Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 21

'Solidarity'
The 'solidarity' box is a political statement, has no business in an encyclopaedia, and goes against Wikipedia's own declared policy (although often known more in the breach than in the observance) of no POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article is expressing solidarity, just presenting a widely recognised symbol related to AIDS in the infobox. Can you suggest a better image? Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC) (p.s. New threads go at the bottom.)
 * Agree with Adrian, and this is reflected in the text beneath the image, that describes what it is. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

External links April 2012
An editor desires to prune the External links section. Currently at issue is the inclusion of these two links: These have been in the External links section of the article for almost 4 years, or more ([May 20, 2008]). In the 4 years since that time, the External Links section has been edited and reverted to include these links multiple times. In fact, the External links section has been remarkable stable throughout the last 4 years. In that time, the only lasting change was the addition of a link to a photo collection from Life magazine. The Life magazine link is, at this point, dead and has been removed.
 * AIDSinfo – HIV/AIDS Treatment Information, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
 * Portal to all Federal HIV/AIDS information – Office of HIV/AIDS Policy

The long stability of the External links section is, in my opinion, a de facto consensus that the 4 links which have been included during that time: constitute what is desired for the section. Given this de facto consensus, I feel we should reach an explicit new consensus prior to removing links which have been in the article for such an extended period of time. Makyen (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS
 * AIDSinfo – HIV/AIDS Treatment Information, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
 * Portal to all Federal HIV/AIDS information – Office of HIV/AIDS Policy
 * Portal to all Federal HIV/AIDS information – Office of HIV/AIDS Policy
 * We are not a collection of external links per WP:MEDMOS and WP:ELNO. These links are best added to DMOZ and a link to that site left here. This site is very US centric http://www.aids.gov/ It discusses what resources are available in the United States. We do not give the same info for the other 200 plus countries in the world. Thus there is an issue of WP:DUE.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My examination of this article was rather surprising, because there is little to no mention of the AIDS epidemic in countries outside of the United States, and it is well known that AIDS is a global issue. I think there should be more attention given towards incorporating world statistics, and perhaps limit United States statistics to an area specifically titled "AIDS in America" or something of the like. Any thoughts? Cgayhea (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Cgayhea
 * It is mostly global status were they are available. We have a whole subpage for country level data Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Very very misleading, and possibly life-threatening, table
Not having read everything, I noticed the table "Estimated per act risk for acquisition of HIV by exposure route" is very very misleading as these are from a report (reference 83) about (an) antiretroviral therapy, and not at all the actual, nor anyhow studied, likelihood/probability of transmission as it may be appearing to many. Please delete (if not kept to promote such for up to 72 hours after exposure in the U.S. in which case please change description to make it more obvious) to possibly save lives. Cheers. -DaLe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.154.114 (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that the table does need updating to better references. I will try to do this when I have time. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the references seem weird too. What I was on about mainly is that even tho it says on the left to it "The majority of HIV infections are acquired through unprotected sexual relations between partners, one of whom has HIV. The primary mode (assumedly in total of numbers) of HIV infection worldwide is through sexual contact between members of the opposite sex.[92][93][94]" the table itself wrongfully looks as if it were about risk of infection for each exposure route as if chance for infection by HIV to e.g. female by unprotected receptive penile-vaginal intercourse would occur only in one of thousand cases of sleeping with HIV infected male/s.
 * While I am apparently wrong on the origin of the table (having read the part where table 1 is referenced in reference 83), meaning that I thought that it is about "fall/miss rate" of nPEP (apparently started within 72 hours after exposure), as in that the one in thousand mentioned refers to in how many cases nPEP failed, it seems as a very low estimated chance of infection anyhow. E.g. study of reference 87 actually talks about 12% - 20% transmission rate in stable couples (apparently counting also those who used condoms, so the transmission rate of that study is apparently higher, and that is not counting higher transmission rate in other circumstances). So my point being that (estimated) one in two to four chance of infection (as shown in study of reference 87) is surely hugely different than one in thousand, and therefore the table is very misleading, besides the overall issue of possibly putting wrong ideas about 'safest (in terms of estimated transmission rate) unprotected' sex with HIV infected even with more real estimated rates in that table here on wiki. IMO, it seems from what I read through that studies or numbers from studies were mixed up, and so or so, the referenced studies are about 20 years old.
 * And so or so, the point is that I seriously doubt that estimated chance of infection for each of most exposure routes mentioned is as low as presented. DaLe82 (talk)
 * The table is for a single episode of sex while the numbers you quote are for many years of sexual relations. I think this may explain some of the difference. I will get to updating this eventually.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Have found another ref here http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=IK-ga9MoFQwC&pg=PA9&dq=Estimated+per+act+risk+for+acquisition+of+HIV+by+exposure+route&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PjW8T4zwMKTimAWCttA1&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Estimated%20per%20act%20risk%20for%20acquisition%20of%20HIV%20by%20exposure%20route&f=false
 * On looking into things further though the MMWR ref is both a secondary source and a reliable one http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5402a1.htm#fig1 Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but apparently from the study, taking the total amount of sex acts all the studied couples had, and dividing it by the amount of HIV transmissions doesn't really seem scientific. I am not saying that contaminated blood transfusions and needle share (and pregnancy) have not high HIV transmission rates with HIV exposure. I just don't think that the 20-years old study is top notch (particularly regarding the known circumstances of the subjects - particularly of when the actual acquisition of HIV to the HIV partners occured), even if the numbers in the table are realistic (for couples) I don't think that there are anywhere as close as to cases of rape (with possible transmission any way; genital infection or not; and arguably size having a signicant role too), and I think that of the estimated 2,7 million new cases of HIV infections every year many were transmitted by consensual sex without the then infected person having slept with overestimated hundreds of persons (or similarly e.g. having had hundreds of sex acts - with infected) in a year. Tho true that I don't know the state and health of the humanity's vulvas, vaginas, anuses, mouths, and penises, which are arguably when in 'worse' condition raising risk of transmission any way. So or so, so-called developed country or not, regardless of accuracy of provided info by test subjects, regardless of accuracy of used tests, and regardless of possible mutations the in the table presented rates are not representative of all circumstancial types of sex - which obviously is also difficult to anyhow study exactly without endangering any subject, tho if needed, put me (likely HIV negative as no blood transfusion, no needle use (except in medical facilities by medical staff), and two sexual partners in my life) with one hundred HIV infected women over the course of a few months having sex with them, and let's see if I'll be HIV positive. Anyhow, ending my tirade, thank you for looking into it. And I understand the sensitivity of the issue to those it concerns directly, which is why I am not mad for me and girls having been "called to caution" at youngish age, which is similar to (other) STDs, and pregnancy, and "love and sex" being a topic itself. So or so, (kind of) presenting a factually under-estimate could actually worsen the amount of sexually HIV infected each year and could technically (assuming many look at this article and rumour around) contribute to HIV being wrongly considered a "junkies, and blood recipients" infection only. I do agree though with the premise that act of sex with an HIV infected person without ('successful') transmission does not mean it would not be without infection at the next act, etc. DaLe82 (talk)

