Talk:AIDS/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archives for AIDS (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 > 19 >>
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

AIDS public misperception

Re this edit: [1] by Wafulz which changed "There is also a perceived association between all male-male sexual behavior and AIDS, even sex between two uninfected men." to "There is also a perceived association between AIDS and male-male sexual behavior and AIDS." with edit summary "(redundant; wording)". I think it needs to be changed back. The wording was not redundant, and the meaning has changed. The next footnote provides the surprising information that many people think a man can catch AIDS from having sex with an uninfected man. This fact is reflected in the first sentence, but not in the second; an association or correlation between the two could well exist even though sex with uninfected people doesn't cause AIDS. --Coppertwig 22:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it require a citation then? I haven't heard of people assuming that gay sex causes AIDS.-Wafulz 12:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it has a citation, as I already said. The citation is Herek 1999 and is given by the first of three footnotes at the end of the following sentence. I don't think it's necessary to repeat the same superscript on two adjacent sentences (especially since the more <ref> superscripts, the more slowly the page loads, I believe). --Coppertwig 18:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread your comment. I've restored it with the citation and a minor reword. Could you clarify what the citation says exactly? The wording is still a bit ambiguous- do people think that if two gay men have sex, one of them can contract HIV?-Wafulz 19:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I see on rereading that my comment wasn't worded very clearly. Thanks for restoring the information. Are you sure we need two superscripts to Herek 1999 in two consecutive sentences? Herek 1999 says: "Yet, in our 1991 survey, roughly one-fifth (19%) of heterosexual respondents believed that a healthy man was almost sure to get AIDS or had a fairly strong chance of doing so if he had sex with an uninfected man, even if they used condoms." (italics in the original.) The 3rd footnote (Herek 2005) says, "A substantial minority erroneously believed [AIDS] could be contracted through sex with an uninfected partner ..." Perhaps all three footnotes are relevant to both sentences. Maybe it would be better to combine the sentences into a single paragraph to make it more clear that the footnotes apply to both. --Coppertwig 21:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge inappropriate

Aids and Hiv are two different illnessesTDN 22:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) is the disease generally accepted to result from HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infection. HIV is the cause; AIDS is the effect. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed – Do not merge. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

General text structure and style

Professional detail

In my profile is a link of my suggestion to make Wiki a source of academic information, not just a place anyone can write anything. Applied to this article, I ask, where is the theory of AIDS? What happens in cells? How drugs decelerate HIV? I'd like to be able to read Wikipedia as 1000 books from the university library on Medicine. I didn't read this article at all, but I just assume there isn't even what medicines work on AIDS. Wikipedia articles are just overall representations made by uneducated people. Please improve this. Teemu Ruskeepää 13:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! If you do some basic searching or click on some of the links within this article, you'd notice that all the information you want is present.
  1. By the 'theory of AIDS' do you mean its origin? If so, try reading AIDS origin.
  2. Want more detail about the cells? Check out HIV, which has much more biological depth.
  3. 'How do drugs decelerate HIV'? Well, I thought that both AIDS and HIV had a pretty good summary, but perhaps Antiretroviral drug will be more to your liking.
  4. 'Medicines that work on AIDS' are kind of varying, because everyone reacts differently to HIV as well as the medicines. Wish there was a simple answer there.
Does this help? As for your assumption that 'Wikipedia articles are just overall representations made by uneducated people', I don't think thats true at all. For one, I happen to know at least one specialist doctor and one field researcher contributed and continue to contribute to this article heavily. Second of all Wikipedia doesn't care what kind of degree you have or don't have in the end as long as your contributions are valuable. Third, I actually consider this article to be one of those gold standards of an excellence on Wikipedia - it is well referenced, comprehensive and in depth - all on a very complicated and controversial subject as well. You also might notice that this is a featured article, meaning a good deal of other Wikipedians agree. If you have any other comments relating to this article, feel free to let us know. JoeSmack Talk 15:18, 2 December 2007

The statement that most new cases of AIDs transmission are primarily heterosexual may be true. But, according to the CDC, they are the result of receptive sex ( that means women if you are heterosexual )and most probably anal with a ratio of 5 to 1 (See transmission box in article).

