Talk:HIV/AIDS in Africa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by the Africa-related regional notice board project, for collaborating on and improving Africa-related articles on Wikipedia. Please participate by improving this article, or visit the project page for details.

This article is part of WikiProject International development, which is building a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to International development, including such areas as Appropriate technology, Microfinance, and social issues related to development. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks and discuss the project.

This article is part of WikiProject Aids, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to AIDS, HIV, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.

HIV/AIDS in Africa is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

This page should be eliminated or completely rewritten. It states as facts assumptions which never have been confirmed. Even the chart which is presented is complete nonsense. If one researches the subject of AIDS in Africa, one will immediately stumble across the following: -- all numbers are based on estimates without any basis. ( there is no scientific study: all what can be found is: an employee of a UN organisation took some local estimates he read, put it in an excel spreadsheet on his microcomputer and calculated an assumed number for all Africa. -- there is a definition of AIDS specifically for Africa; its based on symptoms of well known diseases. -- the total mortality in Africa has not increased ( but rather went down slightly), despite the " extreme high" assumed infection by HIV. The reason is simple: what counted as death by TB or malaria or cholera is now considered AIDS. --

What bollocks. As somebody who has lost a close friend due to AIDS, I find this attempted denial of the existence of the disease insulting. We have enough of a problem dealing with AIDS now and in the future, we don't need idiots hampering our efforts by spreading stuff like this. Impi 20:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 The first post here is rubbish 2 References 3 Bangui AIDS definition? Evidence for half AIDS sufferers not HIV-positive? 4 The graph used here is misleading 5 The size and quality of this article is a scandal 6 Religious groups in the battle against AIDS 7 Prevalence in Southern Africa 8 Causes of transmission (NPOV-section) 9 Name 10 Sorry 11 Sorry

[edit] The first post here is rubbish

The fact of increasing death rates in countries with high estimates of HIV prevalence is not in distpute. The loss of life and good health is evident to all who live int these countries. Of course the rates are estimates, but to claim that there are no "scientific studies" is to denigrate the dedicated work of hundreds of researchers who are using advanced statistical methods to extrapolate from limited data that is available in the harsh conditions of these societies.

[edit] References

The comments above, whatever their validity, demonstrate that this article needs to be referenced. 'Scientific studies have suggested that...' — which scientific studies exactly? — mark ✎ 22:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bangui AIDS definition? Evidence for half AIDS sufferers not HIV-positive?

I see this has recently been added to the page:

In October 1985, a conference of public health officials including representatives of the Centers for Disease Control and World Health Organisation met in Bangui and defined AIDS in Africa as, "prolonged fevers for a month or more, weight loss of over 10% and prolonged diarrhoea". About half the AIDS cases in Africa based on the Bangui definition are HIV positive.

Colour me suspicious of this addition. Is this "Bangui definition", which is clearly obsolete given that we have far less ambiguous definitions based on the presence of the HIV virus and T-cell counts, still widely used? And where is the evidence for the statement that "half ot the AIDS cases in Africa based on the Bangui definition are HIV positive" (which of course implies that half aren't, thus calling into question the idea that it is HIV cutting a swathe through Africa's adults at the moment). --Robert Merkel 02:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to see a cite for this newly added information. Dewet 03:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Me too. The change to the AIDS article leads me to this question as well. JoeSmack (talk) 00:47, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Given the repeated skepticism about this, I'm going to revert the page to the old version until some more evidence is provided. --Robert Merkel 07:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that the "Bangui definition", remains the basis for most of the AIDS cases in Africa and therefore the world, because testing for HIV virus and T-cell is not widely available in Africa. I would welcome evidence to the contrary. I will cite the numerous studies that half the AIDS cases in Africa, whne tested are HIV negative. The other difficulty is that many diseases that are endemic on Africa but rare in the United States produces antibodies that produce false positive results on HIV tests.

