Talk:Misconceptions about HIV/AIDS

message: I uploaded an image "share the population with HIV"
Max Roser. "our world in data". HIV/AIDS.https:ourwordindata.org/hiv-aids#peoplewith-hiv-aid.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArelyL. (talk • contribs) 23:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Perhaps some of these myths serve as a psychological mechanism..." ... or perhaps some of them, like Patient Zero, were solemnly fed us as Truth by the idiot media at one point in time. Kwantus 07:17, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
It is definetly wrong that dengue, malaria, yellow fever or West Nile are "mosquito-borne" diseases! See all the special articles! The mosquitos are only Vectors for these deseases.
145.254.53.211 01:18, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled comments 

message: " An urban legend, common in some parts of Africa, claims that having sexual intercourse with a virgin will cure AIDS. Doing so does not cure the infected person. Rather, it exposes the victim to the risk of HIV infection and likely leads to further spread of the disease. This myth has gained considerable notoriety, having been seen at the center of certain recent stories involving sexual abuse and child rape. "
Actually, the (racist, Western, including South African) myth is that Black people believe that HIV infection can be cured by having sex with a virgin. 
:Actually, a man was put to death in the recent past, as I recall, for raping a baby to cure himself of AIDS. It was international news.  JDoorjam 23:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not common to only Africa, but also other contries and continents. I have updated the page and included references.--Grcampbell 18:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: This source doesn't even seem to know the correct terminology (you are talking about 'specificity') which has been very well established for the HIV tests most commonly used. Obviously no test of perfect and there may be many potential sources of error but that doesn't change the overall specificity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipthegreat88 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Western Myth of the African Myth of Virgin Sex 

message: HIV can be transmitted through both insertive and receptive oral sex. 
There is definitely a risk, if someone is "drinking" sperm or vaginal fluid. Is there another way of oral transmission? 130.149.156.13 11:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  At any given time, countless tiny, undetectable open sores or cuts can be present in a person's mouth, lips, gums, and tongue.  Any one of these breaches can expose the person performing the act on the other.  It only takes one instance of the virus to expose the other party, so even the "pre-cum" or the small amount of vaginal fluid transferred by a non-ejaculating female is enough to expose the performer.  Additionally, it there is uncertainty as to whether these tiny breaches on the performer's lips or tongue could expose the receiver of the sex act via similar breaches on the penis or vagina/surrounding area.  And, while the risk is subtantially less than with unprotected vaginal or anal sex involving insertion/ejaculation, the risk indeed real and not, as some would claim, statistically insignificant. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 21:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated and referenced. To date, I believe there are at least 38 documented cases of transmission through this route. --Grcampbell 18:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oral Sex 

message: I forget to mention the tangled up thing about the religious point of view. Wikipedia should not say that Falwell or anyone is wrong to depict AIDS as God's punishment; it also should not assert that they are right to do so. Our articles should merely note that these religious leaders made whatever statements they made, without branding those statements as right or wrong. Uncle Ed 22:35, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
*right, because unlike all the other black and white political assertions made here on wiki, these deserve some serious respect, I suggest we lobby the drug companies to stop selling protease inhibitors and all else, they're just making jesus angry--205.188.116.6 05:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the previous poster forgot to say that being a secular humanist liberal makes him uniquely able to "not see the world in black and white"... NOT! LOL, the stupidity of some "enlightened" and "scientifically minded" folks nowadays is just beyond belief. 76.24.104.52 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious angle 

message: What about a move/rename to a title that isn't as flaming? Such as "Common misconceptions about HIV/AIDS"? --Grcampbell 22:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As there were no objections, page moved September 9,2005 --Grcampbell 00:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move/Rename 

