Talk:AIDS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star AIDS is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.


Top This article is on a subject of Top-importance within Medicine.
This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.
This article was previously a Medicine Collaboration of the Week.
Peer review AIDS has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Peer review This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Natsci.
Wikipedia CD Selection AIDS is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
Main Page trophy AIDS appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 15, 2006.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this revision (diff) of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Contents

[edit] Origins Debate Stifled

I am naive in the various AIDS debates, though I have known some victims of the disease. However, having just watched the famous 2004 CBC documentary on Edward Hooper theories, the OPV AIDS hypothesis I found it very convincing and disturbing. I came to wikipedia for some reassurance and background, however, I was very dissappointed in the relevant party of this main AIDS article. The origins section and alternatives are very shallow. They do not even link to other wikipedia articles treating the subject in more depth. Alternative_theories_about_the_origin_of_AIDS, Category:AIDS_origin_hypotheses, AIDS_reappraisal, OPV_AIDS_hypothesis should at least be mentioned. I find this section really takes a side in the debate and departs from NPOV.

Well, they are mentioned in there actually, to my dismay. To me AIDS reappraisal and its ilk represent a POV Fork (WP:POVFORK) in which a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others. They also are bad article ideas, as per (WP:BAI) because a new article is made to supplement an already existing one which you think is not putting your point across forcefully enough.
I also don't see any of the 'alternate' AIDS theory articles giving lipservice to AIDS texts' as prominently as it to them, so take your pound of flesh and be happy. JoeSmack Talk 08:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think they're POV forks. The AIDS article describes the consensus understanding of the disease, as it should, and refers briefly to various controversies. AIDS reappraisal is not really an alternate viewpoint on that article; it's a description of a scientific/political/ideological debate that, even for those who think it's entirely regrettable, has gotten a lot of attention and had undeniable effects. Most of the material there would be totally out of place in the main article. It still needs a lot of work but I think it does what it should: convey to a reader what those people are talking about, and the historical context in which the argument arose. Similarly, the OPV article is not a POV fork because it conveys a lot of detail on this notable (by definition, since it was very widely publicized) theory - detail that would, again, be out of place in the main article but is certainly of at least historical importance. You don't call a sub-article a POV fork just because the people it describes are at odds with the subject of the main article; otherwise we'd have to choose between having, say, Civil rights movement and COINTELPRO. ←Hob 02:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Perticularly the quote: "Subsequently, this hypothesis has been refuted by examination of these original polio vaccine stocks and establishing that they do not contain material of chimpanzee origin.[114]" is out of context, it should be on the OPV page where it can be disputed or verified. There is dispute of this finding, the most obvious being the logical impossibility of finding a sample to test that was also used.

Anyway, I don't have the background to authoritatively change this, my reference is a TV show, albeit a good one. So I'm going to simply link these other wikipedia articles - even on a functional argument basis, the main AIDS trunk should lead to these branches. I'm not going to delete the offending quotation, because maybe it should be restated or by someone with a good reference to cite.154.20.109.121 06:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If anything the OPV hypothesis has been given much too much prominence in this article. It's very much a fringe theory that's been rejected by mainstream science. Lots of evidence contradicts it. Trezatium 21:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Trezatium - now that you did such a nice job expanding and referencing that passage about OPV, I think it is too much! :) I mean, I think that kind of detail really belongs in the OPV hypothesis article. The AIDS article would be fine with a brief summary of what that debate was about; the fact that the consensus is now against it; and a "see" link to let the reader know that there is more detail available elsewhere. (I think an inline note like "See OPV AIDS hypothesis." would be best - adding a "See also" section at the bottom of the article, for something that at this point is not a very central issue, would be overkill.) ←Hob 01:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I only expanded the section by adding the final sentence plus two references. I entirely agree that most of the OPV material should be cut. Trezatium 09:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I've made the cuts. Trezatium 11:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] QUICK CLARIFICATION

What is the person has received a BJ with a Condom on? Can he still get AIDS? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

considering that condoms significantly reduce the chance of HIV infection, and that the normal receptive rate WITHOUT a condom for oral is 1 in 10,000, your making chances VERY VERY slim (but like most science, improbable doesn't mean impossible). JoeSmack Talk 06:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the person has received a Hand Job without a condom. Can he still get AIDS or HIV infection? Please let me know ASAP.