Sci guy 01:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This "Bangui definition" most recent work backs up an appraisal of a the definition of AIDS in Africa between 1980 and 1997 - let us just suppose that turns the 620,000 AIDS sufferers into false positives. Past 1997, like, say now, Africa as something like 25 million AIDS sufferers. Any evidence that today we aren't using a more modern definition? 25.0 million - 0.6 million = way more than half of AIDS sufferers...more evidence to the contrary if you want to keep your previous claims up. JoeSmack (talk) 02:44, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Seeing we haven't gotten satisfactory answers from Sci guy, I'm going to repeat my action at AIDS and revert. --Robert Merkel

[edit] The graph used here is misleading

The graph showing average life expectancy in Africa is misleading because it does not have a base of zero. By zooming in on the curved part of the graph, it gives a visual impression of the lines swinging wildly. The shape of the lines is far more dramatic than it would be if the graph started at zero.

AIDS in Africa has had a positively horrifying effect, but this graph distorts the information.

This is from a textbook, "Visual Communication" by Paul Lester: "A serious problem with charts can be the misleading visual representation of data. Although omitting part of a scale to save space is acceptable (as indicated by the zigzag line at the bottom of many charts), constructing a chart from a y-axis point other than zero can dramatically change the visual message and is not acceptable. As printed in a newspaper and reproduced using the Excel program (center), the [changes in the price of oil from '98 to '99] appears dramatic with the zero point set at ten. But with the zero point set at zero, the infographic is more accurate and less visually alarming."

It's also explained pretty well here with figures 2 and 6.

There cannot be a zero point on the y-axis line in this case, because life expectancy has never been zero for as long as mankind has been around. Note please that there is no comparative frequency or amount analysis being done, unlike in the example at rice.edu, instead we're graphing a value that cannot be zero and tracking it over time. The figure is one that comes straight out of alternate statistics, we're not creating it for the purposes of the graph (for instance, the example from rice.edu obtains values by taking the values it gets from alternate sources and then comparing them to get "relative values").

Were you to argue that such a graph might be more accurate if it went further back in time, by perhaps another 50 years, then you would be right, but so far as I know we don't have proper statistics for this part of the world prior to 1958, so such a point would be moot.

I'm removing the note you added to the graph because of the above, and because it's non-sensical. It's simply not possible to have a zero point on the y-axis in this sort of graph. Impi 19:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, of course. Well, don't mind me then. Mr. Billion 20:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While a zero-axis doesn't make physical sense, as Impi explained, it *does* provide for a visual anchor. I have to agree with the quote that not having a point of reference (zero) can make graphs appear misleading; however, since this one varies between roughly 35 and 60, adding a zero wouldn't have been as useful as if it had varied between, say, 60 and 65. Dewet 03:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The size and quality of this article is a scandal

AIDS is a global epidemic claiming the lives of 8000 people a day. 60% of HIV infections are in Africa. The possible scope for this article is immense, yet it is still barely above a stub! It's these sort of articles being overlooked which allows people to rubbish Wikipedia. TreveX 15:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And the reason you don't jump in and make these improvements yourself would be because...? Dewet 16:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...because I researching on the UNAIDS website! TreveX 16:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative community project, and people edit and expand articles according to their abilities and expertise. To attempt to blame somebody for the AIDS in Africa article being weak is ludicrous, because nobody is responsible for making sure it's perfect. Next time, instead of leaving that sort of obvious and clearly irrelevant comment, jump in and make the edits and changes yourself. Impi 18:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, TreveX is going to work on it, as he said somewhere else but forgot to mention here. — mark ✎ 19:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am very sorry if anyone thought that I was blaming other people for the state of this article. I was merely trying to point out that its depth is, at present, disappointing considering the importance and immediacy of the subject matter. If anyone was offended by this then please accept my apologies. I realise that what I wrote above may not have come across very well, but I was just surprised at the article, that's all. What I really should have said was that this article should be longer but that hopefully it will improve soon as the result of some glorious collaboration.  :-) TreveX 20:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, the article is rather pathetically weak for such an important subject, and it's great that you're working on it. I might've been a bit quick to jump to conclusions on what you were saying (as there are many people who do nothing but criticise on Talk pages without doing anything to try improve the article), so I apologise. Good luck with the article! Impi 10:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religious groups in the battle against AIDS

