Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 3

message: As there are excellent articles in HIV and HIV testing and HAART this information does not need to be duplicated in the AIDS article.
There is no reason to retain the now discredied Ho theories, especially since the treatment guidelines now reject the "Hit hard hit early" approach - and defer HAART if viral load is below 1000,000 and CD4 is above 350.
After ten tears, it seems safe to add the chemokines research.
Sci guy 02:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Focus is AIDS 

message: I found a bit of inconsistency in the article. "History" section says : "A common theory ... held that HIV came from Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV), a virus virually identical to HIV, that causes AIDS-like symptoms in primates, and that this virus was transmitted to human populations in Africa during the course of controversial polio vaccine experiments on African villagers (this theory has since been disproven)"
"Current medical understanding of AIDS" says : "HIV is closely related to viruses causing AIDS-like diseases in many primates, and is generally thought to have been transferred from animals to humans at some time during the early 20th century, though some evidence suggests it may have been transferred earlier in several isolated cases." 
It goes on to suggest that this theory is still valid. So which is correct ? Does the "animal to human" theory still stand ? Jay 12:29, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Kidneys - though chimps weren't used at all, according to the vaccine makers.  The most recent proponent of the vaccine theory was Edward Hooper in The River - Hooper's comments and reviews from 1999-2000 are here and the more recent evidence against it is discussed here and here. But aside from questions about the mode of transmission, the basic animal-to-human theory is universally accepted - the genetic evidence is not in question (even, as far as I know, among people like Duesberg who attach no importance to HIV). --Hob 17:28, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polio vaccine theory 

message: I was about 95% positive that the initial acronym for AIDS was "GRIDS", for "Gay-Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome"... am I wrong on this? Arcuras 26 June 2004
: I've never seen GRID with Syndrome on the end, as it were. Google gives 12,600 matches for GRIDS and HIV; 78,600 matches for GRID and HIV, if that's of any help (HIV in the search term to try to remove false positives). Presumably some people have used the longer form, but the shorter form seems dominant. — OwenBlacker 04:20, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
The expression was GRID, it was only in currency for a year or so. I've never seen the GRIDS form. Adam 06:27, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  GRID or GRIDS? 

message: Do we really want four external links to the same URL (ericdigests)? Seems to be to dictionary type articles elsewhere and it is a bit unusual? --BozMo|talk 11:49, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I was interested in Bletch's change from Black death to Smallpox in the article on AIDS.  He claims "Smallpox was WAYYY more deadly than the Black Death".  I can see this point of view, and I agree that the introduction of smallpox was probably far more influential in terms of long-term geopolitics, but I don't think the facts back up the specific claim.
# Although the Smallpox entry doesn't specify numbers (only percentages), the pandemic entry mentions Smallpox as a "local epidemic of extraordinary virulence", and the numbers in that paragraph add up to something like 2½ to 3 million, total.  According to its entry, Black death killed 25 million.
# The sentence he modified is "These numbers have led some experts to call AIDS the deadliest pandemic in human history since (something)".  Even if Smallpox was more deadly, this could still be untrue.  Which experts have called it the deadliest pandemic since Smallpox?
I didn't want to just revert without justification, so there are the reasons that I think the statement should stand at Black death. - Plutor 13:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Smallpox]] vs. [[Black death]] 

message: Recent edit by anon added: "It is known that about one per cent of the White European population carries two genetic alleles that confer total immunity to HIV. Possession of one allele causes HIV to cause a less serious form of disease in that individual. This seems to indicate that in Europe thousands of years ago there was a virus or other pathogen that mimicked the entry method of HIV into human cells. This is another example of what is known as convergent evolution as HIV and this ancient pathogen could not have been closely related."
Never heard of this before, and the anon didn't provide a citation, unfortunitly. Anyone have any information to back this up? Arcuras 02:14, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
:Not having any responce, and being unable to find any information on the subject myself, I've removed the quoted piece until someone can provide some evidence to back it up. Arcuras 21:56, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
It was pretty well established (back in the 80's, I think) that about
1% of people did not get infected with HIV despite repeated exposure
to the virus.  All of these "immune" people had the described pair of
mutated genes.  However, researchers also discovered that a few
HIV-infected people did have the mutated pair, so the so-called
"immunity" is not complete.  As for the rest of that statement, I
think that old Eurpoean virus theory is entirely hypothetical.  Check out
 for an
expository article. Uranographer 09:51, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allele HIV Immunity? 