message: Is it possible that HIV can transmit through a cook who cut his finger while cutting salad and then the salad is eaten by someone?
Is it true that HIV is oxidised when exposed to air?
Puneit 08:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about how long HIV remains viable outside a living cell, but I think the term "survive", "die", etc, are very innapropriate. Viruses are not living organisms, at least if we do not consider some of the more broad definitions that eventually may be suggested on some phylosophical/theoretical discussion on the definition of life itself, but, anyhow, it does not quite "die" as an usual organism does. What probably happens is some degree of decomposition of the capsid or something like it, which I don't know if renders the genes of the virus really innocuous. For instance, I recall reading about experiments where the genome of tobbaco viruses was extracted, wich first rendered then innefective, but then, they were put together with "empty capsids" or something like it again, and that allowed the infection and consequent production of new, normal virus copies. Not that empty HIV capsids were to be found floating around in order to make the RNA dangerous, but I don't really know. I'm sorry if it sounds somewhat pedantic. --Extremophile 23:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m not sure but I really hope that the digestive system will be strong enough to fight off any germs that are in the stomach or where ever digestion takes place! 72.219.185.149 (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Myth or Reality???''' 

message: Augh, those are probably the longest section titles on Wikipedia. Any reason for their length? --DevastatorIIC 23:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: Ultra Megatron 04:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The titles in the article are really long because they summarize the entire argument of each section rather than providing a brief outline of what follows 

message: It seems all statistics show that black people have a greater chance (up to 15 times!) more to get AIDs then a white person of European decent. Is this a genetic tendancy or some other reason? Has there been any scientific studies?
I'm not aware of any evidence that people of African descent have a greater genetic vulnerability to HIV than people of other ethnic backgrounds. See the Fact Sheet: HIV/AIDS among African Americans for background on some of the reasons that the rate of HIV prevalence is higher among African Americans than other ethnic groups in America. As for why the HIV prevalence rate in Africa itself is higher than in other continents, there are all kinds of factors that have been proposed to explain that without requiring a "genetic susceptibility" explanation including: HIV originated on that continent so it got a head start there; poverty, illiteracy, and lack of access to condoms; lack of medical treatment for other STDs which can increase the risk of HIV transmission; the practice of "dry" (relatively unlubricated) sex for cultural reasons; a higher rate of rape; war and civil war causing male soldiers to move around, engaging in consensual sex, use of prostitutes, or rape; unsterile ritual circumcisions; "cleansing" rituals for widows involving sex with a male relative; lack of access to ARVs meaning that infected people remain highly infectious due to untreated HIV/AIDS; a larger percentage of the population working as sex workers; a higher HIV infection rate among the sex workers; reuse of needles in health care settings; etc. Note I'm not saying that every one of these theories is in fact correct or that this is a complete list; I'm just providing a partial list of proposed explanations for the high rate of HIV prevalence in Africa. Research is ongoing and more research is clearly needed.
AIDSvideos 00:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic tendancy towards AIDS amongst Black people? 

message: It may be good to use footnote type citations on this article. --Midnightcomm 22:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: by all means, you can implement them if you wish. --Bob 19:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  format of citations 

message: I think the name for this page needs to be changed, or perhaps more appropriately, this article should be subdivided.  For one thing, I think there is a difference between widely held misbeliefs about HIV, ie HIV cannot not spread by oral sex, and alternative theories about AIDS, such as that AZT, not HIV is the sourse of the syndrome.
First of all, I do not think the belief that AZT causes AIDS can be called common in any meaningful sense of the word.  Secondly, those who do hold this belief tend to know that the hold a minority opinion.
And finally, a lot of these misconceptions (particularly the former type) might have been common in 1987, but does anyone-particularly the readership of wikipedia-actually believe that mosquitos can spread HIV anymore? Ggrzw83 03:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Duesberg Hypothesis is already linked in as the "main article" of the "AZT causes AIDS" section.  If you have a proposal as to how to rename the article or break it up (without making the information harder to find), let's hear it!  I agree with you that the word "common" is a bit weaselly, for starters.  --Nephtes 14:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the misconceptions are still held by some, whether or not they read this wiki is irrelevant, WP:CSB. The page used to be called AIDS myths and urban legends but was changed during an AfD.  Some of the sections are also treated in more detail on relevant subarticles. This is a list page with all (almost) misconceptions listed and explained. --Bob 18:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Removed the POV word common. --Bob 02:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the Page 