It's not impossible, but it's even more unlikely than the above case unless the person giving the hand job had open, bleeding wounds on their skin. --Robert Merkel

[edit] Primate meat consumsption

Hi, I think I saw a documentary on AIDS (maybe frontline?) that claimed that the dominant theory of AIDS transfer to humans was through consumption of primate meat. Can anyone confirm this? Can someone add the primate consumption theory to the article. I think I saw it on Frontline or another cable documetary. --Gogosean 01:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ew, who would eat PRIMATE meat? Just asking, but is it a delicacy some where?

Primates are a common form of bushmeat in parts of Africa. It's quite easy to imagine someone cutting themselves during slaughter or butchery and thus getting the virus into their bloodstream. I've added a bit to the article to acknowledge this hypothesis. Trezatium 20:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Who is this recurring and disruptive anon? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 07:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congo Numbers

The death toll every single day in Congo is somewhere between the death tolls of Hurricane Katrina and the September 11, 2001 attacks This would be 2752x365=1,085,145 a year, maybe the figure for whole africa

and the weekly death toll is about the same as the death toll of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake that makes 186,983x52=9,723,116 a year, an absolutely ridiculous figure even considering only the number of the dead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.101.126.212 (talk • contribs).

This information, if sourced, could be very useful for the AIDS in Africa article! :) JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 16:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The number of AIDS deaths in sub-Saharan Africa is around two million per year, as correctly stated in the AIDS in Africa article. AIDS deaths in the Democratic Republic of the Congo amount to around 90,000 per year. I've no idea what 62.101.126.212 is referring to. Trezatium 19:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two parts of the article that I would like to comment on

Hi.

I really like this article, it's great. I read not even half of it but I came across two parts of the text that I would like to comment on:

  • "The risk of HIV transmission from exposure to saliva is considerably smaller than the risk from exposure to semen; contrary to popular belief, one would have to swallow gallons of saliva from a carrier to run a significant risk of becoming infected." - Im not sure what "popular belief" is, but most people I personally know know that you can not get aids (easily) through saliva... how do you define "popular belief" in this particular article?
  • "During a sexual act, only male or female condoms can reduce the chances of infection with HIV and other STDs and the chances of becoming pregnant." - I don't see what the use is of mentioning that only male or female condoms can reduce the chances of becoming pregnant, not to mention that this is, as far as I know, not even true... (not "only" condoms; see Birth_control). if this sentence isn't supposed to mean that, shouldn't it be re-phrased?

--bb 21:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably "During a sexual act, only male or female condoms can simultaneously reduce both the chance of infection with HIV and other STDs and the chance of becoming pregnant." would be clearer. - Nunh-huh 22:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

This article has been severely vandalized, and I'm not sure how to revert it. On the history page, it shows that the current page should be a correct one, but it isn't. Could someone fix it?

Can you point out where the vandalism is, I can't spot any! Ollie 00:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
PS. don't forget to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~
By the way, an easy way to revert is to find the last good version in the history and edit that version. Then just save it straight away, returning the current page to the state it was in before. Ollie 00:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Try reloading the page it my be that vadalism and was found & corrected earilar, but you need to reload the page, to see the latest version.Merc25 05:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

from the main page: "in fact TCM have been proven to be able to cure AIDS totally."

Surely statements like this should have a source - or else isn't it weasel words or something?

i've removed this sentence, i believe it is vandalism that just slipped by. JoeSmack Talk 20:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socio-Cultural/Economic factors

As with most dominant discussions of HIV/AIDS, very little is said on this page about the socio-cultural and economic causes of the spread of HIV (that is, that it spreads primarily due to poverty and the low social status of women). Discussing the HIV/AIDS pandemic as though it is sheerly a health issue delimits the range of solutions to those focusing on health (and therefore driven by the "Northern" or developed health and research system. Poor people in Africa are creating great solutions (many based around home-based care and the empowerment of women) to HIV/AIDS at the community level, but it is very difficult for them to access funding for them.

I'm hoping to write a short section on these issues when I have a little time in the coming weeks. If anyone has a suggestion about where on the page it might go, please suggest away.

