Talk:History of HIV/AIDS

message: The section titled "Alternative hypotheses" should be renamed "Fringe theories" or something of that sort!  It contains nothing but AIDS denialism and conspiracy theories, and calling this rubbish "Alternative hypotheses" gives it the impression of legitimacy -- almost as if those were legitimate scientific views held by a minority of scientists that deserve to be considered alongside the mainstream "theory".  Really, I don't think it would be much of a loss if this BS was removed altogether. 24.23.197.43 (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The scientific consensus is that the various HIVs evolved from specific strains of SIV; the debate in the scientific literature is about the utility of different means to time the species jumps, not whether they occurred. The idea that HIV is man-made is a fringe conspiracy theory; it has nothing to do with science. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section title 

message: The idea that AIDS began in Africa is a theory just like any other AIDs origin theroy, yet this article states this as a fact. There are still unexplained factors about this that Science hasnt explained. A neutral articel would say something like 'it is generally believe ..etc..." or even putting the disclaimer. I have tried to add a staement that is more neutral that inlcudes information that is it generally accepted, but to say that it did withour scientifc evidence (not even a reference quote on Wiki is pretty strange) but it seeme like the strong desire to believe thie origin story above all otehrs is overwheming and really makes me question the transfer of knowledge and nuetrality. I understand that eveyone is subject to bias, but does thie articel meet the neutrality requirements for Wikipedia when these statements are written?  Historically, the West has always tried to linked all deadly disaeses to Africa. Most research about AIDS begins in Africa, means that if it started somewhere else we will never know. This is problematic becasue it takes the Science out of it and adds in elements of Western scientifc domination. It is not a surprise that in history there are always shifts in popular thought, even in science or theroies that have been disproved. There are no conlcusive studies that reveal that AIDS began in Africa, only theories. These types of articles are part of the problem. There seems to be littel neutrality in the statements that inply AIDs began in Africa.  There is not even a citation for thie point. It is really a very Eurocentric "science" that always links all disease to Africa, including sex from sleeping with Monkeys or African eating Monkeys. Its unbelievable that in this century these kind of theories that are centered on preconceived notioin s about African practices still act as the basis for Science. You dont have to go far to speak to an African person and ask them if they hace heard of people sleeping with Monkeys and eating monkeys. --
See: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5450391, http://www.africaspeaks.com/articles/2005/0101.html 
MsTingaK (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea that AIDS originated in Africa is the established scientific consensus, as shown by many of the sources in the article. Nothing in the article suggests that it was transmitted to humans sexually, and saying that it originated in Africa is not blaming Africans in any way. Jim Moore, whose credentials I don't know, in the NPR source that you mentioned says "every scenario for the origin of HIV has it taking place during the period of colonial rule in Africa", so he is clearly supporting the consensus that AIDS originated in Africa. Alan Cantwell, the author of the Africa Speaks article, is a dermatologist, so no expert on the spread of viruses. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The idea that AIDs began in Africa

message: It seems to me at least that Paul Farmer is of the opinion that AIDS was introduced to Haiti via American sex tourists, rather than to the US from Haiti. Now, Farmer seems like a prominent voice on the issue. I'm no expert, so is there anybody that can chime in on this? Grsz 11 18:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haiti and AIDS 

message: It's only a small point, but I'm mystified by the contention in this reversion that the wikilink positioning in 
:This theory was later dubbed 'Heart of Darkness' by Jim Moore, alluding to the book of the same title written by Joseph Conrad, the main focus of which is colonial abuses in equatorial Africa. 
is more misleading than the one in
:This theory was later dubbed 'Heart of Darkness' by Jim Moore, alluding to the book of the same title written by Joseph Conrad, which main focus is colonial abuses in equatorial Africa. 
jnestorius(talk) 09:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heart of Darkness wl 

