Talk:History of HIV/AIDS

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tbeglarian. Peer reviewers: Vap2020, 1Mehayla.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Section title
The section titled "Alternative hypotheses" should be renamed "Fringe theories" or something of that sort! It contains nothing but AIDS denialism and conspiracy theories, and calling this rubbish "Alternative hypotheses" gives it the impression of legitimacy -- almost as if those were legitimate scientific views held by a minority of scientists that deserve to be considered alongside the mainstream "theory". Really, I don't think it would be much of a loss if this BS was removed altogether. 24.23.197.43 (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The possibility that AIDS is iatrogenic is neither "fringe" nor "conspiracy" science; it is a plausible possibility, and one where the *scientific* debate continues quite vigorously. Up until now, there is as much evidence that AIDS was produced as a direct result of human activity as there is that it evolved zoonotically -- both theories involve a lot of assumptions and leaps of logic, and *neither* has been definitively proven.

The zoonosis argument is more widely promoted for *political* and *legal* reasons (could you imagine the compensation that would be demanded by poorer nations, if Western governments were to announce that their doctors were responsible for inadvertently creating or spreading AIDS?), but the *science* that underlies *either* of those theories is equally circumstantial and inductive.

The assertion that any of this has been conclusively disproven is just a lot of hot air; there is no substantive *scientific* consensus on the question simply because there isn't enough conclusive information to reach one. 118.160.162.38 (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The scientific consensus is that the various HIVs evolved from specific strains of SIV; the debate in the scientific literature is about the utility of different means to time the species jumps, not whether they occurred. The idea that HIV is man-made is a fringe conspiracy theory; it has nothing to do with science. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea that AIDs began in Africa
The idea that AIDS began in Africa is a theory just like any other AIDs origin theroy, yet this article states this as a fact. There are still unexplained factors about this that Science hasnt explained. A neutral articel would say something like 'it is generally believe ..etc..." or even putting the disclaimer. I have tried to add a staement that is more neutral that inlcudes information that is it generally accepted, but to say that it did withour scientifc evidence (not even a reference quote on Wiki is pretty strange) but it seeme like the strong desire to believe thie origin story above all otehrs is overwheming and really makes me question the transfer of knowledge and nuetrality. I understand that eveyone is subject to bias, but does thie articel meet the neutrality requirements for Wikipedia when these statements are written? Historically, the West has always tried to linked all deadly disaeses to Africa. Most research about AIDS begins in Africa, means that if it started somewhere else we will never know. This is problematic becasue it takes the Science out of it and adds in elements of Western scientifc domination. It is not a surprise that in history there are always shifts in popular thought, even in science or theroies that have been disproved. There are no conlcusive studies that reveal that AIDS began in Africa, only theories. These types of articles are part of the problem. There seems to be littel neutrality in the statements that inply AIDs began in Africa. There is not even a citation for thie point. It is really a very Eurocentric "science" that always links all disease to Africa, including sex from sleeping with Monkeys or African eating Monkeys. Its unbelievable that in this century these kind of theories that are centered on preconceived notioin s about African practices still act as the basis for Science. You dont have to go far to speak to an African person and ask them if they hace heard of people sleeping with Monkeys and eating monkeys. -- See: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5450391, http://www.africaspeaks.com/articles/2005/0101.html