Does someone know the percentage to which religious groups are engaged in the battle against the AIDS epidemic in Africa (percentage of projects, etc.)? 85.124.182.40 13:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean: the percentage of AIDS projects that is led by religous groups? I think it is hard to tell because many Church-run hospitals or health projects help AIDS patients like everyone else; a prominent AIDS treatment project run by a religious community is the DREAM program run by the Community of Sant'Egidio that I presented on this site.

[edit] Prevalence in Southern Africa

The article mentions a lot of, and I think very valid, reasons for the high rates of HIV/AIDS in sub-saharan Africa. Generally all kinds of diseases will be more common and more deadly in poorer countries, in countries with rather basic healthcare systems, poor nutrition etc. Still I'm intrigued by the extremely high prevalence in Southern Africa. The econonomic / health care situation there isn't worse than in many other sub-saharan countries - quite the contarary: in the cases of South Africa and Botswana it is definitely much better. Still those are the places with the highest HIV/AIDS rates. Why? - Of course it is perfectly possible that we just don't know (which, if this is true, should be mentioned). Otherwise I'd be interested in some, at least, tenetative explanations for this phenomenon - in case there are any?

Recent findings which seem (?) to proove that HIV originated in or around Cameroon (cp. [1]) would make the whole thing only more startling.

Just came across the following - no idea, whether there's anything to it - but at least it is an effort to explain the phenomenon. Should it be mentioned here? Any opionions?

--84.188.216.109 00:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Causes of transmission (NPOV-section)

There has been a recent edit by an anonymous IP that completely reversed the statement about the causes of transmission of HIV. I just placed a NPOV-section tag because I felt this is a point that has to be cleared up by people more competent than myself.--Robin.rueth 13:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Gisselquist is virtually the only scientist who has published papers on this topic. His theories are not widely accepted. International consensus (WHO, UNAIDS, USAID, NIH, major scientific journals, etc.) asserts that the vast majority of HIV infections in Africa result from heterosexual transmission. Trezatium 18:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The validity of Gisselquist's claims are circumspect, this article provides the WHO consensus. Schnarr 04:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• The CDC says, "Heterosexual transmission is the predominant mode of HIV transmission [in Southern Africa]" (see here).
• UNAIDS says, "In sub-Saharan Africa, heterosexual transmission is by far the predominant mode of HIV transmission" (quoted here).
• DHHS says, "Globally, the major route of HIV transmission to women is through sexual contact with men (heterosexual intercourse)" (see here).
• USAID says, "The hardest-hit regions are areas where heterosexual contact is the primary mode of transmission" (see here). Trezatium 17:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's another article about Gisselquist's theories and the WHO's reaction to them. Also it's worth noting that every sub-Saharan African country bases its response to HIV on the assumption that the majority of transmisison is heterosexual. For example, the Uganda AIDS Commission says, "In Sub-Saharan Africa, HIV is mainly transmitted through heterosexual intercourse" (see here). Trezatium 18:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The section removed from the article had been copied verbatim from this web site, perhaps in violation of copyright. Trezatium 18:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Misleading Either this article should be renamed HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, or it should include information about North Africa. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

I had to revert the new paragraph it was full of spelling mistakes, two broken links and inappropriate statements ("is another great site") etc, but please do try again, perhaps on the talk page with something along the lines of the content and we can work on it here --BozMo talk 20:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

I have reverted the paragraph on the human and emotional aspects. I DO think that we need something more like that in the article and will try to rewrite it when I've got time but the paragraph submitted violated so many WP guidelines that we cannot leave it in place as is. --BozMo talk 19:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)