There have been several past conversations about this table. See Talk:HIV/Archive_6 and Jimbo's talk; I think there's been a more recent conversation somewhere, too. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you linking it. After now having read it, I largely agree with Phoenix of9. U.S. published or not, the data of the source seem to be somewhat inconclusive, and as mentioned, is derived from sex by long-termish couples. DaLe82 (talk)
 * The CDC though it was fine in 2005. It is hard to study behavior but I frequently use these number when I have people who come in after a needle stick or being raped. Many people have a misconception that the risks are very high when in fact they are not. If you have better data / more recent studies would be happy to consider updating the table in question. I think most people would consider a 1:1000 chance of something really bad still to high. Anyway will look for better data when I have time.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For many 1:1000 chance is very low (in my opinion). No, I don't have better data (tho I didn't properly read the study in the first place due to time and internet limitations). If you can confirm that the persons after needle stick and rape victims were exposed to a HIV source and were not infected themselves, or only very rarely, then it would "validate" the mentioned rates, albeit as mentioned, I think that in case of rape the transmission rates would be higher any way (that is also from the raped to the rapist) due to increased risk of possible (minor) injury. I understand tho that a rape victim usually has trauma and that it can take in case of nearly everyone up to three months to be able to be sure by test whether positive or negative. And with the status of the rapist being unknown, usually the worse case scenario is assumed I think, so your approach is certainly reasonable and honorable. Tho, as mentioned, to many these numbers as they are presented here possibly can unfortunately 'contribute' to risky behaviour, besides the issue of accuracy of these numbers with various circumstances. And yes, I understand tho that stressing the point of that rape (can) have a higher transmission rate could be more of freaking out rape victims, as well regarding stressing that there are many cases of one-/first-time transmission. Albeit I would argue that victims of rape (which obviously shouldn't be in the first place, and when then the persecutor should be caught and punished) should focus rather on personal counsel than on internet site/s and discussion/s thereon. Surely more complex, as in my view regulated (with health checks) prostitution should be allowed (with not only hope to bring many on the/a proper path), which surely is also a bit complex as many "sex workers" are probably not in it voluntarily, and structuring everything or many things as to "accomodate" (mildly expressed) sexual 'deviants' surely is 'ridiculous'.
 * e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2713013.stm
 * http://www.teengrowth.com/index.cfm?action=info_advice&ID_Advice=2309
 * http://aids.about.com/od/hivaidsstats/f/infectionrisk.htm DaLe82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC).
 * Okay have updated to the most recent evidence to a 2010 review article. The numbers did not change significantly.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Map of epidemiology needs updating
Here is data from 2009 http://www.unaids.org/documents/20101123_2010_hiv_prevalence_map_em.pdf Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone know when AIDS was first declared epidemic by the UN/WHO?
There is this ref from 1988 http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r015.htm Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge of HIV and AIDS article into a single article called HIV/AIDS
Yes I know this has been brought up before however:

1) Many of the section in both article are nearly the same including sections on: treatment, epidemiology, history, and prognosis among others. Many sections would combine easily such as sign and symptoms and diagnosis. We could than create subpages for those sections that have gotten too large as has been done with Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS and similar to what is done on other large topics such as schizophrenia or obesity.

2) WHO refers to them as HIV/AIDS here http://www.who.int/hiv/en/ and does so in many places as does UNAIDS in their 2011 report

3) The red ribbon signifies both.

4) Anyway am working on improving this subject area as part of the translation project. Both articles are going to need updating before there are ready to translate. And IMO it would be nicer to have a single article. Doc James  (talk · contribs ·email) 12:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please comment over here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Move AIDS to HIV/AIDS
HIV/AIDS already redirects to this page. As it makes the most sense to discuss the entire spectrum of diseases together I propose we move this page to that term. This is how both the WHO and UNAIDS in their 2011 report discuss this topic. Also the ICD10 criteria outline things in a similar manner -- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems it is a subpage now. --93.73.19.163 (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in AIDS
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of AIDS's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "cdc2": From HIV:  From Gay-related immune deficiency:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Reviews for update
-- Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 10:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 2010 WHO book http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/arv/adult2010/en/index.html
 * 2010 WHO book http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/arv/adult2010/en/index.html
 * 2010 WHO book http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/arv/adult2010/en/index.html
 * 2010 WHO book http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/arv/adult2010/en/index.html
 * Chapter 121 Mandell. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Cross-reference to poor article
Just a note to say that both this article and HIV have a cross reference at the head of their "prevention" sections: "Main article: Prevention of HIV/AIDS". Unfortunately, that article is pretty much rubbish, and worse than the "prevention" section here. At the very least, we should consider copying and pasting the entire prevention section as currently written across to "Prevention of HIV/AIDS" as its first section, to at least make that article respectable. But we should also consider dropping the hatnote, as the article in question certainly is not a "main article" in comparison to the material already here. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes feel free to copy that section over and make it the lead. Was planning on doing it eventually. It will than be the main. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate ref names
There are two citations named "Prevention 2012"; only one of these two articles will appear in the bibliography; the second one will be masked.