MsTingaK (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea that AIDS originated in Africa is the established scientific consensus, as shown by many of the sources in the article. Nothing in the article suggests that it was transmitted to humans sexually, and saying that it originated in Africa is not blaming Africans in any way. Jim Moore, whose credentials I don't know, in the NPR source that you mentioned says "every scenario for the origin of HIV has it taking place during the period of colonial rule in Africa", so he is clearly supporting the consensus that AIDS originated in Africa. Alan Cantwell, the author of the Africa Speaks article, is a dermatologist, so no expert on the spread of viruses. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you may have missed my point. Weather the blame game is being played or not this doesnt change that a popular theory is being passed on as a scientific fact, and I feel that the article should at least acknowledge this so that it can be more scientific or neutral. My point is that, where other theories exist, they should be mentioned. My second point was that the origins of AIDS in Africa remains unsourced in this article someone needs to lay ownership to this theory, particualy the scientist that made this definate conclusion--I am sure people would be hard pressed to find a study that proves without doubt that this is where it begaan which may explains the absence of a source for thie scientific claim that otherscientists are falling blingly behind. With that being said popular and accepted doesnt mean scientific. There was a time when all scientists and the public believed that the earth was flat... and a few believed it wasnt, well we all know how that turned out. Just because eveyone belives it is not good enough. All I was saying was put a disclaimer, mention that there other theories or the like. I am not saying dont say it at all but there are enough counter-claims to this.

Cantwell is a dermatologist ...and....? Im not sure if you are trying to say that only AIDS research scientists may comment or write books about AIDs but this may mean that it would disqualify both me and perhaps yourself (if you are not an AIDS research scientist or Dr that works primarily on AIDS personally envolved in the study) from commenting about it. People tackel aids from different angles economics, social policy, politics, history etc....you cant fully undesrtand a phenomenom using one dicipline. As a dermotolosigts, its is very plausible that he could look at skin leasions and contribute by reporting what he finds in his field as an example. We are living in an interdiciplinary era, and as far as I know dermatologists go through the same medical school as regular doctors, and sit in the same classes as a regular dr. and then specialize in in dermatology. Lastly, here are some other arguments against this theory: http://www.aliveandwell.org/html/africa/related_aids_racism.html for those interested, at minium, in some restoration of neutrality on this topic. My major concern is that sweeping statments like this may prolong the search for a real cure if all efforts are concentrated on one geographic location. I think knowledge and alternative theories should be shared to benefit science for all.

Finally on this topic for me, the world is round and maybe time will tell and an AIDS Columbus is around the corner ... --MsTingaK (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Haiti and AIDS
It seems to me at least that Paul Farmer is of the opinion that AIDS was introduced to Haiti via American sex tourists, rather than to the US from Haiti. Now, Farmer seems like a prominent voice on the issue. I'm no expert, so is there anybody that can chime in on this?  Grsz 11 18:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree; Farmer is authoritative on the topic and cites a number of others who agree with him. I'm going to consider adding text about this if nobody disagrees. LeoTindall (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Heart of Darkness wl
It's only a small point, but I'm mystified by the contention in this reversion that the wikilink positioning in
 * This theory was later dubbed 'Heart of Darkness' by Jim Moore, alluding to the book of the same title written by Joseph Conrad, the main focus of which is colonial abuses in equatorial Africa.

is more misleading than the one in
 * This theory was later dubbed 'Heart of Darkness' by Jim Moore, alluding to the book of the same title written by Joseph Conrad, which main focus is colonial abuses in equatorial Africa.

jnestorius(talk) 09:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Section on conspiracy theories
They are only notable as being fringe beliefs and conspiracy theories. This section should reflect that they are not notable for being possible viable theories, but that they are non-scientific theories notable due to either having a lot of believers or having caused a lot of tragedy. AerobicFox (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The use of the term "Alternative Hypotheses" is incorrect. These theories are not alternative to mainstream scientific ones. They are fringe beliefs only believed in by a small minority, and only significant because of how fringe they are and significant their minority. AerobicFox (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know, "fringe beliefs" is such an unpalatable expression, though. Maybe something more conventional, like "conspiracy theories", "theories not supported by the scientific community", or some such? Sebastian Garth (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the current "discredited theories". Some (but by no means all) such theories were perfectly valid as hypotheses when they were first proposed, but further evidence has discredited them, so that seems to be an accurate heading that describes them all. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the new term also. AerobicFox (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The current sources in this section do not have any information disputing the theory of AIDS as a bioweapon. There is a citation for an article which says "HIV causes AIDS", which is presented as if it is evidence against this theory. But the theory doesn't deny HIV causes AIDS, the theory is that HIV was developed or used as a biowarfare agent. A better source is needed, if there is one.