Um, can you give a link to this information? Seems really, really incorrect to me. JoeSmack Talk 13:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.mdconsult.com/das/citation/body/83971385-2/jorg=journal&source=MI&sp=11286423&sid=0/N/11286423/1.html


It's also an interesting example of a form of lying-with-statistics favored by AIDS denialists. Accepting for a moment the figures given, it amounts to one transmission per 30,000 acts of intercourse. Now, there are 30,000 acts of intercourse nightly in every major city, yet the figures are presented in a way that makes a single transmission falsely seem improbable ("Who would have intercourse three times a day for 27 years?!? Why, that proves that sexual intercourse doesn't transmit HIV!") - Nunh-huh 21:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You're forgetting that not all the intercourse happening "in every major city" are between people with AIDs. There are still quite a few people without AIDs having sex. Furthemore, the real problem is not AIDs denial, it's anal sex denial. That denial keeps this disease spreading. Check out this link from NIH:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=2059146&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google

  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I didn't "forget" anything. Over 100,000 people in NYC alone are infected with HIV. 30,000 is conservative. - Nunh-huh 16:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anal intercourse? Doctors warn that anal intercourse has a high risk because a lot of HIV positive patients surveyed listed it as a sexual act that they had been doing when they got the disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this article help AIDS patient?

I have found an article relating to CD4+ T cell and wondering if it helps. Since this is the only one publishing about Citrus grandis pericarpium and no second article to confirm their work, I leave this with experts to look after

http://www.nlfd.gov.tw/ShowModule.aspx?tab=454&mtab=DOC&act=Detail&docid=4008

Oki doki, I found more articles relating to this issues. It seems to me that it is the compound citrus pectin that could be beneficial to the human immune system

http://www.nutritionreview.org/library/citrus.pectin.html

http://centraxinc.com/pdf/MCP_immu.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.138.21 (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So does for Thymic Protein A

http://www.vrp.com/pdf/AugustNews2003.pdf

http://intelegen.com/ImmuneSystem/thymic_protein_a.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.138.34 (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fundamental Error in Aids Article

The intellectual integrity of Wikipedia is unsatisfactory, as exemplified by the first and fundamental statement in the Aids Article: "Acquired immune deficiency syndrome or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS or Aids) is a collection of symptoms and infections resulting from the specific damage to the immune system caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in humans,[1] and similar viruses in other species (SIV, FIV, etc.)." (1. Marx, J. L. (1982). "New disease baffles medical community". Science 217 (4560): 618–621.) Reference 1 does not even mention HIV. The first isolation of a virus now referred to as a human immunodeficiency virus was not reported until the following year: Barre-Sinoussi, F. et al. (1983). "Isolation of a T-Lymphotropic Retrovirus from a Patient at Risk for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)" Science 220 (4599): 868-871. Here, the authors conclude that this virus isolated from a "patient with signs and symptoms that often precede the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)"..."may be involved in several pathological syndromes, including AIDS." Making the claim that HIV causes AIDS cannot be supported by a report preceding the discovery of HIV. Furthermore, the claim that HIV causes AIDS cannot be made on the condition of a correlation between a HIV virus isolated from a patient with AIDS symptoms. That correlation is causation is a well understood fallacy of logic. If someone is going to claim that HIV causes AIDS, I expect they can kindly direct me to the reference in the scientific literature which gives evidence for this causation. After reading the original scientific literature myself, my conclusion so far is that this report does not exist. Why is the reference for the fundamental assertion in the AIDS article wrong if this is "one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community"? Lyongaultier (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