Thanks Shannonbah 02:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps in the sections that cover those points already. --Bob 05:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
it spreads primarily due to poverty and the low social status of women
No, it spreads exclusively through bodily fluids. You don't have to equalize the socioeconomic status of the globe to save those at risk to AIDS, you need to educate them. How POV is it to suggest that a human being is unable to make rational decisions simply because he/she is impoverished? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 07:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
What I will actually try to get across is that people (particularly women) who live in desperately poor circumstances are far less likely to be able to make rational decisions; she may not have such choices available to her. If a poor woman is completely dependent upon her husband for her (and her children's) livelihood and social status, it is extremely difficult if not impossible for her to be able to negotiate safe sex or condom use, no matter how well she may know the facts about HIV/AIDS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shannonbah (talk • contribs) 21:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

That is aleady covered elsewhere in the article --Bob 23:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative treatment

The following edit deleted a sentence about vitamin C; I reverted and restored the sentence. The deleting edit was: " 06:00, 6 December 2006 Grcampbell (Talk | contribs) (we don't need to add every alternative medicine that has been tested. We don't even list every type of ART used! Revert reversion.)"

I agree that we don't need to add every alternative medicine that has been tested. If, however, someone wishes to do so, I see no harm in it; if it takes up too much space it can be moved to a separate page. Ideally, information about the results of the tests would also be provided. Similarly for conventional treatments.

However, that explanation does not justify deleting the sentence about vitamin C, since this sentence was very far from listing the large number of alternative treatments that have no doubt been tried. The sentence was giving one example of an alternative treatment (very high doses of vitamin C) -- one which has been found in preliminary clinical trials to suppress the symptoms of AIDS and markedly reduce the tendency for secondary infections. Any treatment which does this deserves mention, in my opinion.