Additionally, the way the section was structured implied a conflation between AIDS denialism and the theory that AIDS was state-created, and implied that the citations against AIDS denialism also deny the conspiracy theory. They don't, really, as these are two very different claims. The structure and title of the section should change to clarify this. There are ample citations that AIDS denialism is a "discredited" theory, but there is currently no evidence presented that the AIDS as a bioweapon theory is "discredited". Title should change to reflect this unless better evidence is sourced. Wiki1917 (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of sources available that document that this is nonsense. We write in summary style, so many are available in the lower-level articles that discuss the fringe theories and their origins in more detail. I restored the "Discredited hypotheses" section title and provided a couple of the sources. VQuakr (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Male circumcision
This article states unequivocally that male circumcision reduces chance of HIV exposure, despite evidence to the contrary and a large portion of the medical community which believes that male circumcision in fact INCREASES the risk of HIV infection. This is a largely held view, and deserves to also be represented in this article. I am tagging the section in question as having its neutrality disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDiNardo (talk • contribs) 01:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What "large portion of the medical community", based on what reliable sources? Multiple large prospective trials, run concurrently by different groups in different places, demonstrated efficacy.  Secondary sources support the scientific consensus described in that section of this article.  In the absence of similarly strong evidence to the contrary, I'm going to remove the POV template.  -- Scray (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Title of article
The article should be titled "Origin of HIV"

AIDS didn't originate from monkeys, but from the CDC and WHO. AIDS is a dynamic term that encompasses a number of conditions caused by HIV, and a term used to "handle epidemic statistics and define who receives US goverment assistance." (see AIDS defining clinical condition). HIV is the name of the virus which originated from primates, hence the title of the article should be "Origin of HIV" and not "Origin of AIDS." - Meewam (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that I understand the distinction that you are trying to make here. The main point of the definition that you linked to is that a diagnosis of AIDS depends on a patient having certain symptoms caused by HIV, so the major part of any description of the origin of AIDS will consist of the origin of HIV. We could probably do with more content about how HIV causes AIDS in this article, but renaming it to "Origin of HIV" may restrict the article unnecessarily and prevent such content from being added. Another point is that we should not be relying on any US government definition of AIDS. The US certainly doesn't have any monopoly over the definition of a syndrome that is far more prevalent in other parts of the world. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Monopoly or not. It doesn't change the fact that HIV is the name of the virus that originated from primates, and which the article is about. AIDS is immaterial - you can't examine it under a microscope or grow it in a test tube. It's a technical term, defined by the bodies (e.g. CDC and WHO or whoever) who uses it for different purposes (as mentioned in the original post). Talking about the origin of AIDS, as something that came out of Africa to infect the rest of the world, is semantically wrong. You'll find a lot of "HIV causes AIDS" content in the HIV article which has plenty of references to back up that as a fact, but that's not the "mission" of this article. - Meewam (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually large parts of this article go well beyond the origin of HIV, e. g. the sections "Epidemic emergence of HIV-1 and HIV-2" and "History of known cases and spread". These are about how the virus came to cause the syndrome recognised by WHO etc. rather than about where the virus came from. The fact that AIDS can't be examined under a microscope or grown in a test tube doesn't mean that its origin can't be covered in an encyclopedia article, and renaming would mean that we would have to remove much of this article's content. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Meewam. AIDS is a condition caused by HIV, whose origin is described in the article. It must be renamed. B.suhasini (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's an idea: move the article to "Origin of AIDS pandemic", and alter the lead to explain how AIDS is caused by HIV, and therefore, the current AIDS pandemic arose from the spread of HIV across geographic boundaries. Such an article could also be expanded to then discuss the socio-economic and socio-political circumstances that have caused prevalence in the areas most impacted by AIDS (and it's the AIDS that impacts society, since if HIV-positive people never developed AIDS, there would be no pandemic). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfrisk (talk • contribs) 22:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"Origin of the AIDS pandemic" would be quite suitable. --Wieśniakem 23:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wieśniakem (talk • contribs)