--Dianna (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks for catching that. I have fixed it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 01:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Media
There was a section called "notable people" which listed United States people who had HIV. I inserted a link to an article Media portrayal of HIV/AIDS which has a more global perspective, put that in a media section, and deleted the notable cases section. I feel that this internationalizes the article. I also deleted the link to List of HIV-positive people, which is useful and may belong somewhere but I was not sure that it belonged either in notable cases or in a media section. It is in the media article. Thoughts?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   16:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes definitely improvements. These are the sections I like writing least thus many thanks. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 23:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Aids in simplified terms
For years we've heard Aids and HIV is caused by anal sex. ...well, then isnt AIDs an aggravated condition caused by disentary? 74.166.156.250 (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No idea what you mean but it looks like the answer is no. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 05:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Rename to HIV or AIDS
HIV/AIDS is not a good article title for the Wikipedia. Wikipedia assumes that character '/' is for dividing subpages and only knows that AIDS is a subpage of HIV. It will breaks many tools based on that assumption. It would better renaming to either HIV or AIDS. Or other name like HIV and AIDS. &mdash; HenryLi (Talk) 19:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What tool does it break? It seems to work fine as far as I have found. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 19:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias_by_sample_of_articles/Absent_Articles .&mdash; HenryLi (Talk) 20:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 22:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you see the error message on the page? [Errno 2] No such file or directory: u'~en_article_HIV/AIDS.txt. There are some tools based on the assumption that '/' is for subpage. &mdash; HenryLi (Talk) 05:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This article has recently gone through a renaming and rewrite, so it may be premature to start discussing yet another cycle. As for the slash, HIV/AIDS is the most common term in use for HIV infection; as such, it is the correct name for the article. The slash is used in a number of other articles such as Tenofovir/emtricitabine without seeming to cause any problems. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 20:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I never noticed before but HenryLi is right. We have a namespace article called HIV/AIDS but we do not have a talkpage for HIV/AIDS - we have a talk page called AIDS which is a subcategory of HIV. A description of this effect is at WP:NC-SLASH. I support the term "HIV/AIDS" being used as the title of this article based on prior consensus but I would support it being renamed if the current name was preventing someone from accessing this information. Can someone identify and describe the problems this is causing? HenryLi has asserted a problem but I do not understand it or why it matters.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   12:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Difficult words
Please, replace difficult words with easy synonyms, e.g., concomitant with accompanying, as Wikipedia is for everyone.--24.186.223.176 (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree and fixed this one. Would of course love you help. All you need to do is register an account make a few edits and then you can also make changes to this page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 02:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Source reliability question
I'm not convinced about the reliability of source nndb.com - a source of biographies. It appears to me somewhat like Wikipedia, which as we know is not a reliable source. We must be able to get better-quality sources on these cases, but does anyone else have a view? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The content seems accurate and I am sure better refs could be found via google books. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 01:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It should almost certainly be replaced. NNDB is of sporadic quality, and anyone prominent enough to be mentioned here almost certainly has better biographical sources available. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Cured/Not cured?
What's the story with this person who claimed to be cured? 76.73.210.228 (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is covered in the article under "Stem cell transplantation". hamiltonstone (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah! Yes, thanks. Missed that. 76.73.210.228 (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am at the International AIDS Conference right now and I have some details about this guy. A friend has pictures - I missed catching him for pictures myself, but I plan on adding information about him.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   17:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but take care on issues of undue weight. We already have some stuff on this, and need to keep the article focussed. :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ref
Unable to find one for this statement "The media in different places at different times has portrayed HIV/AIDS in different ways. A trend in societal awareness of HIV/AIDS is that the media everywhere has tended to be shy about presenting it initially and that key events or people tend to cause widespread discussion about the disease in various populations." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Disease classification system query
At the end of the passage on the CDC staging system, sits the following sentence: "The AIDS diagnosis still stands even if, after treatment, the CD4+ T cell count rises to above 200 per µL of blood or other AIDS-defining illnesses are cured. " Can anyone check whether this sentence is meant to refer specifically to the CDC classification, and not to the disease in some broader sense? hamiltonstone (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, this is clearly stated in CDC guidelines : "... once cases are classified in a more severe surveillance stage, they cannot be reclassified into a less severe surveillance stage." I haven't been able to spot an equivalent statement in the WHO guidelines . So, without access to the cited book, I'd guess it refers to CDC surveillance criteria. —Misty MORN 14:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Misty. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Image of David Kirby
Anyone here with experience doing a fair use rationale for pictures? An image of Kirby would be great for the article. Biosthmors (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt we could get fair use. Maybe someone could contact his family and ask if they have images they are willing to release into the CC? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Or maybe something like this as pictured here. Biosthmors (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Bodily Fluids
The bodily fluids sections ought to include more than just blood. In particular, the fact that oral fluid can contain HIV is generally unknown, since saliva is generally HIV-free. And in either this section or the one covering sexual transmission, pre-seminal fluid, vaginal fluid, and semen should be mentioned even if most people could piece this together from male-to-female/female-to-male acts, etc. The may still not realize pre-seminal fluid can have HIV. Likewise, the implication is that breastmilk can carry the virus in the breastfeeding section, but it wouldn't hurt if that was made explicit as well. Possible source for oral fluid: http://vetmed.iastate.edu/vdpam/disease-topics/oral-fluids; the others mentioned: http://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/prevention/reduce-your-risk/fluids-of-transmission/. I'd like for people to be as well informed about means of HIV transmission as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.135.44 (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those suggestions. Agree on making the link to breast milk explicit, since the WP version could have been construed as meaning only, eg, blood contamination associated with breastfeeding (cracked nipples etc). I have made that change. I think the sexual tranmission issue is probably adequately covered, so I haven't made a change on that, but other editors may have a different view. On oral fluid: this is not supported by the AIDS.gov site, and the Iowa State page isn't talking about transmission by oral fluids, it is talking about them as a vehicle for testing (not at all the same thing). So that should not be added, in my view. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Epidemiology
In this sections AIDS was referred to as pandemic attributing it to WHO, but i found that article was not official publication of WHO. On the WHO website in FactsheetAIDS is referred as epidemic. I also found that on the recent Progress report 2011: Global HIV/AIDS responsethey are referring AIDS as epidemic and nowhere as pandemic. Considering this, i have changed it in the main text. deep (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The terms do not conflict; I think different sources in different contexts will say that it is both epidemic and pandemic.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   10:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, pandemics are a subset of all epidemics, and HIV/AIDS certainly fits the epidemiological definition of pandemic as "An epidemic occurring worldwide or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries, and usually affecting a large number of people.". At the same time, I notice that the WHO, whether intentionally or not, seems to be using the phrase "HIV/AIDS pandemic" somewhat less frequently in recent years (particularly after around 2004 ). —MistyMorn (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) Agree - pandemic is a subset of epidemic - and multiple sources currently cited in the article use "pandemic" (just search the page itself for occurrences). That said, if the WHO uses the term "epidemic" to the exclusion of "pandemic", it seems proper for WP to follow suit. Almost didn't post this comment due to the higher quality of MistyMorn's reply, but I am amused by how thoroughly we agree.  -- Scray (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL! —MistyMorn (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to note that the prior source is the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, which is a "monthly public health journal published by the World Health Organization"...this is in direct contradiction to your first sentence, Deepak9856.
 * Source:
 * &mdash; Scientizzle 14:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * More info: the WHO doesn't use "epidemic" to the exclusion of "pandemic", often it uses them almost interchangeably. Examples inlcude, . There are a number of publications by national & international health organizations, and many journal publications, that use one or both pandemic & epidemic. Since the terms are highly related, but "pandemic" gives slightly more information (about the global status of the epidemic), I'd prefer to use that term. However, I am perfectly happy with removing WHO attribution to the use of the term since it does appear that they may be moving away from using that term with HIV/AIDS. &mdash; Scientizzle 14:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. (At a guess, the WHO may be wary of diluting attention away from the huge national and regional epidemics.) —MistyMorn (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright. I was wrong to say that the Bulletin of WHO is not official publication of WHO. But as with any publication they have a disclaimer. Also the article has become quite old(published in 2000). I think we need a recent source to keep this article updated. deep (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the mention of the WHO and referenced with a recent review of HIV-1 . —MistyMorn (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