The section on alternative treatments is already much shorter than the section on conventional treatments and is at the end of a section and without a separate heading, where it is likely to attract less attention. Rather than shortening the alternative treatments section, a more balanced article could be achieved by lengthening the alternative treatments section and placing it where it is more likely to be seen (with a separate heading, or a topic sentence menioning it at the beginning of the treatment section, for example). --Coppertwig 13:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My feeling on this is that section on alternative treatments is long enough. Allowing a gazillion different ones would be disproportionate to the amount of suggested clinical treatment out there suggested: a vast majority being HAARTs. In addition to all this, the "High doses of vitamin C have been used, for example, to treat AIDS, with good preliminary clinical results." is cited from a 1984 source; i'm guessing the 'preliminary clinical results' were preliminary because no one really reproduced it. It is probably why doctors don't give a Vit C. horsepill with all the other HAARTs pills when someone comes to them for treatment. JoeSmack Talk 15:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with JoeSmack, therefore I again deleted the vitamin C reference. Preliminary results in 1984... yes, 22 years later I would hope that we would have gotten past preliminary results. Moreover, examples of alternative treatments are already given, try reading the article. Furthermore, we do not need to lengthen the quackery aspect of AIDS treatments, especially in an article of this length. --Bob 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the sentence about vitamin C for the following reasons:
  • Wikipedia articles are required to show a neutral point of view according to Wikipedia policy. Deleting part of the alternative therapies section when it is already much shorter and less prominent than the conventional treatments section contravenes this policy.
  • The vitamin C sentence is the most important sentence in the alternative treatment paragraph. Much of the alternative treatment paragraph actually has an anti-alternative treatment slant. If the paragraph is too long, perhaps some other part of the paragraph could be deleted. If there is too long a list of alternative treatments, perhaps alternative treatments that don't have citations showing promising results could be deleted -- though the alternative treatment paragraph is already much shorter than the conventional treatment section.
  • Yes, I agree: I would hope that after 22 years, someone would have carried out a reasonably large randomized controlled trial of bowel-tolerance-intake vitamin C as an AIDS treatment. (Placebo control may not be possible for bowel-tolerance-intake levels, but randomized control is possible.) If someone can find a reference to such a study, it would improve this article. I encourage people to look for one. I It would be a sad state of affairs if no such study has been conducted after the encouraging results in the Cathcart study and the success of very-high-dose vitamin C with other viruses; although I hear it's almost impossible to get funding for such studies, and that any researcher interested enough in vitamin C to conduct a study using bowel tolerance intake levels is likely to have strong ethical concerns about placing anyone in the non-vitamin-C group when life-threatening illness is involved. If there has been a reasonably large randomized-controlled study of bowel-tolerance-intake vitamin C for AIDS which did not show any benefit, please mention it here and it may be a good reason for deleting the vitamin C sentence. Speculating that such a study might exist is not a reason to delete the vitamin C sentence.
  • Being 22 years old does not invalidate the results of a study. However, I'm adding a reference to a more recent study (although it is a study of much lower doses of vitamin C). --Coppertwig 11:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm running out the door, but here's my take. I don't see this 'anti-alternative-treatment bias' that you keep on claiming. The section is proportional to the amount of suggested treatment in the real world (a majority being HAARTs). For similar reason's the reappraisal section is smaller than a majority of the article. I think deletion was a good call because the burden of proof lies on the editor and not the reader - doubly so for such a stringent scientific article. Using the word 'quackery' in the edit summary is hardly enough to call the bias-police. Also, especially in a case like this, it is a better idea to post the new source here instead of the article and dealing with a second revert and raised temperatures of editors. Like I said, I'm running out the door, but by first glance it is the same fellow doing in 1998 more of what he did in 1984 (note: we knew like nothing in 1984 about HIV/AIDS compared to what we know now). I'm thinking hes the only Vit C. fan out there in pertinence to HIV - any other scientists with peer reviewed journals who've supplied similar findings? JoeSmack Talk 14:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Why the emphasis on vit C? why not other nutrients/vitamins/minerals such as D or E? or selenium amongst others? I will modify the text so that the penchant for vit C is not glaringly obvious. --Bob 18:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I see that Coppertwig has cited the WP:NPOV policy as grounds for expanding the alternative treatments section. I think this is a misapplication of NPOV - specifically, the stipulation to avoid "Undue Weight". To quote, "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all... We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view". The idea that megadose Vitamin C can prevent, treat, or cure AIDS is the view of a small minority and has very little supporting evidence. To present it (or other unproven alternative therapies) on an equal, or near-equal, footing with treatments that have a massive amount of peer-reviewed literature behind them would be the NPOV violation. I think the current edit by Bob is appropriate. MastCell 19:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for mentioning bias on the part of editors. I retract the statements about such bias and have deleted them from the discussion above. (I hope such deletion doesn't contravene any guideline.) This is the place for discussing the development of an article which has a neutral point of view, not the place for discussing any characteristics of editors. I’ll try to be a little more collaborative.
Perhaps we can come up with a section we all agree on (or at least can all tolerate). I suggest the following criteria as a compromise (reserving the right to change my mind later) :
  • The section on alternative therapies (last paragraph of "treatment" section) to be very nearly the same length as in the version of 05:18, 5 December 2006 Antandrus (just before I added a sentence about vitamin C).
  • The section will not contain any statement that any editor objects to on the grounds that the statement is false or highly misleading.
  • The section will mention several alternative therapies, including the ones for which there is the most evidence that they may have benefit; possibly also some of the most popular ones.
  • The section will provide several links or footnotes leading the reader interested in alternative therapies to further information on the topic.
What do you think? Are there other criteria that need to be included?
Other comments : The Mills (2005) reference says that up to 68% of participants in a nationwide USA survey admitted to using some form of complementary or alternative therapy. 68% can hardly be called a "tiny minority".
Also: I would like to delete or change the last sentence "None of these treatments have been proven in controlled trials to have any effect in treating HIV or AIDS.[97]" because it is false or at least highly misleading: it implies that there are no controlled trials showing benefit from alternative therapies, when in fact there are such controlled trials showing benefit; and it implies that it is talking about all alternative therapies, when the Mills (2005) article referenced in the footnote specifically excluded examination of "trials of antioxidant and vitamin therapy", and for the therapies it did examine, did find some evidence of benefit for some of the therapies. --Coppertwig 02:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Vitamin and mineral statements have been included above the alternative treatment section in a manner that is more than adequate for the amount of research and data that has been put forward about these. there is also a reference to a review article should anyone want more info on this topic. This should close any further debate on the issue. As the vitamin section is no longer within the scope of alternative treatment, the mills article should stand. Also, as the statement regarding the Mills article states that they do not have any effect in treating HIV and AIDS, which is still true, then that statement should also stand. Quality of life and treatment of HIV are two different things. --Bob 03:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/i/d/Talk%7EAIDS_31af.html"