 * Semantically correct, but considering such widespread use of the term to describe "the illness itself", the title would ultimately just come off as awkward. Unless there is some major consensus out there that the term is *really* that confusing, we should probably just leave it alone. Sebastian Garth (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion continues below (heading: Requested move) - Meewam (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Genital ulcer diseases and sexual promiscuity
I propose that the section "Genital ulcer diseases and sexual promiscuity" be relabeled to just "Genital ulcer diseases." Promiscuity is a loaded and ambiguous term and the section does not itself seem to claim that "promiscuity" was a significant factor. Wickedjacob (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Origin of AIDS → Origin of HIV – Another editor put a move suggest template on the article page. This is a procedural request, and I myself have no clear opinion on this. relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)  D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  00:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment If whoever put the request in can't be bothered to write a rationale, then I'm not sure we should be bothered to debate it. I suggest closing and deleting the tags. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The movenotice put at the top of the article has a discussion link. Click it or look here for the discussion. Thanks - Meewam (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, I suggest you summarize your comments from there and put them here as a rationale, with a link to the full discussion. It’s no good having a Move Request with a four-month old discussion. And the page link should be to here; the arrangement you’ve set up is plain confusing. Moonraker12 (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * PS I've fixed the link. Moonraker12 (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please direct comments regarding the move procedure to my talk page. Thanks. - Meewam (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Moonraker12 (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Rationale. added from previous discussion
 * "The article should be titled "Origin of HIV"
 * AIDS didn't originate from monkeys, but from the CDC and WHO. AIDS is a dynamic term that encompasses a number of conditions caused by HIV, and a term used to "handle epidemic statistics and define who receives US goverment assistance." (see AIDS defining clinical condition). HIV is the name of the virus which originated from primates, hence the title of the article should be "Origin of HIV" and not "Origin of AIDS." - ( first written by Meewam (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (This was opposed by Phil Bridger, and supported by B.suhasini. An alternative, "Origin of AIDS pandemic", was proposed by Mfrisk. Full discussion is here). Summary added by Moonraker12 (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't move I'll chime in with my opinion now - Firstly, HIV and AIDS are so intertwined that their origins are the same story and can't be separated. The fact that the CDC and WHO have defined AIDS, doesn't make that the origin - after all, after they defined it, doctors looked back at old cases and concluded they were AIDS - no one in their right mind would say Robert Rayford didn't have AIDS because the CDC and WHO hadn't defined it yet. Finally, we can say with nearly 100% certainly that that first person to get HIV later got AIDS and died. The origin of HIV IS the origin of AIDS - since the origin stories are identical, there is no reason for two articles, and no reason to move this one to the less-known name of HIV. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  22:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggest -- Origins of HIV. It is now established that AIDS is caused by infection with HIV, so that this article-title will be more precise.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can't see the point of moving this. But it strikes me that the origin of AIDS and the origin of HIV are separate (though obviously related) subjects. The current page seems to cover both; As the page is already big enough (at 67 KB long) why not split it between the two? It might save a wrangle over which of the two titles is the more deserving. Moonraker12 (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or if one article is considered appropriate, Origin of HIV and AIDS would at least cover both. 109.154.88.186 (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