The problem may arise from the fact that Wikipedia is not a venue for AIDS-denialist propaganda, despite occasional efforts like yours above. There is more information available at AIDS reappraisal if you like, though. MastCell Talk 05:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Sir: In contrary, Wikipedia can be a venue for AIDS-denialist propaganda IF AIDS reappraisal is present. I would expect people would atleast read a reference (e.g. reference 1) before they refer to it, including yourself. My statements above are completely factual, logical, and referenced. I would direct you to reading the scientific literature because this is the authoritative source. If Wikipedia is interested in upholding the intellectual integrity of AIDS and correcting this embarrassing mistake, I will provide you with two suggestions: 1) Replace incorrect reference 1 with the reference in the original scientific literature which provides evidence for the claim, which is made in the first sentence of AIDS, that HIV causes AIDS or 2) Replace the logically incorrect phrase "caused" by a logically correct phrase such as "widely believed by the scientific community" or "correlated to" in the event you cannot provide the requested reference Lyongaultier (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC).
Yes, right after I insert that the Earth is "widely believed by the scientific community" to orbit the sun... In all seriousness: the scientific literature states that HIV causes AIDS. It's inherent in every peer-reviewed medical journal article on AIDS published since the mid-1980's, which leads me to question your impassioned plea for "scientific integrity". But very well - I'll alter the ref in question to point to the NIH's summary of the scientific evidence on HIV as the cause of AIDS. MastCell Talk 07:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You might also check the archives of this talk page; the whole 'caused/widely believed by the scientific community' debate has been discussed many, many times. 'Caused' is the wording that is consistently settled on for good reason. JoeSmack Talk 19:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello, first comment on Wiki, so please be easy on me, if I failed to follow all the posting rules. I have to agree with Lyongaultier. In fact, if you read the introduction of the article you referenced to, it says the following in the second paragraph: "The evidence for HIV's primary role in the pathogenesis of AIDS is reviewed elsewhere", followed by a list of unspecific references. And if I understand the workings of a scientific article correctly, there has to be a reference to the scientific paper proving what is postulated in the article. Otherwise you simply can't write it. However, I found another article where someone already has done all the work (http://www.avert.org/evidence.htm; in the section "Conclusion"). ANDSENS (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

nature article [2000] link

The link to the nature article PDF hopefully citing that HIV causes AIDS actually justifies the need to further debate, rather than saying there isn't a problem anymore with that line of discussion. Thank you! Wikipedia rocks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.212.126.18 (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


Notes and References Section out of date

I noticed that more than half of the notes and references listed for this article are older than 1999. Some are even from the 80s! I agree with Joe Smack- these are too old to be trusted and should be deleted.Just-unsigned (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think they should be deleted. Some back up more current research (being cited with their more recent counterparts) and some of them don't matter if their old (refs about history for instance). If you can find more recently research for the clearly old studies in medical science, I think they should be updated but I don't think anything should be removed at this point. JoeSmack Talk 21:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
And please, keep your discussion to ONE talk page, not both HIV and AIDS's. It really makes it hard to follow the dialog. JoeSmack Talk 21:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll submit ideas for change to any article that I feel needs improvement thank you. Which one do you post to Joe?Just-unsigned (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Shrug, It doesn't matter to me as long as it can be followed in one place. JoeSmack Talk 22:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
How can a reference be out of date if the knowledge being referred to is still current? It doesn't matter when the reference was created if the content is still relevant. List those references that you feel are no longer relevant with a list of references that will superceded the older ones with more recent developments, then we can discuss. --Bob (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