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.
 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.21.197 (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIDs and cancer 

message: I am concerned that this page asserts that "The African-American community is particularly affected by AIDS" is a misconception. That's not a misconception. Unfortunately, it's a tragic reality. Here are the facts. Fact Sheet: HIV/AIDS Among African Americans notes that: (1) "In the United States, the HIV/AIDS epidemic is a health crisis for African Americans. At all stages of HIV/AIDS—from infection with HIV to death with AIDS—blacks (including African Americans) are disproportionately affected compared with members of other races and ethnicities" (2) "blacks make up approximately 13% of the US population. However, in 2005, blacks accounted for 18,121 (49%) of the estimated 37,331 new HIV/AIDS diagnoses in the United States in the 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting"  (3) "Of the estimated 141 infants perinatally infected with HIV, 91 (65%) were black" (4) "Of the estimated 18,849 people under the age of 25 whose diagnosis of HIV/AIDS was made during 2001–2004 in the 33 states with HIV reporting, 11,554 (61%) were black" (5) In 2005, "Blacks accounted for 20,187 (50%) of the estimated 40,608 AIDS cases diagnosed in the 50 states and the District of Columbia" (6) "The rate of AIDS diagnoses for black adults and adolescents was 10 times the rate for whites and nearly 3 times the rate for Hispanics. The rate of AIDS diagnoses for black women was nearly 23 times the rate for white women. The rate of AIDS diagnoses for black men was 8 times the rate for white men" (7) "Of persons whose diagnosis of AIDS had been made during 1997–2004, a smaller proportion of blacks (66%) were alive after 9 years compared with American Indians and Alaska Natives (67%), Hispanics (74%), whites (75%), and Asians and Pacific Islanders (81%)" (8) "In a recent study of MSM in 5 cities participating in CDC’s National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System, 46% of the black MSM were HIV-positive, compared with 21% of the white MSM and 17% of the Hispanic MSM."
The unfortunate, tragic reality is that "At all stages of HIV/AIDS—from infection with HIV to death with AIDS—blacks (including African Americans) are disproportionately affected compared with members of other races and ethnicities" as demonstrated by the statistics above. We can debate why that's the case, we can debate the best ways to address this problem, etc. but the fact is indisputable. As a result, I am removing the statement "The African-American community *is* particularly affected by HIV/AIDS" from the list of misconceptions because it simply shouldn't be there. Anyone who wishes to restore it to the list has an obligation to provide substantiating evidence (adequate to overcome the previously listed statistics from the CDC) demonstrating that the African-American community isn't particularly affected by HIV/AIDS.
AIDSvideos 23:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say "African-Americans" you are referring to people who are 2 generations removed from Africa or less, white or black, correct? As I understand it, simply living in America and having dark skin doesn't make you an "African-American". Your political correctness is confusing me, please elaborate. Democrats told me that separating different ethnic-racial groups with terms is racist, would that not include the term "African-American"? --Jacksoncw (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: African Americans are direct descendants of formerly enslaved Africans (or free Africans from the same time period).  Take your not-so-subtly veiled racism elsewhere.  — 152.52.32.3 19:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The African-American community *is* particularly affected by HIV/AIDS. This is not a misconception, so I am removing it from the list. 

message: Just an FYI for editors of this page: in my own HIV/AIDS educational outreach effort, I've had to create a HIV and AIDS Myths Debunked page. Feel free to use that page and its contents as a resource if you wish to expand this page. As that page's author, I grant permission for its contents to be used by Wikipedia under GFDL. I may transfer over some of the misconceptions from there as time allows, but feel free to jump in in the meantime if you like. That's what the page is for!
AIDSvideos 00:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feel free to use the [http://www.AIDSvideos.org/myths/index.shtml|AIDSvideos "Myths" page] as a resource for debunking HIV/AIDS myths/misconceptions 

message: The article says: "it is not surprising that a majority of U.S. AIDS cases have occurred in men.[64]", where 64 = U.S. Census Bureau, 1999.  But that page is about "population groups in developing countries" (i.e., not the U.S.), and the main page it links to (hivaidssurveillancedb.org) is an "international compilation of HIV prevalence and incidence data resources from various sources for countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Oceania" (i.e., not the U.S.).
The page also has links to "Related Internet Links", but they seem to be general AIDS organization home pages, and I don't see anything here specifically related to the U.S. incidence rate by gender.
I don't doubt this claim, but I'm not seeing support for it at this link.  Is this the intended link?  Is there a better one we can use, or a more specific one at one of these sites?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.170.62 (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference? 