On David Carr not being an AIDS case
We removed from this article what appeared to be a dangling footnote attached to the statement that David Ho disproved or at least cast dispersions on the notion that David Carr's death in 1959 being caused by AIDS. A casual check of Google isn't very helpful in showing me anything but uncited statements or stuff copied from this article. Would someone who is knowledgeable on this subject please check your bibliography and find out when and where David Ho made his findings public and cite it here? The statement is profound enough to require a good citation. Frotz (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This had a reference to a very detailed article on the subject at Timeline of early AIDS cases, but the reference somehow got lost when it was summarized here. I brought back the reference, where it is clear that Carr did not have AIDS.  D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  19:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This "history" stops at 1981
It's peculiar to me that this article only chronicles the very early origins of HIV/AIDS and doesn't describe its development into a global pandemic. Is there a good reason for this, or should it be expanded to include more information from the 80s, 90s, and beyond? ClaireJV (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, the article tracks through 1986, when the virus was officially named the human immune-deficiency virus. After that, it becomes a matter of epidemiology, the study of how a contagious agent spreads within a population. I agree with the basic sentiment, though, in that there is room to flesh out the material under "Identification of the virus" and gracefully point the reader to current information. I will look it over when I have a chance. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 19:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Polio Vaccine theory
Disputed content: "'According to this theory, the initial passage of the HIV virus to humans could have taken place during polio vaccination campaigns carried out between 1957-1960 in the Democratic Republic of Congo, as well as Burundi and Rwanda.[1] This theory is widely disputed by scientists, particularly those linked to the original polio vaccination campaigns in question.'"
 * 1. Sarah Ramsay 28 April 2001 "Cold water downstream from The River" The Lancet 357 {9265) p.1343 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04536-0

The source is paywalled, so I can't assess it for MEDRS, but it is on the discouraging side of WP:MEDDATE. An experienced editor has suggested it does not meet MEDRS, so please provide another source. Is the last sentence also supported by this source? It sounds suspiciously like personal opinion. I would not give this content its own subsection, suggest merge with "Iatrogenic and other theories" since this discusses vaccinations and the like. Lesion ( talk ) 10:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The Lancet is an ideal source. Can you copy here what that Lancet article says that supports your contribution, please? Sorry about this. We're fairly fussy about sources in medical topics, especially so when the topic is controversial. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That's no problem. With regards to the comment above yours, if the Lancet is not considered a source - a highly reputable medical journal referenced by scientists and scholars alike - then I'd find it extremely difficult to know which, if any, sources we're able to cite here. Furthermore, one has to add that the debate surrounding this theory has a history of suppression. I say this as a journalist who works with two international media organisations, not as anyone with a vested interest. A casual comparison between the French and English language articles on the exact same subject reveal a remarkable difference. The theory that Polio vaccines caused the HIV pandemic, put forward by Edward Hooper and supported by the late W.D. Hamilton - and let's not forget, these are ALL theories, that at this juncture can neither be proven NOR dis-proven - receives a fair level of attention on the French language version. Link here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origine_du_virus_de_l'immunod%C3%A9ficience_humaine (You don't need an understanding of French to grasp the amount of space dedicated to this theory). Along with the so-called 'hunter' theory - which is founded mainly on speculation and conjecture - the polio vaccine theory is another theory that could be plausible, despite numerous assertions by scientists (who would have the most to lose if it were found to be true) that it has been 'refuted'. The fact that this sub-section does not even exist does absolutely no justice to the intense debate that has been on-going for two decades around the origins of HIV.


 * Lancet article:


