Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 1

message: sammy's comments re areas the article is thin on...
AIDS then spread to the rest of the world, killing tens of millions of people, particularly in Southeast Asia and Africa. I feel like a total asshole because I have nothing else to say about this. im a Typical american i guess. SOMEONE HELP OUT.
------
thanks manny someones got to keep me on the ball.;
----
This is starting to be a good article. Thanks everyone! --Dmerrill
----
In the interest of NPOV I changed this:
*"Publicity campaigns were started to attempt to counter the hysterical homophobia inherent in the American psyche, and replace it with actual medical knowledge that would save lives."
to this: 
*"Publicity campaigns were started in attempts to counter the often vitriolic and homophobic perception of AIDS as a "gay plague" and replace it with actual medical knowledge that would save lives."
Mswake 11:55 Jul 23, 2002 (PDT)
----
Should some reference to AIDS in fiction be also included? -Adrian
:Certainly. AxelBoldt
----
re: the comment that SIV (Simian immunodeficiency virus) is "virtually the same" as HIV. SIV is not lethal in its host. That's a substantial difference between the strains.  One of the scientific questions about HIV is the relative increase in lethality of the virus vis a vis related strains in primates. David M
: Partially correct.  SIV has a high degree of variability in lethality to its host, depending on the host.  I added some information in a section called "Immunity" at the bottom.  Regardless, though, the virii are quite similar, and are very close relatives.  Now, beyond this, we'd need to get into a discussion about the different strains (there have been several branching-off points).... Rei
----
I believe it is best to separate out the conspiracy theories and the scientists that have a generally unlike, but alternative view of a cause. AIDS is the only place I have seen where an alternative view can be considered denial and other possibly hateful words. I moved the alternative theory sentense out of the denialism section. Lets keep it that way.
----
Jus t a couple of questions - in the text it states that people have got HIV (and thus AIDS) from oral sex - is there any evidence for this; I was under the impression this was something of an urban myth, but I may be talking nonsence. Secondly, AIDS is ofter defined as standing for Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome - Is this wrong, or an alternative meaning or something else all together. If it is relevant, it should be in the article. - User:tompagenet
:I have never heard of the acronym AIDS being interpreted as Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome, but I have heard of the generic term autoimmune disorder. But IANAI. - Montréalais
:Do a search on google for "Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome" including the quotes and quite a few sites show up Tompagenet 22:22 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)
----
The discription states that AIDS is a disease. Its not. It's a "syndrome". There is a virus called HIV. This virus weakens the human immune system. Then you get diseases like pneumonia and others. There is a well defined set of deseases which define AIDS. But you cannot get AIDS itself. You can only be HIV positive.
jms 22:55 May 09, 2003
----
It should be noted that the deaths counts for AIDS are not actually measured, but instead a sample of about 5000 women with newborn children is extrapolated to the whole continent. The calculation programs runs at WHO, and no outsider has yet seen this program or the changes that happened to it since the beginning of the epidemic. So don't see death counts for Africa as "absolutely real". Anonymouy, 03:09 May 18, 2003
----
One of the big problems is that AIDS is legacy term.  The "S" in "AIDS" stands for "syndrome" and now that the condition is know to be a disease caused by a virus it is no longer a true syndrome.  The correct replacement term would be HIV disease but the term AIDS is written into so many laws and regulations concerning disability, benefits, etc. that we are stuck with it.
kstailey Fri Oct 17 15:53:07 UTC 2003
----
A note on my removal of the "denialism" paragraph.  First of all, I noticed in earlier versions that "denialsm" and "alternative theories" were separated into two sections.  This somewhat ameliorates the misconception of equating the conspiracy theories with dissidents, but still doesn't go far enough.  For one thing, the TERM "denialist" or "denialism" is used in the medical (if HIV research can be called "medical") literature to refer to the dissidents and the dissident movement, i.e. those who don't find that HIV causes AIDS.  Whereas in the "denialist" paragraph, the term "denialism" is equated with conspiracy theories.  Moreover, the mention of South Africa is especially wrong, because South Africa is more associated with the dissident movement than "conspiracy theories", they don't "believe AIDS doesn't exist", they have questioned HIV.  This mixing of the two is confusing and misleading, this is why I removed it.
If you want to put in a section on conspiracy theories, fine.  But
: 1. Make it a separate section from "alternative theories", i.e. dissidents.
: 2. Don't use the word "denialist" or "denialism" in either section.  The reason not to use it in dissident section is its POV and prejudicial; the reason not to use it in conspiracy theory section is that you're using a word almost universally used to refer to dissidents among the AIDS community.
: 3. Don't equate South Africa, in particular, Thabo Mbeki, with entertaining "conspiracy theories".  He is more associated with dissidents, not conspiracy theorists.
If you can't do these things, i.e. if you can't be factually accurate and correct, if you can't use POV and prejudicial language, and if you can't separate conspiracy theories from dissident theories, then don't write about these things; if you do, I'll come back and remove and/or edit it.  Thanks. User:128.111.88.233
:The threat to sit on the article rather than rewrite it in a way all sides can agree is neutral is not-very-wiki. The fact that you do not like the word opponents have applied does not mean we will not report that the word is used. Certainly conspiracy and dissident theories don't have much in common, and if you equate all African theory with the former I can see why you didn't much like the section. We probably don't need the African reference if you think it confuses. Cheesemonkey
::Okay, you can mention that some people use the word "denialist", but if you are going to report that, at least report THAT correctly.  The term "denialist" is used by some people to refer to dissidents, and this was not accurately reported; the implication was made that "denialist" referred to any conspiracy theorist, and this is what bothered me most.  Also, even if you wish to report that the word "denialist" is used, I still think it should be avoided as a term used by the encyclopedia itself, for reasons given at AIDS reappraisal.  As for not rewriting anything...what I removed was so confused and misleading, I wasn't sure what was intended to be said, so how can I replace it?  What was it actually supposed to be reporting on?  I don't know.  If things that are written are confused and misleading enough so that it's not even clear what they are trying to say, then I don't see what's wrong with removing it without replacing it.  Besides, as a dissident, I don't really feel it's my place to offer text, since almost anything and everything in this article I find untrue or misleading.  I don't want to try to get this article to NPOV, because to me the HIV viewpoint is so POV that it's not worth it -- fine, your guys' viewpoint is so prevalent now that you can write your own article on it, I just don't want to intrude.  UNLESS I find something very untrue or misleading about dissidents in general.  And that's what I found.  I'm not going to try to write a replacement text about dissidents in an orthodox article, because the AIDS (orthodox) article is ALREADY POV TO ME, i.e. my NPOV is not considered so here.  So I won't try.
----
Should we maybe add something about the early immunological history?  (definition as GRID; initial prevalence among gay men, IV drug users, and hemophiliacs; etc.) -- Jim Redmond 20:19, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow... that's quite a new theory... --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 04:51, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I don't see this as vandalism, so I'm putting it here for want of a better place.  A logged-out user changed the article substantially to indicate that immunity to AIDS is a myth - I linked it to Wikipedia:Accuracy Dispute for now, but I'm tempted to just revert.  I know nothing about medicine though.  -- Pakaran 05:10, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[AIDS]]