In this section there is a typo "centres for disease..." Should be the American spelling since it's an American agency.108.102.28.115 (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. ✅ - thanks for the suggestion.  -- Scray (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Female genital mutilation

 * Article content being discussed: "Women who have undergone female genital cutting have an increased risk of HIV. "

"Women who have undergone female genital cutting have an increased risk of HIV"
 * The quoted source does not give any references for this. Hypothetical mechanisms have been proposed by which it could lead to a greater risk of infection. But little actual research seems to have been done. Looking for studies turns up Rebecca Y. Stallings and Emilian Karugendo Female Circumcision and HIV Infection in Tanzania: for Better or for Worse?. Its conclusion:
 * The surprising and perplexing significant inverse association between reported female circumcision and HIV seropositivity remained highly statistically significant in the final logistic regression model, despite the presence of other significant potential confounders, namely, geographic zone, household wealth index, woman ́s age, lifetime sex partners, and current/past union status. 
 * Is there clear scientific proof available or is wikipedia giving priority to human rights over scientific fact? Ssscienccce (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if there is an issue, it wouldn't be anything to do with a relationship between human rights and scientific fact, it would be an incorrect and uncited sentence in the WP article. However, there isn't a problem here. The WP article text is based on a statement in a peer-reviewed reliable source, Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, of relatively recent date (2008). In contrast, the item you cite is, as far as I can tell, an unrefereed powerpoint presentation which makes a meta-analysis of three studies, all of them older than the 2008 source on which the WP article is based. On these grounds alone, the WP article is sound. If you are expressing doubt about a refereed journal article, we would need a good reason to be querying merely the fact that the source itself doesn't cite a source. There are such situations, but this does not look to be one. Which brings me to the second point. You don't quote the second very important conclusion from that powerpoint slide: it says "As no biological mechanism seems plausible, we conclude that it is due to irreducible confounding". In other words, while these two statisticians (neither of them apparently medical researchers) have found an interesting result, which they say warrants further research, even they conclude that it is probably an artifact of other issues, not a reflection of an underlying epidemiological reality. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (Am J Reprod Immunol 2013) suggests that the evidence base isn't good enough to make any claim of association between FGC and HIV, so I have removed the information from the article for now. We probably ought into look this some more. NW ( Talk ) 16:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Wording
I accidentally missed my second edit summary, so just clarifying: the source doesn't compare two ways of transmission (saying that the heterosexual contacts account "for more cases than same-sex contacts globally"), it just says: "Worldwide, heterosexual contact is the most common mode of HIV-1 transmission." (full stop). Brandmeistertalk  18:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Patent
I am new here so please help me along. I was wondering if we are able to reference a U.S. patent related to AIDS? The patent can be accessed and viewed by anyone. If so, i believe it will be a great contribution to this artical/topic. Smokinintexas (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be hard to imagine a situation in which a patent would be germane to a scientific discussion. A patent is an exclusive right given by law for a given invention, but it is not evidence that that invention actually works. A patent might be useful to reference in a discussion of intellectual rights, but not useful to reference in an attempt to verify scientific claims made in a patent. For verification of scientific fact, what you want is a controlled study published in a refereed journal of high quality. This article on evaluating sources for use in Wikipedia may be of interest. - Nunh-huh 17:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Discovered a new cure for AIDS?
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Scientists from the Institute of Medical Research in Australia's Queensland state that have come to the astonishing discovery that could be the basis for the treatment of HIV. Gene therapy were able to change a single protein in the HIV so that it no longer helps the multiplication and spread of the virus, but its destruction. Revolutionary breakthrough is that this is the first cure for AIDS, which uses only one substance that is efficient enough to stop the virus at different stages of development. Leader of the research team Dr. David Harrich according to the Croatian daily 24 hours said that the drug "will not prevent infection, but treatment can help." This year, start testing on animals, and in humans in about five years. 78.2.122.225 (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Seeing where this was mentioned...here...it's a no-go for adding it to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Commercial sex transmission risk: study misquoted
The article reads "In settings involving commercial sex worldwide, risk of female-to-male transmission has been estimated as 2.4% per act and male-to-female transmission as 0.08% per act". But I think the cited source estimates this risk only for low-income countries (in Table 1, "CSE only") and also gives a different figure for male-to-female transmission risk, 0·051% per act.