 * "Edward Hooper's 1999 book, The River: a journey to the source of HIV and AIDS, caused consternation with its proposition that early batches oral polio vaccine (OPV) used in central Africa were the original source of HIV-1 (see Lancet 2000; 356: 1005). Hooper claimed that live OPV, grown in chimpanzee kidney cell cultures at the Wistar Institute, Philadelphia, USA and tested in Africa, became infected with a chimpanzee virus that subsequently infected human recipients OPV.
 * Four sets of data published in Nature and Science this week “dismiss what reasonable conjecture existed”, writes Robin A Weiss (University College London, UK; Nature 2001; 410: 1035—36, also 1045—46, 1046—47, 1047—48). The OPV batch designated CHAT 10A-11, which was tested in Belgian African colonies in the late 1950s, was implicated most strongly by Hooper. An original vial of the batch was discovered in storage at the National Institutes for Biological Standards and Control in the UK. Analysis by Neil Berry and colleagues at the NIBSC revealed no HIV/SIV sequences or chimpanzee cellular components. Instead, macaque mito-chondrial sequences were detected. Philippe Blancou (Institut Pasteur, Paris, France) and colleagues had similar results with analysis of five samples held by the Wistar Institut, including one used to vaccinate thousands of people in the Belgian Congo during 1958—60. Wistar samples analysed by Svante Pääbo and colleagues (Leipzig, Germany), also lacked chimpanzee DNA (Science 2001; 292: 743—44). Further refutation of Hooper's theory comes from an evolutionary analysis of HIV-1M, which gave rise to the pandemic strains, from the Democratic Republic of Congo by Andrew Rambaut (Oxford University, UK) and colleagues. The results “give us no reason to doubt that the last common ancestor of HIV-1 group M was present in a human host”, the investigators write."


 * If you need more sources I can no doubt provide them, but to dismiss a theory that has in itself been the focus of a Royal Society debate (http://aidscience.org/Science/Cohen289(5486)1850.html) is irresponsible and unjust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2EE8:5110:A524:7BAB:5BB2:CB49 (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The Royal Society debate link isn't working for me; is it working for you? That Lancet story is enough for me. I'm not happy with, "Scientists claim to have..." though. That implies there is some credible doubt as to whether the theory has been genuinely refuted, whereas your source, the Lancet quote, seems pretty categorical about that. Here, we go with whatever scientific consensus we can discern. Where is the dissent coming from regarding this refutation? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree, need to remove the last sentence if it is not supported. Also this content does not need its own section, just add it into "Iatrogenic and other theories" imo. 2A01:E35:2EE8:5110:A524:7BAB:5BB2:CB49, please note that it is still edit warring if you restore the edit before consensus has been reached in the discussion. Lesion  ( talk ) 15:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten and moved the OPV info to the Iatrogenic and other theories section. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Uh. I just noticed a link to Discredited HIV/AIDS origins theories at the bottom of the article. I have moved most of the polio theory there. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * To the editor who has been pushing this theory here for the last couple of days: I get it that you believe this theory has not been adequately refuted, but being the top search engine result for most topics, Wikipedia has to be conservative. We are very tightly constrained - especially on medical topics - regarding what we can say. We take our lead from the peer-reviewed scholarly literature. We can't just say what you or I or even Professor X or Dr Y wants to say. If we allowed that, this joke of an encyclopedia would be far far crappier than it already is. The only reason it is just really crap and not completely shit is that there are cast iron rules about only toeing the scientific line.


 * The upside of that rule is the thing isn't full of "crystals can cure cancer" and other nonsense but the downside is that where science is shit - and it is pretty shit in lots of places (do you know much about psychology and psychiatry?) - we can't just exercise a bit of logic and creativity and tell it like it is, we have to report what the peer-reviewed sources say.