Proposed move of one section

AIDS cannot be transmitted. It really makes no sense to me that the HIV transmission information has been shoved into this article, and it's contributing to an undesirable content fork. I propose that we move all the "Transmission and Prevention" information to the HIV article (in substantially its current form), and then substitute a dramatically shorter section that basically says, "AIDS cannot be transmitted, but HIV can -- so go read the HIV article to learn more about transmission and prevention." Does anyone object? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Information on transmission is usually treated in discussions of diseases as well as in discussion of the viruses that cause them. It really has to be that way, since the interaction of infective organism and host as well as other factors play a role in transmissibility. Chickenpox has, for example, an incubation period, but varicella zoster virus (per se) doesn't. Similarly, HIV infection has a window period, while HIV (per se) doesn't. Repetition of information is not a content fork unless the information differs. And, of course, AIDS can be transmitted: it's an infectious disease. It's a transmissible disease. And just as AIDS is a transmissible disease, HIV is a transmissible virus. - Nunh-huh 09:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It passed featured status with the transmission section present. I feel it is important to include transmission and prevention in this article, as it is something that has to be considered when discussing AIDS. Knowledge of transmission and prevention reduces risk of contracting the virus and thus AIDS. In its present form, it is fine. --Bob (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand and accept the goal of not disrupting a FA-status article. However, do you think that it makes sense to have more information about HIV transmission and prevention in the AIDS article than in the HIV article? Because that's what we have now... WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The transmission and prevention article is written from a more lay-person point of view than the article on the virus itself. It also incorporates information on prevention strategies that have been employed to curb the AIDS pandemic as addressed in the media, GOs and NGOs. Thus, it belongs here. --Bob (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Grcampbell that the transmission information fits in well here. It makes sense to me that it's a disease and that it can be transmitted, and that transmission can be seen as being more relevant to the disease than to the virus itself. Transmission involves an interaction between human bodies and the virus, not just the virus by itself. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

NoMoreLinks

Now I see what you are talking about. This is first time I saw template visible only while editing. Honestly, didn't even look at the top, just skipped to the end of the section... Anyhow, TED talk link I think gives quite interesting perspective on the topic, and should be included there. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/143

Lakinekaki (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and put the link. Lakinekaki (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good link in this context. This is exactly the sort of academic view that ought to be included in the article text, properly sourced, if it has enough currency in the academic community that it fulfills WP:WEIGHT. If this is one economist's idiosyncratic view and has not been published, discussed, supported by others, etc then it really doesn't belong in the article, neither as sourced content nor as an external link. Just my 2 cents though. MastCell Talk 18:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
ditto what MastCell stated. --Bob (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. Just-unsigned (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

disambig

The following links need disambig:
-avoidance
-boxwood
-Edward Green
-evolve
-expiration date
-in utero
-resistant
Randomblue (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Tetrasilver Tetroxide

This has pobably been discussed before because reports have been around on the internet for years, but I couldn't find anything on Wikipedia about it. Is it accurate? Here is the patent[2]. --RPaleja (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's complete garbage. There are serious questions about whether the product actually exists (that is, that the product they claim to make is actually any different from colloidal silver) and widely agreed that only thing you'll get out of it is Argyria. See this external link for some more information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
More generally, patents are not reliable sources of medical information. One should be doubly skeptical of exceptional claims such as those made in the patent you reference. MastCell Talk 21:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Control by other means

This section in the article is grammatically incorrect, incoherent, and doesn't even make sense. Is there someone who would like to explain the pupose of it before I delete it?128.194.21.91 (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your description is actually generous. I'm going to delete it; if anyone wants to try to justify its inclusion they may as well do it after it's gone as before. - Nunh-huh 19:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I still feel as though the sexual contact section should at least mention the possiblity that in some cultures anal intercourse has been used as a form of birth control. As I have shown in previous links, the subject has been discussed by most major research institutions as a factor in the spread of HIV.Just-unsigned (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an excellent article on the subject:

http://www. associatedcontent .com/article/511395/some_myths_about_aids.html Just-unsigned (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a transcript from a forum on the subject by a number of highly respected AIDS researchers:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={334486FC-248B-47E9-A359-A8371E7CC3BD}Just-unsigned (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

list fo abbrevs

hey everyone. i was just over reading War in Darfur, and i noticed their nifty little table of abbreviations in the beginning of the article. if we put something like this in the article, would anyone object? i think it would be helpful in that it would make the article more approachable. feel free to add or take away from the list. JoeSmack Talk 15:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

List of abbreviations used in this article

AIDS: Acquired immune deficiency syndrome
HIV: Human immunodeficiency virus
CD4+: T helper cells
CCR5: Chemokine (C-C motif) receptor 5
CDC: Centers for Disease Control
WHO: World Health Organization
PCP: Pneumocystis pneumonia
TB: Tuberculosis
....and so forth.