message: They are only notable as being fringe beliefs and conspiracy theories. This section should reflect that they are not notable for being possible viable theories, but that they are non-scientific theories notable due to either having a lot of believers or having caused a lot of tragedy. AerobicFox (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, "fringe beliefs" is such an unpalatable expression, though. Maybe something more conventional, like "conspiracy theories", "theories not supported by the scientific community", or some such? Sebastian Garth (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I like the current "discredited theories". Some (but by no means all) such theories were perfectly valid as hypotheses when they were first proposed, but further evidence has discredited them, so that seems to be an accurate heading that describes them all. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the new term also. AerobicFox (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

text: There are plenty of sources available that document that this is nonsense. We write in summary style, so many are available in the lower-level articles that discuss the fringe theories and their origins in more detail. I restored the "Discredited hypotheses" section title and provided a couple of the sources. VQuakr (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on conspiracy theories 

message: This article states unequivocally that male circumcision reduces chance of HIV exposure, despite evidence to the contrary and a large portion of the medical community which believes that male circumcision in fact INCREASES the risk of HIV infection. This is a largely held view, and deserves to also be represented in this article. I am tagging the section in question as having its neutrality disputed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDiNardo (talk • contribs) 01:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What "large portion of the medical community", based on what reliable sources?  Multiple large prospective trials, run concurrently by different groups in different places, demonstrated efficacy.  Secondary sources support the scientific consensus described in that section of this article.  In the absence of similarly strong evidence to the contrary, I'm going to remove the POV template.  -- Scray (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Male circumcision

message: The article should be titled "Origin of HIV"
AIDS didn't originate from monkeys, but from the CDC and WHO. AIDS is a dynamic term that encompasses a number of conditions caused by HIV, and a term used to "handle epidemic statistics and define who receives US goverment assistance." (see AIDS defining clinical condition). HIV is the name of the virus which originated from primates, hence the title of the article should be "Origin of HIV" and not "Origin of AIDS." - Meewam (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that I understand the distinction that you are trying to make here. The main point of the definition that you linked to is that a diagnosis of AIDS depends on a patient having certain symptoms caused by HIV, so the major part of any description of the origin of AIDS will consist of the origin of HIV. We could probably do with more content about how HIV causes AIDS in this article, but renaming it to "Origin of HIV" may restrict the article unnecessarily and prevent such content from being added. Another point is that we should not be relying on any US government definition of AIDS. The US certainly doesn't have any monopoly over the definition of a syndrome that is far more prevalent in other parts of the world. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Monopoly or not. It doesn't change the fact that HIV is the name of the virus that originated from primates, and which the article is about. AIDS is immaterial - you can't examine it under a microscope or grow it in a test tube. It's a technical term, defined by the bodies (e.g. CDC and WHO or whoever) who uses it for different purposes (as mentioned in the original post). Talking about the origin of AIDS, as something that came out of Africa to infect the rest of the world, is semantically wrong. You'll find a lot of "HIV causes AIDS" content in the HIV article which has plenty of references to back up that as a fact, but that's not the "mission" of this article. - Meewam (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually large parts of this article go well beyond the origin of HIV, e. g. the sections "Epidemic emergence of HIV-1 and HIV-2" and "History of known cases and spread". These are about how the virus came to cause the syndrome recognised by WHO etc. rather than about where the virus came from. The fact that AIDS can't be examined under a microscope or grown in a test tube doesn't mean that its origin can't be covered in an encyclopedia article, and renaming would mean that we would have to remove much of this article's content. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Semantically correct, but considering such widespread use of the term to describe "the illness itself", the title would ultimately just come off as awkward. Unless there is some major consensus out there that the term is *really* that confusing, we should probably just leave it alone. Sebastian Garth (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of article 

message: I propose that the section "Genital ulcer diseases and sexual promiscuity" be relabeled to just "Genital ulcer diseases."  Promiscuity is a loaded and ambiguous term and the section does not itself seem to claim that "promiscuity" was a significant factor.  Wickedjacob (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genital ulcer diseases and sexual promiscuity 