 * The bottom line is, if this polio/AIDS theory has been unjustly dissed by science, this is not the place to right that wrong. Believe me. The only way to right that wrong is the hard way. Prove it and get it published in the scholarly literature. If you continue trying to make Wikipedia present a different picture of this theory than science paints, you will just be blocked from editing. It happens a thousand times a day here. (I posted this here, though it breaches the talk page guideline, because editors without accounts frequently don't even know they've got a talk page. I'll archive it in a couple of days.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I was wondering, since both History of HIV/AIDS and Discredited HIV/AIDS origins theories are not overly large articles, why not merge them together? I would support the discredited theories being in their own section to make this clear... Lesion  ( talk ) 14:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know. This one's pretty big. And failed theories are pretty irrelevant, in the grand scheme of things. Presently, there are 2 links in this article to the Discredited theories article for anyone interested. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But conceptually, the development of scientific understanding, even if now disproved, is still part of the history of the disease? Compare with other conditions, e.g. epilepsy. Here we talk about historical belief that said disease was caused by possession by god(s) or demons. Arguably, this page should take a general timeline structure, with discredited theories being discussed as they occurred chronilogically in the timeline... Lesion  ( talk ) 18:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Lesion, you and MastCell below make good points. If it can be done concisely I would support the merge. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As you all may or may not be aware, we have a whole article dedicated to this debunked claim: OPV AIDS hypothesis. We also have a biographical article which serves solely as a coatrack for this claim. Given its lack of acceptance in the scientific community, I think WP:WEIGHT demands limited coverage here. The significance of this claim is mostly that it led to a libel suit by Hilary Koprowski and a definitive rebuttal in the pages of a few top medical journals. MastCell Talk 18:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, wasn't aware of said pages, ty for pointing the out. Wouldn't go as far as to call that bio article a coatrack, most of the content does not relate to this theory, and what content does discuss AIDS appears to be worded in a NPOV... can't see any obvious issues there. Do you have any comment on whether it is desirable to merge History of HIV/AIDS and Discredited HIV/AIDS origins theories? Lesion  ( talk ) 19:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not an opinion on that specific merge, but in my view we generally have far too much material (both in volume and in number of separate articles) covering these obscure and discredited claims. It's a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. On those grounds, I'd generally favor mergers such as the one you've mentioned. MastCell Talk 19:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong please, but doesn't weight refer to the amount of content given to different aspects of a topic within one article. A walled garden is a group of articles which link to each other, and no other articles link to them. Weight does not apply to the encyclopedia as a whole or even a group of articles. If it did, we probably would have way too much weight on football teams or something. Perhaps instead of weight you mean notability? I don't have any problem with articles like OPV AIDS hypothesis existing as long as they meet notability. Equally, such narrowly focused articles can be long and detailed. Whether they are watched over by wikipedians who follow policies and guidelines or simply a stage for inexperienced editors to present non neutral point of view content is another question... Lesion  ( talk ) 20:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Practically speaking, you are incorrect. Yes, Wikipedia objectively has too many Pokemon articles, but that is not a violation of WP:WEIGHT because the issue is editorial, not a NPOV issue. The decision to split off sub articles should be based on length and structrual reasons (content forks), not to allow overcoverage of fringe theories (POV forks). VQuakr (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Dead Link in Citation
The url for citation 52 (The emergence of HIV/AIDS in the Americas and beyond) is dead. The same article can be found at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences website: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18566.abstract --Billhpike (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought the page was fully protected instead of semiprotected. As such, I've made the change my self.

--Billhpike (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

WHO PrEP recommendation
Is the recent WHO recommendation for at-risk MSM to get on a PrEP regimen worthy of being put on this page?

Amatorio.1, EEOB 3310 Suggestions
1. According to some research papers, there maybe other simian viruses that are the cause of the emergence of the HIV virus. They indicated that some simian viruses are closely linked to HIV virus. 2. The addition of "current research" section maybe beneficial to this article because it's title is "History of HIV/AIDS". There are several research organizations that may have some insight in this. 3. One of the sections "Origin and epidemic emergence" has no citations in it. Maybe adding some citations will help the credibility of that part of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amatorio.1 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

New article in Science
An article has recently been published in Science on this subject that probably has important information that should be added to this WP article. It is paywalled so I don't have access, but the article is also discussed in the BMJ.