message: How do syringes transfer the virus so easily when the virus "dies" shortly outside the body?  Also:  What is the extent that the disease is spreadable through syringes?  Does liquid solution have to be injected, or can a scratch cause an infection?JackorKnave (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Syringes

message: I am concerned that this sections fosters a misconception rather than debunking one. In the article cited regarding survival in dried body fluids, it clearly states that high concentrations of the virus were used. I believe these concentrations were much higher than would be found in humans, and therefore the fact that the virus survived for a period beyond "does not live long ... " does not in this case reflect real-world conditions. This is not made clear in the entry. Also, the "wet" reference is misleading, as it does not specifically mention that the study refers specifically to the survival of HIV in syringes. I don't believe there is any misconception out there that HIV does notlive longer in syringes - on the contrary, in my experience (over 8 years as a professional HIV educator), that most people are aware that contact with the air (inhibited by syringes) is a contributor to the short HIV survival in real-world conditions. To summarize, the fact that HIV lives longer in laboratory conditions in very high concentrations, or that it lives far longer in syringes than otherwise, does not contradict the fact, commonly understood, that HIV does not live long outside the body (except in special circumstances). The section of the article should be upfront and specific about what those special conditions are. --Peirce's Signs (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: CDC summary of this general issue is here:
 --Peirce's Signs (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that the current information is far too sparse to cover this sufficiently. I'd suggest that you add any relevant text that you had in mind (and links to sources) to said section and I'll gladly help with the prose & wikimarkup. Cheers, — Scientizzle 20:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to add this section is extremely important information for those with a fear of HIV as an obsessional/compulsive pathological problem. It needs to be extremely accurate and as full as possible. I think that currently it says 'technically it could survive for quite a long time, but it probably wouldn't'. That's not good enough to challenge an ocd thought about whether coing close to a plaster/band-aid or bit of floss or hanky could transmit. I don't have this particular anxiety myself, but I want to be helping people who do. Kathybramley (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  HIV Survival Outside the Body 

message: I think that there is another misconception out there that supposedly celibate priests can't die of AIDS because of the chastity promoted by the Church. This is inaccurate, since research indicates that priests are four times more likely to die of AIDS than the general population, presumably because of the widespread gay culture within the priesthood, a gay culture which was also blamed for the pedophile crisis.  ADM (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure the given reference is a reliable source. Who, exactly, believes that priests can't die of AIDS? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Priests dying of AIDS

message: Currently the article reads: While it is agreed that oral sex has a much lower HIV-infection risk than vaginal and anal sex, HIV can be transmitted through both insertive and receptive oral sex,[19] when there is contact between semen or vaginal fluid and the mucous membranes of the mouth.
 
Taken at face value, this sentence implies that there is a risk of HIV to the insertive partner when there is contact between his semen and the receptive partner's mucous membranes - which is clearly not the case (HIV cannot be transmitted from the mucous membranes, via the ejaculated semen, into the insertive partner!).
 
I suggest it should read something like: While it is agreed that oral sex has a much lower HIV-infection risk than vaginal and anal sex, HIV can be transmitted through both insertive and receptive oral sex,[19] when there is contact between bodily fluids of either partner - such as semen, vaginal fluid, or blood - and mucous membranes, cuts or sores on the body of other partner." Barnabypage (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  risks of oral sex: does it need re-phrasing? 

