycle - I was thinking more of something that emphasizes certain key steps of the process that are relevant to disease progression and treatment (e.g. the fact that activation of T cells speeds up HIV reproduction) but doesn't mention things like conformational changes in proteins. ←Hob 02:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  major moves: structure and genome 

message: Removed this sentence from the last section: Recent studies have shown that about 10% of all Europeans are naturally immune to HIV. This is due to the genetic mutation of CCR5, a side effect of the various epidemics and plagues that ravaged Europe during the Middle Ages. We do need to mention the CCR5 mutation, but we shouldn't mention "recent studies" without a source, and the "Middle Ages" statement is just a hypothesis so far (it seems likely that some epidemic was involved, but there's disagreement about whether it was plague, smallpox, or what); more importantly, CCR5 mutations don't make anyone "immune to HIV", they just give resistance to many common strains of the virus. People with CCR5 mutations are still vulnerable to strains that use CXCR4, which are less common but can still arise spontaneously and unfortunately appear to be more virulent. Probably we should summarize the point here, with one good reference, and provide more detail in the CCR5 article. ←Hob 23:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: true, but the primo-infecting strain of HIV is almost always R5. Most people homozygous for CCR5 delta 32A are resistant to infection for this reason. There does exist a few exceptions of homozygous CCR5 delta 32 individuals becoming infected, but these people were primarily infected with X4 virus, a rare occurence. A nice review of the origin of the mutation is found at the end of this link:  --Bob 23:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To be precise the study found 10% of all Europeans are heterozygous for a CCR5 mutation, not making them immune to HIV transmission.  However 1% are homozygous for this mutation, making them immune to infection by R5.  There are only 8 or so documented cases of transmission of X4 type HIV, statistically insignificant. |--Spaully 22:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CCR5 mutation 

message: I'd love to see yet another a new article, Pathogenicity of HIV, focusing on the specific mechanisms by which HIV can damage immune system cells and other tissues. This is currently left a bit unclear in the various HIV and AIDS articles, and there's a lot of fascinating research which hasn't made it into general knowledge - most people still think of AIDS strictly in terms of T cells. Can anyone think of a better title? ←Hob 23:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the actual mechansims are still being studied, and for a title? the one you propose, How HIV destroys the immune system or HIV pathogenesis...? --Bob 23:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I know the research is still ongoing, but we can at least describe what's known or strongly suspected. I'd avoid using "immune system" in the title because the article should also include HIV's possible direct effects on other systems and how these may contribute to dementia, diarrhea, etc. ←Hob 00:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the title HIV pathogenesis most. --WS 09:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So do I. --Bob 23:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  another sub-article: pathogenicity? 

message: "one proved case of a person being cured from HIV"
I think that additional virus tests will have to be performed over a period of years in order to confirm a cure. See: Wikinews.<BR>
--JWSchmidt 19:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the first time this has happened. There have been a few cases recorded in Africa, but because it was Africa, nobody belived them... sigh. --Bob 23:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  cure? 

message: I'd just like to play the designated nag here, and urge everyone who makes more than trivial edits to provide edit summaries. Not everyone has the time or inclination to track every little change; summaries make it possible to see at a glance, in your watchlist, what kind of content is being changed and why. This is especially important in articles where there's a history of content disputes. Detailed discussion/argument over content issues belongs on the talk pages, but summaries are a basic courtesy to your collaborators. ←Hob 22:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  please use edit summaries 

message: Someone should check the unsourced edits by 24.240.37.184 on 8 January. No idea if they're correct or not, but could easily be vandalism. Greenman 17:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the anon editor did was to switch the odds for receptive and insertive vaginal sex, in a way that looks plausible at first glance, since it didn't make much sense that the receptive (female) partner would have less risk. However, since the sources have not changed, the numbers should not. Someone needs to look up the original source (Pilcher et al.) and figure out whether the previous version was a mistake or what. And changes of this kind should never be made without some explanation, at least an edit summary; some would consider that grounds for an immediate revert no matter what. ←Hob 18:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I looked up the study and it is 1/53 - 1/10000. But that is only an estimate for acute HIV infection. In an established infection chances would be lower. --WS 19:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous edits

message: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4642940.stm
Looks like they now have an accurate 3D model of HIV. Researchers rejoice.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/hiv_prevention_hope_yogurt_bugs_that_make_antiviral_drugs_9864
Well, well, CURE FOR AIDS!
**i would LOVE to see more info on the orgin of hiv, maybe some possible theories of what happened in the beginning that always had interested me but there never seems to be much talk about that on sites**
***Check out AIDS origin Raul654 05:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: News, people

message: The Genetic variability of HIV section ends with this ambiguous and unsourced claim:
:Almost 95% of all HIV research currently taking place is focused on subtype B, while a few laboratories focus on other subtypes.
It doesn't say what type of research is focused on subtype B, but reader might assume that it is the search for a vaccine. Such an assumption would imply a bias in favor of the Americas and Europe at the expense of the global epidemic. Does anyone know the focus of that "95% of all HIV research" claim or, better, a souce? The Rod 03:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It stipulates that the majority of HIV research carried out focusses on the HIV-1 subtype B. I don't have the source for this data, but I remember reading about it in a medical journal. I believe it to be KT Jeang who stated that, but I'm not sure. However, a quick review of the literature on HIV research will quite easily back up and prove this claim. --Bob 23:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research focused on subtype B? 

message: Does anyone else think that the Delta 32 genetic defect should be mentioned in this article?  The Delta 32 is a mutation that many humans have in their genes which renders their cells immune to the HIV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yoyoceramic (talk • contribs) .
:As long as you have a good citation for the claim, yes.
:Atlant 13:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delta 32?

message: To me, this article is a first resource for people hoping to get an HIV test done. However, there is no content on testing.
There are different technologies available, special considerations about window period that should be addressed. To me, this is an obvious oversight.
:This is Wikipedia, so you know what to do: be bold!
:Atlant 13:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HIV Testing