Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 6

message: Fred, I ask you a similar question to what I asked Sci Guy.  The stuff about diagnostic criteria not involving antibody testing dates from more than 10 years ago.  Is that still the case in 2005? --Robert Merkel 13:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIDS diagnosis in developing countries 

message: The methods used to estimate the spread of a disease may be very different for the methods to diagnose that disease. During the recent SARS outbreak in China, sales of vinegar provide useful information about the spread of [[[SARS]] within China, because vinegar is a traditional Chinese remedy for symptoms associated with SARS. This does not mean that eveyone who buys vingar has SARS. World wide sales of vinegar provide no useful information about the global spread of SARS. 
HIV antibody tests have not been evaluated for use in Africa. Many common tropical diseases are known to cause a false positive. HIV antibody screening of all pregnant women in European coutries has confirmed no increase in positve results since 1985 and about two third of positve results are women from Africa. Also most African children who tested HIV positive have a mother who is HIV negative! The major risk factor for children in Africa appears to be unsafe medical injections. Sci guy 15:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Estimating epidemics

message: The present article does not even make mention of the fact that there exists any controversy with respect to the cause and definition of AIDS, the accuracy of testing methodologies, the differing definitions in the US, Canada, Europe and Africa, the safety and efficacy of antiretroviral medications, and therefore presents a unitary POV that excludes any and all disagreement. Whether or not this POV is correct or false is not, and has not been, my concern. However, every attempt I have made to give even a suggestion of the existence of dispute has been removed, and there is not even a link now to the (very poorly written) article on AIDS reappraisal. The article now even begins by defining AIDS as infection by HIV. I am becoming increasingly inclined to mark this article totally disputed unless folks are willing to work constructively to work these issues out in a way which gives appropriate precedence to the mainstream view while respecting the existence of diverse views by respectable scientists. Whig 03:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not inclined to endorse or dispute any fact that I don't have a citation for. The 83% false positive rate was stated in the article, and similtaneously claimed to be negligible. That is inconsistent. Either the false positive rate is considerably lower than 83% or it is non-negligible. Whig 03:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and you eliminated the wrong alternative. You ought to be inclined to dispute someone who says a test in clinical use has an 83% false positive rate. If you were in doubt as to which of the inconsistent alternatives was wrong - and you should not have been - you should have cleared that doubt up by doing research rather than simply picking the alternative you favored. . - Nunh-huh 04:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a medical doctor, and I don't claim to be capable of doing the kinds of original research which doesn't in fact belong on Wikipedia WP:NOR. I try to copyedit articles by taking the facts as given in good faith. If those facts were incorrect, they ought to be corrected by someone who can dispute the citation with a better one, and this kind of refactoring should be ongoing. Don't ask me to take sides because I won't do so, I am not going to push either POV. You obviously agree that the statements were inconsistent, and my edit history made clear the reasons for my changes, which led to changes in the article that hopefully improved the factual basis, and that is all for the better. Let's continue to work constructively to improve the treatment of this subject. Whig 05:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not original research, it's actually looking at and reading the reference that was already there! The 83% figure was most likely willful misrepresentation. Assuming good faith in the AIDS revisionist article is inadequate protection against error.  If you can't take sides as to whether Wikipedia should misrepresent the sources it quotes, you shouldn't be editing. That's something you ought to take sides on. - Nunh-huh 06:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV evolving to total dispute