Talk:Peptide T

Junk science
As a clinician/educator, researcher, and provider of HIV medicine for almost two decades, I wonder about the motives of whoever authored this entry. It references two poorly-designed trials with less than a dozen subjects each, authored by obscure investigators, and published in journals with negligible impact factors to ascribe beneficial properties to a compound long-abandoned due to lack of efficacy.

I’m tempted to delete the entire article for its misrepresentations, cherry-picked references and interpreter bias, were it not for the historical (in)significance of the drug in the early pantheon of research on the pathophysiology of HIV. I’d erase and start over, but since the drug is worthless and unavailable, it doesn’t seem worth the effort three decades later—it would be of more scientific value to add a polish to the Sasquatch page. Alanrobts (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Since there were many people who believe Peptide T is effective (apparently including the author of this article), I think we should leave the article in, and summarize the arguments for Peptide T and the arguments against it. There must be a WP:MEDRS review article about Peptide T somewhere. This page is primarily WP:OR, and seems to cherry-pick some clinically irrelevant conclusions which most readers won't even understand. Brandolini's law has discouraged me from writing on Wikipedia lately. --Nbauman (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

“Neuro-AIDS”?
As a post-script to my other thread, anybody got a clue what “Neuro-AIDS” is supposed to mean? HIV-associated subcortical dementia is definitively a well-described and validated entity, but “AIDS” is a syndrome defined by the effects of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus on cell-mediated immune function. HIV itself is the transmissible pathogen here, and it is capable of causing direct toxicity to many more organs other than the CD4 milieu.

The cognitive impairment associated with HIV infection is due to the direct neurotoxicity of the virus itself, not due to “acquired immunodeficiency of the brain”. This entry sounds like it was written in the vernacular of rural homophobes in Kentucky who are attempting to converse with scientific erudition. Alanrobts (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)