Sounds good to me. Just-unsigned (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Questionable sources

Hi everybody, a proposal is being made to ease the current restrictions on questionable sources in the verifiability policy. I think editors here might have a useful viewpoint on this proposal. See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability Tim Vickers (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Verification is very important. Otherwise, facts are conveniently overlooked to push political agenda or personal opinion. Just-unsigned (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed linking to British Red Cross HIV Work

Coinciding with World AIDS Day on 1 December, the Red Cross kicked off a major online campaign to raise awareness and spark debate about HIV/AIDS among young people in the UK and overseas. The HIV: What’s the story? campaign is based around a microsite. The site also contains real-life clips from around the world of young people discussing their understanding of the disease. Social networking sites like Bebo and Facebook will play a huge role in the campaign, encouraging young people to share information, show their support and find out how they can help.

The British Red Cross has recently added an entry regarding their HIV work to Wikipedia (British Red Cross HIV Work) and would be very grateful if the editors of this page could link to or reference it in their article. Such a link would help people find out more about what the Red Cross is doing to combat the stigma and discrimination around HIV and AIDS and how they can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JLloyd21 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

World Point of View?? --Bob (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Stigma neutrality

I added a POV flag because the stigma section is clearly rather biased. If you read through it, especially when it goes on to say that conservatives are biased against homosexuals for what it effectively says are unfair reasons. Rather, from a conservative point of view, that argument could be refuted by noting that homosexuals do have a much higher rate of aids than heterosexuals in population studies, and, as a result, hospitals often screen out homosexuals due to their high rate of HIV infection when they try to give blood. That's not because a person fundamentally disagrees with being homosexual, (although that often follows), it is based on fact and recognizing that homosexuals, on average, do lead a rather more sexually active lifestyle than heterosexuals, especially monogamous traditional heterosexual couples.Merechriolus (talk) 05:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And I reverted your tag. You're representing your POV that has nothing to do with the article. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I think merechriolus has a valid point. Read through that section and tell me that it doesn't explicitly say that conservatives are more likely to be uninformed about aids, while the very .pdf file the section cites at the end contradicts that, saying:"The fact that self-described liberalism-conservatism was not a significant predictor suggests that these systems are mainly based on moral judgements rather than political beliefs". Therefore, there is no evidence to support this claim, because it actually contradicts the citations. It is, therefore, POV unless further citations are provided. To that end, I am going to remove the biased section until REAL citations that support the assumption are provided. (citation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aids#_note-Herek2005) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.176.163 (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It's very interesting that an "anonymous poster" agreed with Merechriolus and then stated they were going to remove a part about conservative viewpoints, yet Merechriolus removed the noted portion 10 minutes later. Agreeing with yourself to make a content move is, uhh, a pretty asinine move. Baegis (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
That's my brother. You need an account to modify the article, so I did it. Please, don't use that rationale for reverting my edit, though. If you want to revert the edit, please provide you reason here. Anyway, I find your relations with OrangeMarlin equally as suspicious.Merechriolus (talk) 06:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