message: can anyone help me.... i am trying to find an answer to my question
i have a unit of course work to do about diseases and ailments that can cause harm to a mother and her unborn child and the effects it can have later on in life for the baby.
if a woman has AIDs or HIV can she pass this to her unborn child?
i already know that breast feeding can give the child the virus and that if any blood is shared between the mother and the child.
but when the child is still in the womb can they contract the virus? it is confusing as the mothers blood does not mix with the childs blood.
thanks.....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.79.84 (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  pregnancy with aids 

message: Why aren't myths about HIV's creation by humans addressed in the article?  The myth that the virus was engineered in some way to target certain groups (blacks, gays) by an intelligence agency of a major power (read: the CIA) -- why isn't this addressed? -75.57.7.223 (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because either no one has thought to add a response to such claims, or no one has yet been able to find reliable sources offering the claim and counter-examples. If you have such resources, please help improve the article by adding mention. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absence of Human Creation Myths?? 

message: I've never seen any scientific evidence for this assertion, i don't believe it should be included in wikipedia unless such evidence can support it. I'm no expert, but it seems eminently reasonable that washing bodily fluids containing the virus away soon after intercourse will reduce the chances that it will penetrate the skin (which, as far as i understand it, is how males contract the virus sexually). Its no good for aids activists to laud science when it suits them and then ignore it when it doesn't suit them. 41.53.31.167 (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right...but more importantly, that section isn't even particularly useful or informative. I'm just going to remove it. — Scientizzle 14:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Showers cannot reduce chances of contracting HIV? 

message: Looks like there is a new version of the "having sex with X will cure AIDs" myth out there:
http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE74408020110505
©Geni 17:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Albinos

message: This Article has a rather scientific language - perhaps that will keep some of the people who believe one or more of the named misconception to not understand the explanations, rendering this article effectless.
Maybe it shout therefor be translated into simple English so more people with less knowledge about biology and virology can understand everything that is said here.
00:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation to simple English

message: To quote WHO statistics,"'The number of people living with HIV worldwide continued to grow in 2008, reaching an estimated 33.4 million [31.1 million–35.8 million].The total number of people living with the virus in 2008 was more than 20% higher than the number in 2000, and the prevalence was roughly threefold higher than in 1990." There's been no reduction since 2004, but rather an increase. - Nunh-huh 22:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting misinformation

message: In the beginning of the section it says that: "HIV can survive at room temperature outside the body for hours if dry" as per  (ref. [27] in the main article at this time).
Nonetheless, according to the reference abstract, the time for infectivity to become practically zero in dry conditions at room temperature is more that 3 days. According to my computations, it would be roughly 63 hours or 2.6 days (the data in the abstract is approximate). Thus, I argue that this section should state a survival time of days or at least tens of hours, not just hours. It would be more precise and more appropriate. Ferred (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Some discrepancy in section "HIV survives for only a short time outside the body"

message: The long section titles cause the table of contents to be far too long. We should shorten the section titles a little bit. Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση (talk) 07:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of contents too long 

message: Why is this big misconception left out? We tell our young people to contracept and that otherwise they will get AIDS, making them so frightened of sex that they think HIV is created when having sex. We didn't tell them that one person had to be actually already infected to transmit the virus and disease. --2.245.175.56 (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two healthy people having sex creates HIV 

message: Why is either misunderstanding about AIDS or scientific disagreement with a dominant view of its causes called "denialism" in the article? That's a prejudicial term, and there isn't any great discussion of the content of Duesberg's arguments.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.64.151 (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invidiousness of characterization 

message: If anyone checks out wikiproject/alternative views, the bot seems to be going haywire swapping this article each day from Low importance to Mid importance and then back the next day. no idea whats going on here, but could someone with more experience than me look into this[]? Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject/Alternative Views bot assessment is odd 