message: An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the AIDS article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add  to this page. — LinkBot 10:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/AIDS|Link suggestions]] 

message: *DermaVir, a novel treatment for HIV/AIDS, complements and improves present drug therapies
Probably you can find more extensive sources as well. – I wonder if it would be worth including into the article.
--Adam78 01:08, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommended piece of news 

message: Is there an article on the history of hiv/aids?  By this I mean the first cases that were diagnosed, what people thought was happening, naming of the virus etc.  Jackliddle 01:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History of [[hiv]]/[[aids]]

message: The present wording: "Despite widely publicised fears about the possible "casual transmission" of HIV and AIDS, the risk of infection is virtually eliminated by following simple precautions, such as abstaining from sexual activity outside a definitely monogamous relation with a seronegative partner, and avoiding blood transfusions with unsafe blood." is wrong, inaccurate, bigoted and clearly holds a hidden agenda.
# Safe sex does not only refer to sex with condoms, but has a larger meaning that includes activities like non-penetrative sex. It is about as likely to cause AIDS as accidentally sharing blood from such mundane accidents as a paper cut or a broken glass. True, those are extremely unlikely, but they are possible. The exact same thing can be said of safe sex.
# The present wording implicitly focuses of casual sex as immoral. The discussions on this Talk page reject the addition of the term "safe sex" in this paragraph under the pretext of different interpretations of what the term means. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Protected sex is mentioned only two paragraphs later in a different context.
# No one chooses to be transfused contaminated blood. Being injected HIV is not something someone "avoids". In that regard, the present wording is extremely offensive. Without that remark, though, the paragraph no longer makes sense; it would be saying that one can only catch AIDS by being negligent or promiscuous, thus making people who got AIDS from transfusion one of those. The contributor seems to have added helpful advice on avoiding contaminated blood transfusions to cover up for this fluke.
# The choice of the word "abstaining" is politically charged. The words "not having", or "avoiding" seem to have been rejected on purpose.
# Even the title of the this Talk page's discussion "Gross negligence causing risk for human life?" is a poor rhetorical device meant to implicitly and immediately label those who oppose it as begin accomplices to murder. This is not encyclopaedic language, even for the Talk pages. It is about as manipulative as referring to "having an abortion" as "killing unborn babies".
The text must at least say "as abstaining from unprotected sexual activity outside a definitely monogamous..." The people following this advice have their risk of contamination as "virtually eliminated" as those who follow the original statement's advice. And it will carry less of the huge political charge.
I did not change the text myself because I don't want to start an editing war that will cause the page to be protected, but who is in with me on this?
Eje211 22:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politically charged paragraph 

message: First came "hit hard, hit early", then came a more conservative approach with a starting point somewhere between 350 and 500 CD4+ T cells/mm3. The latest guidelines use 200 to 350 cells/mm3 as the range to consider offering antiretroviral therapy (HAART) to asymptomatic patients. Sci guy 02:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment guidelines 

message: The CDC 1993 definition has expanded AIDS from a small group of people with rare opportunisitc infections to all people with a CD4 cell count below 200. This has trippled the number of cases in the US - but these extra cases are not progressing in the same way as pre 1993 AIDS.
Using the global figures means we need to include the Bangui definition because this is the basis for the majority of global AIDS. Sci guy 09:24, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining AIDS 

message: I've been doing some poking around on the "Bangui definition" raised by Sci Guy.  It doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in UNAIDS's publications, or indeed any indication that AIDS cases described in their work is related to anything other than HIV infection and the consequent failure of the immune system.
Where the Bangui definition *is* raised constantly is in stuff by groups like ACT UP San Francisco.  That doesn't mean it's wrong.  What it does mean is it's coming from the AIDS reappraisal crowd, who are well outside the overwhelming majority of medical opinion on issues relating to AIDS.
If anybody can find a rebuttal from mainstream AIDS research on this topic, it might be handy for NPOV purposes. --Robert Merkel 11:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Bangui definition" was developed by CDC and WHO in 1985, so it is part of the scientific consesus. It remains the basis for diagnosis where antibodies tests are not available - which is most of the world. The AIDS reappraisal group has consistently objected to the continued use of the "Bangui definition" because many of the people diagnoses with AIDS by this definiiton test are not infected with HIV. All this information was in the references, tha tyou deleted. Sci guy 14:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be true.  But what I'm trying to establish is that the Bangui definition remains the process by which the estimates of AIDS prevalence are made.  Now.  Not in 1985.  Not in 1995.  Now.  If you can show me evidence (point me with some precision to one or two references, preferably in the peer-reviewed literature or from one of the big government AIDS organizations) that suggest that current AIDS statistics contain a bunch of people without HIV, then I might be convinced you have something of more than historical interest.  --Robert Merkel 22:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bangui definition" 

message: i have heard rumors of a possible cure, a vacccine based on the patients DNA and the ciruses DNA, works on a one  to one basis only, but i was wondering if anyone can confirm this or disproove it... whichecver.
the other riumor for a cure is based on monkey DNA.  can anyone confirm or disproove this as well?
Gabrielsimon 07:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  rumors 

message: From paragraph 2, under "AIDS epidemic": "In the United States, the most common cause of death for people with AIDS is liver failure caused by antiretroviral drugs" This sounds highly suspicious to me. Does anyone know of any scientific study that backs up this claim? 
Carl Henderson 17:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Liver Failure as Leading US Cause of Death?