And by the way, if you don't provide rationale for the edit revert within an hour, I will change it back. Please don't make this like Homeopathy, discuss reasoning beforehand.Merechriolus (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You could stand to take some of your own advice about editing without discussion. Anyway, both of the account's editing patterns are too similar for my tastes. But that's off topic. And I am chalking this up to increase my user page numbers. Baegis (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Baegis, my brother and I have already provided appropriate rationale. Again, you said absoultely nothing to support your argument for keeping the POV. I'm going to request, again, that you provide rationale for your revert, or I will change it back. And by the way, I like your smooth move on your talk page.Merechriolus (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The sock puppet case will be handled on the appropriate page. And if you can't sign your own name, you won't appear on my talk page. That being said, the comment is clearly backed up by the sources, of which there are 3. I didn't even get a full two pages into the first reference before it was abundantly clear the fact in question is well sourced. Sorry to say, but it appears you are incorrect. It stays. Baegis (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Baegis, if you would actually read all the citations, you'd notice that the only time they reference conservatism relative to being uninformed about aids is when they say that conservatism is not a factor in being informed, I believe on page 16 of the citation. It is abundantly clear to me that you are incorrect. Read my brother's comment, where he says: "the very .pdf file the section cites at the end contradicts that, saying:"The fact that self-described liberalism-conservatism was not a significant predictor suggests that these systems are mainly based on moral judgements rather than political beliefs". Therefore, there is no evidence to support this claim, because it actually contradicts the citations. It is, therefore, POV unless further citations are provided. To that end, I am going to remove the biased section until REAL citations that support the assumption are provided." Just because something says it will study conservatism doesn't mean they were right, and just because it has 3 citations that are studies doesn't mean that those citations are correct citations.Merechriolus (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm reverting the page now. PLEASE resolve this discussion before reverting the edit I'm about to make.Merechriolus (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Significant is the word that you are missing in your statement. The article states and so does your alter-ego, that it is not a significant factor. Not significant. But it does not state that it is not a factor. If you read the statistical results you will see the same thing. It's a factor, but not a huge one. Btw, read the other sources as well. Specifically, the first full paragraph on page 2 of ref #132. Baegis (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You're basing your entire argument on a single word? There ARE no statistical results. (Significant is in my quote, though, so I'm not sure which statement you;re referring to...)Anyway, on #132 Page 2, the people are , 1.referred to as anti-gay activists, not conservatives, 2.while the activist quoted may be unfairly blaming homosexuals, he isn't quantitatively incorrect anywhere or explicitly incorrect, and 3., that's one single activist. (I've already read all 3). If you're referring to Patrick Buchanan, he's on the first page, and my same three points also apply to him. Again, the only times conservatives are referred to, no quantitative data is presented.Merechriolus (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
And Btw, thank you for totally ignoring me and reverting my edit anyway.Merechriolus (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Listiness in Symptoms and complications section

Why are these sections written as bullets instead of paragraphs? There isn't a clear reason for the listiness, and I don't see why they can't just be paragraphs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been cleaning up this article too. I'm concerned that it really isn't FA quality, yet it is. There are poor citations (some of which come from some odd sources), difficult writing (see the section on Stigma), and dead links. I think this article needs an overhaul. Maybe that's what you started!!!! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I haven't even started on the writing, but I saw that, too :-) Easy stuff first; I thought it needed a FAR, but I actually think now it's not that bad, and a bit of sustained attention to cleanup, shining a light on the problems, should suffice. Get out your Diberri tool :-) I don't see a reason that sections need to be listy rather than straight paragraphs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Diberri cite tool

For clean, consistent refs, use the drop down menu to PubMed, and plug in the PMID for a cite journal template. Diberri. I've cleaned up the refs; using the tool will result in a consistent citation style, and save your fingers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Did I ever mention that I'm in love with that tool???  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Then you should get out more often :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a world outside of Wikipedia? Really? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
With real tools, even. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing on the history of AIDS?