Therefore I want to rephrase this sentence as follows: "In settings involving commercial sex in low-income countries, risk of female-to-male transmission has been estimated as 2.4% per act and male-to-female transmission as 0.05% per act" RPgzLp (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree it is 0.05% made and error. Fixed  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Mississippi case
Here's what I put in, if it's helpful until it's covered by a reliable source........-- occono (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

A baby born in Mississippi in 2013 was reported to have been cured of HIV, in that a cocktail of drugs resulted in remission without the need for further treatment, the HIV having ceased to replicate.


 * Thanks. We already discuss how some people appear resistant under clinical latency "those who also maintain a low or undetectable viral load without anti-retroviral treatment are known as "elite controllers" or "elite suppressors"." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Would it belong under Media portrayal of HIV/AIDS then?-- occono (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * On the subpage maybe. Typically here one would want a source commenting on these new articles and putting them in perspective. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyway check out review from 2010 . "These patients maintain viral loads below the limit of detection of commercial assays for many years and generally do not show any clinical signs of disease progression. The mechanisms responsible for this remarkable control may lead to the design of effective HIV-1 vaccines." This is a very interested phenomena which Wikipedia could definitely cover better.


 * The media is horrible for putting nothing in perspective. Not one of these mention "elite controllers" except for a reader of the guardian. This is the more interesting story. Why is the media so out to lunch... sigh Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Occurs in 1 in 300 HIV infected person  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This review comments on undetectable virus and normal CD4 with no treatment > 10 years  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this reliable? If not, should I put the media articles under a section called "Reports of cures" in the media portrayal article?-- occono (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reliable for media portrayal article yes. We prefer review article per WP:MEDRS typically. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood. I did think "reported" was sufficient to clarify it wasn't cited to a medical journal, but I didn't know the policy. I made the "Reports of cures" section on the media article.-- occono (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reading the NIH report carefully, it looks as if the infant has not been cured: "Using ultrasensitive viral RNA and DNA tests, the researchers found extremely low viral levels." I'd tend to agree with Doc James that expert perspective on this case is required. It might well be a different phenomenon from "elite controllers" given the very early start of treatment (not usual in adults except with needlestick transmission) and the differences between adult & infant immune systems, but an expert perspective would be needed to put it into context. I'd say if any of the medical journals this week discusses it in an editorial or similar that would be sufficiently reliable, but the HIV management article might be a better place to note it than here. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly so why is the child deemed cured by the press? This reinforces more why the popular press cannot be used for anything of consequence. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would not judge too harshly - the term "functional cure" is being used by most sources, and seems applicable.  Perhaps it should be explained more clearly, but it's very familiar to people in the HIV field.  -- Scray (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How about the WSJ "Baby Cured of HIV for the First Time" The boring fact that it is just a functional cure is not mentioned until the last line. Or the fact that many "functional cures" have been well documented.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The presentation abstract has some details, also this discussion in Science News provides a little bit more detail than many of the general news articles. Dragons flight (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to see a review article on the subject put the case into proper context before we add this. We do not consider oral abstracts reliable. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

A good commentary on this case and news sources generally  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded the original MMWR piece.. but...
I've placed a copy of the original MMWR cover story from 1981 over at: File:Mmwr-aids-first-report-101.png I'm tempted to add this image to the wikipedia page here but figured I'd ask first. Thanks wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh? Why ask? You found a nice copy, it is public domain, it is a document of great historical significance and of some fame, and its addition greatly improves the article. Of course you should have added it! I added it for you you. In the future, feel free to WP:Be bold if you like or if not, then it is quite all right for you to post on the talk page as you did this time. Thanks a lot for sharing this - your finding this was a really good call.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   15:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's actually from my own collection - I had an MMWR subscription Back Then. I've also uploaded the rest of the article (see next paragraph) so feel free to link them if there's a way to point to all four pages:
 * File:Mmwr-aids-first-report-101.png
 * File:Mmwr-aids-first-report-102.png
 * File:Mmwr-aids-first-report-103.png
 * File:Mmwr-aids-first-report-104.png
 * wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I do not know so much about Wikisource, but probably these files should be combined then connected to that project somehow. I really like showing the originally printed text of the front page in this article, but you are right, this should connect to the entire document. I do not immediately know how to do this and do not have time to learn just now, but at least you are sharing it here. Maybe someone else can pick it up.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   17:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That was not the first report. This other report of PCP in LA was a month earlier. And here is a statement by CDC in 2001 that the link I provide was the first report.  Our Timeline of AIDS has more detail for those interested. -- Scray (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe better on the subpage? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The files are redlinks above because they have been moved to more accurate names, i.e. File:Mmwr-aids-July1981-report-101.png etc. -- Scray (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Make a featured article
This article can be FA very easily, it just needs to some minor copyedit changes and modifying per MoS. The content is complete enough to be FA. Who can contribute to make it FA? Thanks in advance ● Mehran Debate● 05:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I wish it would be so easy. From the biotech side, the article is lacking in the research section. HIV/AIDS needs to be rewritten with new content. From the cultural side, there needs to be a section on the response to AIDS in at least a few regions of the world. I am not sure what to do with the HIV/AIDS section, but in addition to geography, I think it should say something about epidemiological variations by gender, sexual orientation, social class, and age. Finally, the non-text media in this article could be improved, perhaps by adding content from Commons:Category:HIV. Thoughts?  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   18:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You should put a link to where you copied it from, in the history it looks like you're impersonating another user. Here is where this was originally posted.-- occono (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I should have done that, I knew better, and I resolve to not do it incorrectly again. In response to the OP, I developed this article somewhat by forking the section on research into HIV/AIDS research and then filling out that article.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   22:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the new content, I think the article's content is passable in FA. IMO the sections you stated has enough information for HIV/AIDS article (itself) and we can see the "Main article" page in every section in order to read more information. We should also watch the size of the page which is 136KB now and it will become larger and larger if we want to expand the sections more than now. Isn't it better to leave the content alone and do the other tasks like copyediting? ● Mehran Debate● 07:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding article size - WP:LENGTH has instructions for calculating this, and by the recommended tool there, this article is 88k. 100k is when an article "almost certainly should be divided", so this article is full but not overfull. Does anyone else have opinions about this article? After copyediting, would it be worth making at attempt at getting review for WP:FA for this article?  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   13:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, so there is 12KB left. I'll ask the main writer of the article (Doc James) to come here and express his opinion. Thanks for your participation in this discussion and I hope the article could be FA soon. ● Mehran Debate● 14:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * While I am happy to help as this is indeed an exceedingly important topic the last bit of work to bring an article from really good to great is significant. If there is a group who wishes to push forwards with this I will definitely lend my support. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Mehran, at the top of this article is a list of "milestones" tracking progress in developing this article. This article used to be a featured article, but was demoted for these reasons, and when this article was given good status, there were still identified problems. I got these links from the milestones. Although this article has a lot of content I agree with James that the article still has problems described in those links and ought not be reviewed until those are addressed. There are at least 10 big problems which will require research and time to fix. I still want to support you in getting this article more ready for translation, though. What are your thoughts? How important is it to you that this article get to FA?  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   13:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to inform the specialist users of this field to help promote the article if they can. Unfortunately I can not help solve the problems myself, but I would be happy if I can do the other task like finding another helpers or whatever you need. ● Mehran Debate● 03:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Homossexuality and Aids?
clearly someone is trying to avoid this subject since a lot of studies claim that this social group are the one with the hightest percentage among the infected(Thepalerider2012 (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC))
 * The article points out that most HIV transmission is through heterosexual sexual contact. It does also indicate that the epidemiology varies from country to country and that in the USA most transmission is through men who have sex with men (which includes, but is not confined to, homosexual men). In the history section is explains how the disease was first detected amongst a group of people including injecting drug users and homosexual men. The article explains how at one point the disease was referred to as gay-related immune deficiency, a name abandoned once it was established that it wasn't gay-related. The subject of homosexuality is also covered in the section on stigma. Given all the above, where does your concern lie? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"The article points out that most HIV transmission is through heterosexual sexual contact. "