message: We removed from this article what appeared to be a dangling footnote attached to the statement that David Ho disproved or at least cast dispersions on the notion that David Carr's death in 1959 being caused by AIDS.  A casual check of Google isn't very helpful in showing me anything but uncited statements or stuff copied from this article.  Would someone who is knowledgeable on this subject please check your bibliography and find out when and where David Ho made his findings public and cite it here?  The statement is profound enough to require a good citation.  Frotz (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This had a reference to a  very detailed article on the subject at Timeline of early AIDS cases, but the reference somehow got lost when it was summarized here. I brought back the reference, where it is clear that Carr did not have AIDS. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  On David Carr not being an AIDS case 

message: It's peculiar to me that this article only chronicles the very early origins of HIV/AIDS and doesn't describe its development into a global pandemic. Is there a good reason for this, or should it be expanded to include more information from the 80s, 90s, and beyond? ClaireJV (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the article tracks through 1986, when the virus was officially named the human immune-deficiency virus. After that, it becomes a matter of epidemiology, the study of how a contagious agent spreads within a population. I agree with the basic sentiment, though, in that there is room to flesh out the material under "Identification of the virus" and gracefully point the reader to current information. I will look it over when I have a chance. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This "history" stops at 1981 

message: The url for citation 52 (The emergence of HIV/AIDS in the Americas and beyond) is dead.  The same article can be found at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences website: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18566.abstract
--Billhpike (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the page was fully protected instead of semiprotected.  As such, I've made the change my self.
--Billhpike (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Link in Citation 

message: 1.  According to some research papers, there maybe other simian viruses that are the cause of the emergence of the HIV virus.  They indicated that some simian viruses are closely linked to HIV virus.
2.  The addition of "current research" section maybe beneficial to this article because it's title is "History of HIV/AIDS".  There are several research organizations that may have some insight in this.
3.  One of the sections "Origin and epidemic emergence" has no citations in it.  Maybe adding some citations will help the credibility of that part of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amatorio.1 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Amatorio.1, EEOB 3310 Suggestions

message: An article has recently been published in Science on this subject that probably has important information that should be added to this WP article. It is paywalled so I don't have access, but the article is also discussed in the BMJ.
*
*
- - MrBill3 (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article in ''Science'' 

message: Dr. Graves produced a flowchart (presented at the United Nations) showing that according to his theory HIV/AIDS was created in a U.S. lab.
http://www.boydgraves.com/ to see the flow chart. CaribDigita (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing on the US Special Viruses Program/Laboratories 1971 theory? 

message: An IP editor has been adding the term "genital mutilation" to one of this article's subheadings, and is insisting on restoring that version when repeatedly reverted by other editors. This is not helpful. "Circumcision" is a specific term, with a specific meaning, that's relevant to the matter at hand, and no further amplfication is needed. Whether Circumcision should be regarded as a form of genital mutilation is an important issue, but this page, and in particular this subheading, is not the place to fight that battle. -- The Anome (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of term "genital mutilation" in subheading 

message: Someone has come along and brought in a lot of information.  It all looks very interesting and is well sourced, but it really doesn't belong in this article.  It should either go in the article about HIV?AIDS in NYC or, better yet, its own article, as it really is quite extensive.  A solid summary belongs in this article, but not the info dump. Sephiroth9611 (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on IV drug users needs summarizing 

message: 1979 An early case of AIDS in the United States was in a female baby born in New Jersey in 1973 or 1974. She was born to a sixteen-year-old girl, an identified drug-injector, who had previously had multiple male sexual partners. The child died in 1979 at the age of five. Subsequent testing on her stored tissues confirmed that she had contracted HIV-1.
Oleske J, Minnefor A, Cooper R, Thomas K, dela Cruz A, Ahdieh H, et al. (May 1983). "Immune deficiency syndrome in children". JAMA. 249 (17): 2345–2349. doi:10.1001/jama.1983.03330410031024. PMID 6834633
there is an issue here with not including this case as it was NYC, yet undoubtedly so close that it should be connected.
THIS can usefuly be added - by restricting to New York the case here is missed, yet adds to the evidence that it was IVD users that first had the epidemic cases. 91.154.169.156 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Jersey 

message: — Assignment last updated by Eammarsh (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: History of Sexuality