message: My grandmother owned monkeys.  When my mother was young, when her siblings would become startled or frightened, they would bite and/or scratch a person by whom they were held, should that be the case.  It seems contracting a disease through a bite or a scratch from a diseased monkey would be more probable than from a wild animal hopping on one's penis without the human partner being bitten and/or scratched by that diseased monkey through the intercourse.  I have heard of preying mantis and black widows killing their partners.  I have heard that even domesticated, wild monkeys can instinctively injure their host families.  I have also heard that even having unprotected intercourse with a partner infected with HIV does not absolutely guarantee infection.  Therefore, I question the explanation that was so widely accepted at face value.  I might suspect that some people eat monkey meat and may possibly hunt what could most definitely be a dangerous, wild animal.  Hunting injuries on both the animals and hunters part could explain a blood transfer, unless they were blood brothers, as well.  What is worse is that this question seems to be treated as if it almost makes sense as opposed to opening people's eyes to the absurdity and unlikeliness of how the mental illness monkey love sex [not gender] hurts so good disease is the culprit.  Whose mind is so depraved to offer such an absurd, unlikely explanation without so much as to explore the possibility of other ways of contracting disease from animals considering widespread knowledge of rabies. And, how is it that people cannot see that it does not seem likely or that there is no attempt at exposing the problem with the suggestion: http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/SafeSex/Q8781.html.   I can't be the only one that sees a problem when no one else seems to realize that unlikely, improbable or impossible explanations, excusing or causes are offered.  Maybe, we should forget Africa not because of the suggested lacking of intelligence herein, but because they spread HIV to homosexual Americans through widespread continental African beastiality.  Rip Van Winkle, Humpty Dumpty and Frankenstein's Monster (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't mean to insult you, but even though you may have some interesting thoughts here, I find your writing in places incomprehensible. I don't know if the problem is with the grammatical structure, or vagueness of pronoun references, or missing words, or something else altogether. Can you try to explain what this sentence means: "When my mother was young, when her siblings would become startled, they would bite and scratch. It seems contracting a disease through a bite or a scratch from a diseased than from an animal than it hopping on one's penis without the partner being bitten and scratched." I'm getting that your mother's siblings became startled, and they bit and scratched . . . Is that correct? But then there's the phrase "contracting a disease through a bite or a scratch from a diseased than from an animal hopping on one's penis without the partner being bitten and scratched"????? The second sentence about your mother is vague at best, but the third sentence about an animal hopping on a penis makes absolutely no sense. The remainder of your post then seems like a random collection of unrelated phrases. Maybe you should get someone else who understands your meaning to help you reword. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

text: I made some edits.  Does it make more sense, now? Rip Van Winkle, Humpty Dumpty and Frankenstein's Monster (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Before I attempt to comb through a clinical document, was it conducted with humans and live, wild monkeys?  Because that sounds very dangerous to me.  The last set of monkeys were not allowed in the house.  They were loud.  And, I doubt they was very tame.  My grandmother gets personal sensitive and upset about this topic.  By the time the capuchin, dubbed a "chimpanzee", reaches the finish line, it will be a gorilla. <html>http://www.si.com/vault/1971/07/19/611660/fly-away-on-ladies-day</html>Rip Van Winkle, Humpty Dumpty and Frankenstein's Monster (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still quite lost in trying to understand what you are writing, although others may be able to do a better job than I can. (By the way, if your native language is not English you might have more luck with the Wikipedia for your native language.) But I clicked and read the link that you posted. That author seems to be making a few simple points (and I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with them). One is that it is virtually impossible that HIV was transmitted from monkeys to humans through sexual contact. He states that it is likely HIV evolved from SIV (monkeys) and that the most likely path of transmission was human exposure to monkey blood. There is nothing about an animal hopping on a human penis. Is there something in the points that the author makes that you find lacks credibility? Sundayclose (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monkey Love Coitus 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Misconceptions about HIV/AIDS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527201701/http://data.unaids.org/pub/EPISlides/2007/2007_epiupdate_en.pdf to http://data.unaids.org/pub/EPISlides/2007/2007_epiupdate_en.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614103019/http://www.unaids.org/html/pub/publications/fact-sheets04/fs_treatment_en_pdf.pdf to http://www.unaids.org/html/pub/publications/fact-sheets04/fs_treatment_en_pdf.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Misconceptions about HIV/AIDS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219070401/http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/Aids_Focus/0,,2-7-659_1161152,00.html to http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/Aids_Focus/0,,2-7-659_1161152,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110304014448/http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/general/ to https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/general/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120302124609/http://aidstruth.org/ to http://www.aidstruth.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)