sure sherlock, in general heterossexuals are more infected because there are more heterossexuals , a plenty more. But according most of studies in America at least 60 - 70% of the gay men are infected and i dont see this being mentioned. ¬¬(Thepalerider2012 (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC))


 * Correction -> 50% of the total of people infected in the Unites States are gay men. The other 50% include heterosexual men, women and lesbians.
 * NOT -> 50% of gay men are infected with HIV. Teammm  $talk email$ 20:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

'''"The subject of homosexuality is also covered in the section on stigma." '''

which shows that this is a biased article. While serveral studies point that gays are the most infected, this section stigma says that is common to associated AIDS with gays for no reason whatsoever but only hate. ¬¬(Thepalerider2012 (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC))


 * You've clearly misunderstood your source, as the figure you give for 60-70% prevalence of HIV infection in American gay men is absurd. A study in JAMA (JAMA. 2000;284(2):198-204. doi:10.1001/jama.284.2.198) put the prevalence at 7.2% for the years 1994-1998 in high-risk areas such as San Francisco and New York.  The reason the article doesn't mention that 60-70% of American gays are infected is because...they're not. - Nunh-huh 17:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "You've clearly misunderstood your source"
 * http://carm.org/statistics-percentage-population-hiv-infected the source cant be more clear than this -http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html .(Thepalerider2012 (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC))
 * You said, But according most of studies in America at least 60 - 70% of the gay men are infected, whereas BOTH of the sources you cited indicate that 61% of new HIV infections [in the USA] occur with gay and bisexual men. As two editors have already pointed out, you still misunderstand those source (which, as you said, could not be more clear). Do you need the difference between these statements to be explained to you in more detail? -- Scray (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As a beginning, Thepalerider2012 may want to consult incidence and prevalence, with particular emphasis on this section. He should probably also reject biased sources (his first, "Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry") and rely on statistics compiled and interpreted by those equipped to do so (his second, the "CDC"). He may also want to keep in mind that the statistics in question are compiled by the CDC via the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System (NHBS), which uses different methodologies for tracking different risk populations (and so the figures are only approximately comparable). For men who have sex with men (MSM), the NHBS interviews young men in metropolitan high risk areas, in venues such as gay bars and dance clubs. As a measure of risk in men who frequent such venues, the figure may be valuable, but it will be higher than the actual figure for gay men in general, including older men and those in rural and suburban settings.  - Nunh-huh 20:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * CDC estimates that MSM account for just 2% of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, but accounted for more than 50% of all new HIV infections annually from 2006 to 2009. In 2010, MSM accounted for 61% of HIV diagnoses. nothing more to say (Thepalerider2012 (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC))
 * You are misunderstanding. These studies do not sat 60+% of MSM are infected. It states that MSM accounted for 61% of diagnoses in that year, specifically. Nowhere does it say 60% of ALL gay men are infected. It says 53% of HIV cases are MSM, but this does not at all say that 60% of gay men are infected. Reading comprehension is important, friend. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is about HIV/AIDS, not HIV/AIDS in the United States. As a global pandemic, it is overwhelmingly a heterosexual disease: according to the World Health Organization, ten percent of all people infected with HIV are children under the age of 15, and slightly more than half of the adults with HIV are women. Slightly more than two thirds of all people with HIV live in Africa, mainly in the south and east; in some of those countries -- South Africa, Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana -- at least 15% of the population carry the virus. Please keep this global scope in mind when proposing edits to this article. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 20:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

a better source for future editions: http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/ please keep it in mind when proposing non editions ;)(Thepalerider2012 (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC))