I can't believe there's nothing here on the history of AIDS, especially the social aspects of it. Stuff like Reagan refusing to recognize it and everyone considering it a gay disease at first, and then, due to the activism of the gay community, it finally becomes more accepted in society, research is done on it, treatments are released, etc. The political and social aspects are a big part of the disease too, so this should definitely appear either here, or in the origins of AIDS article. And if there is already an article on this stuff, please make sure to better link it to these ones, because I couldn't find it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue bear sd (talk • contribs) 16:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That would make for an interesting article, if you are up to the project. This article, though, focuses on the disease itself and only lightly touches associated topics. This is as it should be; otherwise, this article (and many others) gets bogged down with too much information. If there is not already a "history of AIDS" page, there should be. And if one does exist, it certainly should be linked to this article. TechBear (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, a history page would be in order, but it would have to be done separately. Many sub-topics of aids such as Aids in Africa already have their own pages.Merechriolus (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDMOS, this article should have a History section; using summary style as in Tourette syndrome or Asperger syndrome should work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This article was an FA before WP:MEDMOS. For a history section:

In June 1981, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta, USA, published a report about five men in Los Angeles who had contracted Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) without an identifiable cause (MMWR Weekly, June 5, 1981). This was the climax of many reports of other rare life-threatening opportunistic infections. The CDC thus formed a Task Force on Kaposi's Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections (KSOI) (Regional Oral History Office, 1995). A number of theories were developed about the possible cause of these opportunistic infections and cancers, such as infection with cytomegalovirus, the use of amyl nitrite or butyl nitrate "poppers" and "immune overload" (Gottlieb et al., 1981; Goedert et al., 1982; Shearer et al., 1982). In June 1982, a report of a group of cases amongst gay men in Southern California suggested that a sexually transmitted infectious agent might be the etiological agent (MMWR Weekly, 1982). By August 1982, the disease was being referred to by it's new name of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) (Marx et al., 1982). An anagram of AIDS, SIDA, was then created for use in French (Syndrome d'Immuno-Déficience Acquise) and Spanish (Síndrome de Inmunodeficiencia Adquirida) (Direction Générale De La Santé, 1982). In May 1983, doctors at the Institute Pasteur in France reported that they had isolated a new retrovirus from lymphoid ganglions that they believed was the cause of SIDA (Barre-Sinoussi et al., 1983). The virus was later named lymphadenopathy-associated virus (LAV) and a sample was sent to the CDC, which was later passed to the National Cancer Institute, USA (Connor and Kingman, 1988). In May 1984, Dr Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute also isolated a virus that caused AIDS, and named it Human T-cell Lymphotropic Virus-III (HTLV-III) (Popovic et al., 1984). In January 1985 a number of more detailed reports were published concerning LAV and HTLV-III, and by March it was clear that the viruses were the same, from the same source, and was the etiological agent of AIDS (Marx, 1985; Chang et al., 1993). In May 1986, the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses ruled that both names should be dropped and a new name, HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus), be used (Coffin et al., 1986).

--Bob (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

MEDMOS sections

Per WP:MEDMOS ([3]), why are there no sections on Prognosis and Screening/prevention and Mechanism/pathophysiology? That material is merged or combined differently; is there a compelling reason (other than this being an older FA)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe this was made an FA before that proposal came to light. --Bob (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Updating needed

Eubulides (talk · contribs) (Mr Epidemiology in my book) mentioned on my talk page that an update to 2007 data is needed here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I started adding some of the data from the 2007 report (ref name = UNAIDS2007); since the numbers are all dropping, someone needs to explain the drop somewhere in the text, and update all of Epidemiology. This articles looks to be seriously outdated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this article requires an FAR. It almost seems like it was written pre-WP:MEDMOS, and a lot of strange edits have been added without serious review. I tried to clean up some of the sections, but the writing just needs a lot of work. What do you think? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
A FAR is at least a month-long process; better to try to get things corrected via talk page discussion, and only go to FAR if all else fails. I don't think it's warranted yet, and it won't get the article fixed faster. Maybe you can get some attention out of the apathetic MED Project. But the article is really in need of a tune up and update. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)