- - MrBill3 (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I think content based on the Science article has been added using a named ref (pppppavab) that is not defined. As I don't have access so I can't verify that is the source, but if so, it is posted above, conveniently formatted. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing on the US Special Viruses Program/Laboratories 1971 theory?
Dr. Graves produced a flowchart (presented at the United Nations) showing that according to his theory HIV/AIDS was created in a U.S. lab. http://www.boydgraves.com/ to see the flow chart. CaribDigita (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Almost B-class, not far off GA
I see few unreferenced sentences, minor style issue (see also in text), but this is almost B-class. And not far off GA if somebody can spend an hour or so finding missing references and proofreading this once or twice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that. There's pretty much nothing about the modern (1990s onward) history. At least South Africa's Virodine scandal deserves mention. It would also be a good idea to note the research avenues for cures and vaccinations.

Use of term "genital mutilation" in subheading
An IP editor has been adding the term "genital mutilation" to one of this article's subheadings, and is insisting on restoring that version when repeatedly reverted by other editors. This is not helpful. "Circumcision" is a specific term, with a specific meaning, that's relevant to the matter at hand, and no further amplfication is needed. Whether Circumcision should be regarded as a form of genital mutilation is an important issue, but this page, and in particular this subheading, is not the place to fight that battle. -- The Anome (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Section on IV drug users needs summarizing
Someone has come along and brought in a lot of information. It all looks very interesting and is well sourced, but it really doesn't belong in this article. It should either go in the article about HIV?AIDS in NYC or, better yet, its own article, as it really is quite extensive. A solid summary belongs in this article, but not the info dump. Sephiroth9611 (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

SV40
SV40 indicates that wide spread human infection occurred due to vaccine preparation in the mid 20th century and this was found in 30% of samples. Could it be a similar % for HIV? Or a lower amount? If this was so then even if we had some samples we would have a low probability of finding the infected ones had been kept? There starts to stray to original research - so I do not put it, but I think a link in the right place about polio vaccine could be useful. It appears that in the 1950s there was a lot of antibiotic injections and this could indicate HIV was spread post WWII - it seems strange we have no cases identified in any old samples before 1959 of HIV IF it was circulating in the 1920s.

1966 sequenec
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/hiv-genome-two-decades-before-its-discovery/596272/#:~:text=By%20analyzing%20it%2C%20a%20team,formally%20discovered%2017%20years%20later. - worth adding?

New Jersey
1979 An early case of AIDS in the United States was in a female baby born in New Jersey in 1973 or 1974. She was born to a sixteen-year-old girl, an identified drug-injector, who had previously had multiple male sexual partners. The child died in 1979 at the age of five. Subsequent testing on her stored tissues confirmed that she had contracted HIV-1. Oleske J, Minnefor A, Cooper R, Thomas K, dela Cruz A, Ahdieh H, et al. (May 1983). "Immune deficiency syndrome in children". JAMA. 249 (17): 2345–2349. doi:10.1001/jama.1983.03330410031024. PMID 6834633 there is an issue here with not including this case as it was NYC, yet undoubtedly so close that it should be connected.

THIS can usefuly be added - by restricting to New York the case here is missed, yet adds to the evidence that it was IVD users that first had the epidemic cases. 91.154.169.156 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Sexuality
— Assignment last updated by Eammarsh (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

HTLV-III vs HTLV-3 confusion
In the section on the identification of the virus, it mentions that HIV was temporarily called “HTLV-III” and includes a link to the PTLV page (one virus of which is called HTLV-3). However, HIV is NOT HTLV-3, (see “nomenclature clarification” section here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Primate_T-lymphotropic_virus&diffonly=true#HTLV-3_and_HTLV-4). So I think that this is very confusing if people don’t read the entire PTLV page. We should add a note clarifying this. 2600:1017:B835:FB9B:D877:E33B:1BF6:A999 (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * You know what, I went ahead and made the change myself because even though I want to make sure we have consensus before editing a page about such a sensitive topic, I think this is an easy fix that will confuse a LOT of people (as it confused me when I first read it.) So please do NOT undo this edit without reading the page on HTLV-3 and PLTVs and the nomenclature confusion. 2600:1017:B835:FB9B:D877:E33B:1BF6:A999 (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)