 * As well as http://www.amfar.org/about_hiv_and_aids/facts_and_stats/statistics__worldwide and http://www.who.int/hiv/en, just for starters. Again, this article is not about HIV/AIDS in just the United States. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 04:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Article title
Why is this article called "HIV/AIDS"? Wouldn't it be simpler just to call it "AIDS"? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The current title reflects reliable sources on the subject, as discussed in sections above, and that's our first consideration. By way of explanation, prior to developing AIDS people can have other manifestations of HIV infection, and many are treated. Thus, neither "HIV" nor "AIDS" fully captures the spectrum of "HIV/AIDS". -- Scray (talk) 08:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Overwhelmingly, people refer to "AIDS" simply as "AIDS". I'm aware that the literature does sometimes use the term "HIV/AIDS", but I have personally never heard anyone use that expression in verbal discussion. I don't see any advantage to the current title. I don't think the fact that HIV has other harmful effects aside from full-blown AIDS is relevant. By the way, I note that the article sometimes uses "HIV/AIDS" and sometimes simply "AIDS". Maybe there's a logic to that, but it's not clear what it's supposed to be. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * AIDS is very specifically defined: HIV infection plus an AIDS-defining condition (i.e. CD4 < 200 cells/mm3 or an AIDS-defining illness). -- Scray (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is currently called HIV/AIDS as this is the technically correct term. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's reasonably well known that a number of different definitions of AIDS have been used, Scray, so your objection is beside the point. As for "HIV/AIDS" being the technically correct term, whatever is that supposed to mean? Is the term "AIDS" now never supposed to be used? Would a paper that used the term "AIDS" be refused publication, for not being correct? There appears to be no good reason of any kind for having the article at "HIV/AIDS" instead of AIDS. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * AIDS is still an okay tern if that is what you are talking about. This article is not just about AIDS, it discusses all HIV infections, thus AIDS is too narrow of a term for this article. The article HIV is about the virus itself. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * FreeKnowledgeCreator, see Talk:HIV/Archive 6 for how this article became titled HIV/AIDS while the HIV article still exists independently. Though the HIV and AIDS articles were not merged, the titles were, and the content discusses the aspects together instead of separately; therefore, the result is still the same result that people argued against in the aforementioned discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That was a merge proposal. The articles were never merged, just the name of this one changed from AIDS to HIV/AIDS per the majority of the reliable sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * James, I made clear above that the proposal was to merge the articles. However, as seen in that discussion, the result of merging the titles, and the article discussing the aspects together instead of separately, is still what most people in that discussion were against. Flyer22 (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, the titles being combined was the main concern in that discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We discuss the disease (HIV/AIDS) in one article, and the virus (HIV) in the other. Was proposed here no one really commented though.  I would not say the main concern was the titles being combined but the content. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, I already made it clear above about how the articles are separated. And, yes, I already know of that other proposal. As for the main concern in the discussion I linked to above, the main concern was actually conflating the virus with the disease; the discussion shows disagreement about the term HIV being used to refer to the disease aspect. The conflation concern was about the titles and content being combined, obviously. The title was the main point discussed, and, from what I see, was more of a concern than the content being combined...considering that, as you even noted in that discussion, the content was already significantly combined. When people come to this article, they are going to see the title before they see the content. That's why the existing overlap had to be pointed out. So, yes, it is quite clear to me that the main concern in that discussion was having the article titled HIV/AIDS. Flyer22 (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And considering that a very similar discussion was already going on at that time, I'm not surprised by the lack of response to your second proposal. Flyer22 (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

DocJames, you wrote, "This article is not just about AIDS, it discusses all HIV infections, thus AIDS is too narrow of a term for this article." Would you like to explain why Wikipedia should not have an article specifically about AIDS? It certainly seems like a notable subject. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is recognized as a high-quality article (see above) and covers the clinical conditions associated with HIV infection, with a title that reflects reliable sources on this subject. That in itself is adequate justification for having this article, named this way. The exact position of the line drawn between HIV infection in general and AIDS in particular is somewhat arbitrary, so splitting HIV infection from AIDS would be quite difficult, with a lot of overlap. If you think it's really important, please consider creating an "AIDS" article in your WP:userspace and then ask editors here and elsewhere to take a look and see if they think it merits moving to article space. I predict that won't be a very rewarding exercise, because I don't think the split is a good idea, but I would rather you tried to make a specific proposal rather than repeating the same questions over and over. I think I'm done with this discussion because it's going nowhere. -- Scray (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We have a section of the signs and symptoms that deals with AIDS and a section of the subpage signs and symptoms of HIV/AIDS that does the same. Could that be expanded into an entirely new article? IMO it would be difficult for that not to be a co tract. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Rather than expanding other articles, perhaps just calling this article AIDS and other HIV-related disease with redirects from AIDS and HIV-related disease and HIV related disease would be an improvment? - Nunh-huh 18:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I did not think of that - it's an excellent suggestion. If this is done, those redirects should (as a matter of course, I know) include the current title, since it is supported by reliable sources. -- Scray (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

At this stage, I wouldn't be in favor of simply renaming this article "AIDS". AIDS is, however, obviously an extremely notable subject, and of course Wikipedia should have an article about it. If the discussion is going nowhere, that's simply because no one has made a credible counter-argument. Overlap between AIDS and other subjects isn't a real objection against AIDS having its own article - plenty of subjects overlap with other subjects, but Wikipedia manages to have articles about them anyway. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not know if this is helpful, but treatment staff in Australian hospitals have publicly stated that they rarely use the term "AIDS" anymore due to the success of treatment in that country. Due to medical progress, people just aren't dying of AIDS anymore in Australia (and probably other first world nations).--Soulparadox (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Should this Article Include a Section for Related Content?
One thing that is rather noticable about this article is that there is not a category for related AIDS topics such as HIV/AIDS_in_the_pornographic_film_industryor [] or even []. Most other articles include related articles, so it seems sensible that this article follow suite. Any thoughts? Cgayhea (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Cgayhea
 * There is a link to HIV in the first sentence. We have a link to media protrayal of HIV which links to list of people with HIV. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Pornography
Have moved this here "According the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health reports that pornography actors are also at risk with 22 HIV cases reported by industry actors between 2004 and 2009 among approximately 1200 performers. See also [|HIV/AIDS in the pornographic film industry]"

We do not link "see also" like this and the ref in question is insufficient. It does not deal with per act risk. Also it is probably of undue weight as worded IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * added a see also on the subpage Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cgayhea, for see alsos, a See also section should be made...per WP:SEE ALSO. However, some editors avoid, or try to avoid, see alsos because it's generally better that any related material be covered in the upper body of the article. Jmh649 prefers not to use see alsos, as recently shown at the Pregnancy article, especially for medical topics...per Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. Personally, I don't mind see alsos, as long as the WP:SEE ALSO guideline is followed, because some things are better left covered in the See also section than higher in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a collection of internal or external links. See also sections typically collection barely related info.
 * Anyway this edit IMO is not appropriate . Why are we highlighting 22 cases of HIV? We already mention that commercial sex work is a risk factor. This is undue weight in this article. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * James, seeing as I am not a newbie, and have great understanding of Wikipideia policies and guidelines, it is not me who you have to tell "Wikipedia is not a collection of internal or external links." I stated, "Personally, I don't mind see alsos, as long as the WP:SEE ALSO guideline is followed, because some things are better left covered in the See also section than higher in the article." And I stand by that statement. Flyer22 (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to mention...see alsos are also often a holding spot for links to be worked into the upper body of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes sorry this is for the person who keeps adding the previous link. I know that you have an excellent understanding of wiki policies. Any thoughts on the highlighting of these 22 cases? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree that the content being added is not needed - it's undue weight given coverage in RS and the fact that we have sex work covered already. Though I'm tempted to revert again, there's no need for an EW over this content in the short term. -- Scray (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree it shouldn't be there per undue weight etc. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * James, I considered that you may be addressing Cgayhea with that line about links. Sorry about the snipey (or snippy) tone I gave there in response to it. As for the matter at hand... Because of formatting issues, the link should not be included in the way that Cgayhea has included it. And it would seem odd having it as a lone See also link. I don't mind if a small bit about the pornography matter is mentioned in the upper body of the article...with appropriate sourcing of course. Cgayhea, James is correct about using a secondary source for this information; see WP:MEDRS. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I also see that James has pointed you to WP:MEDRS on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, thebody.com source that Cgayhea used is a secondary medical source. But it's not a good secondary medical source. Flyer22 (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I would propose replacing it with "Sex workers (including those in pornography) have an increased risk of HIV. " based on these two recent textbooks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with that proposal. Flyer22 (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay made the change. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Units
The section "Classification of HIV infections" uses the units uL and μl. Are they microliters (μL)? Both? Why are they spelled in a different way? And WHO's reference uses mm3. I think this is not very clear.--Miguelferig (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, "ul" is commonly substituted for "µl" by lazy people like me, but the latter is correct. Thanks for pointing this out. I made a few changes. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of functional cures
Although the issue has been raised here several times, the prominent coverage of the two patients of Henrich and Kuritzkes over the last few days (HSC transplants, later taken off ART) introduces it again: should this article address functional cures? An editor recently added a section on the case of Timothy Ray Brown, and while this did not have the appropriate sources, solid MEDRS are available. We also have the children from the Persaud study and other ART treatment studies, all of which have now been covered in secondary MEDRS. The outcomes of the ART studies would be easily integrated into the article in a "best possible outcome" context. However, I would suggest that coverage of HSC transplants, if any, might not be appropriate for the "management" section since it can be considered for so few patients. What do others think? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that the subject of HSC transplants is not appropriate for the Management section and I have therefore moved the "Berlin patient" section so that it sits under Research, as this content is also in the main research page; in fact, the Research heading is clearly the most suitable. Of course, I am open to other suggestions and will happily revise the order of the content in accordance with consensus.--Soulparadox (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree this can be addressed in the Research section, but: (i) "The Berlin patient" is no longer an adequate subheader because it is situational and jargony -- we need a title that is more widely applicable such as "Hematopoietic transplantation" (or just "Transplantation"); (ii) an "Eradication" section would have plenty of support from secondary sources; (iii) a "Functional cure" section -- still under Research -- could be the right place for the 2 recent reports and the one from Persaud, but coverage in MEDRS-compliant sources is still thin because it's so fresh. -- Scray (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is already discussed here on the subpage. Not notable enough to be within the main article IMO at this point.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree - that just needs to be updated. -- Scray (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 July 2013
Interestingly, a recent study by Doitsh G. et al. using fresh human lymphoid culture showed that CD4 T cells are not dying because of a toxic action of products encoded by HIV. Rather, these CD4 T cells are dying as a consequence of a powerful defense response launched against the virus before it can make copies of itself. HIV enters the CD4 T cells that are destined to die and begins to make a DNA copy of its RNA, a process called reverse transcription. However, during this process, incomplete DNA intermediates that accumulate in the cytoplasm are sensed by an unknown mechanism and trigger the cell to ‘commit suicide’ in an attempt to protect the host from spread of the virus: http://www.cell.com/retrieve/pii/S0092867410012456. While this response is likely designed to be protective, HIV subverts and amplifies it so effectively that it becomes a central driver of HIV pathogenesis.

2602:304:787A:37D9:66B9:E8FF:FEB8:6554 (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see . Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't change the template here or on the other page because the request was incomplete (what this text was to replace, or where it was to be inserted) and because others might wish to comment. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 2602, I removed the &lt;ref&gt; tags so your link would be visible as a link; normally, talk pages are not configured to use the tag properly. That said, I am still trying to load the page you referenced. I'll respond more fully once I can access the site. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 13:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This information is too technical for this article. Probably the right place for this information is HIV pathogenesis, which is an article which has not yet been started. Even still, this information probably should be linked from HIV - the article about the virus - and not this article, HIV/AIDS which is about the disease caused by the virus. But right now - this information needs more context to be useful anywhere. This paper may also be a WP:PRIMARY source and need another source for more context.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   13:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't get a chance to check this at home so I still cannot comment on it, but I trust your judgment on this. Note that WP:MEDRS does allow for sparing use of primary sources, basically letting editors to use a study's abstract to note that something has been reported. Anything beyond that requires reliable secondary sources, however. It's a narrow loophole, but it does allow a single sentence and a reference to be added to HIV, if the sentence otherwise fits in to the extant article. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 13:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Many potential mechanisms may contribute to CD4 depletion in HIV infection. This appears to be one more, so mention is reasonable; that said, it should not receive undue weight simply because its primary reference is recent. Anything more than a mention should wait until a review or other highly-reliable secondary source in this intensely-studied and -published topic covers it. -- Scray (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: here or on HIV. There is consensus to thank you for digging this up (thank you), and that it is a valuable and high quality work, but that as a primary source alone it doesn't have sufficient weight to be included. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)