Talk:HIV

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dv82matt (talk | contribs) at 06:25, 30 January 2008 (no longer listed as a vital article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleHIV has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 18, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
December 23, 2005Good article nomineeListed
July 10, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
September 26, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Template:WP1.0

Is this graffitti?

In Tropism, the sentence "Dual-tropic HIV-1 strains are thought to be transitional strains of the HIV-1 virus and thus are able to use both CCR5 and LESTR as co-receptors for viral entry." appears to be vandalized; "LESTR" should probably be "CXCR4". 24.82.209.151 (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== Male circumcision recommendation not intended for all men, only those in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda. == old fashion lover boys love their aids viruses good and warm.

After reading the article I felt it acknowledged most of the important information but misrepresented one particular point through a generalisation. Under topic 4 - Transmission, the following was written: "a panel of experts convened by WHO and the UNAIDS Secretariat has 'recommended that male circumcision now be recognized as an additional important intervention to reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men.'[27]"

While this is true, I felt it was misleading to the readers as this implies that the panel of experts recommended that male circumcision be recognized as a method of intervention to acquiring HIV to all men in the world. However, their decision to include circumcision as a method of intervention was only applicable to the countries that they studied (South Africa, Kenya and Uganda). Extrapolating these results into a recommendation to all men, including those who live in very different places would not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Since this is the impression the article gives, I believe it should be changed to reflect that: "a panel of experts convened by WHO and the UNAIDS Secretariat has 'recommended that male circumcision now be recognized as an additional important intervention to reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men [who live in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda]'.

To provide greater strength to this point, I came across an article that has been published in several newspapers and online (I am not sure if it has yet made it into a journal) about a study done on HIV infection in America, again, with the variable tested being circumcision status (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/90869.php). This is just information about the study which mentions that circumcision status did not appear to be statistically significant in this study.

Incorporating the fact that the experts findings only extended to the countries they studied would remove some of the pro-circumcision bias from this article. Ty.schof (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So be bold and make the changes you'd like to see. It's perfectly reasonable to say this technique worked in three African countries and failed in the USA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Ty, I just looked at the cited source, and it does not specify that the recommendation is limited to these three countries. It actually says that it applies to "Countries with high rates of heterosexual HIV infection and low rates of male circumcision" -- a description that applies to basically all of sub-Saharan Africa and not at all to the USA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myths

Can we also add myths relating to HIV infections on this page? There are a plenty of them floating among people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvshukla (talk • contribs) 13:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article for this: HIV and AIDS misconceptions. Is that what you were thinking of? JoeSmack Talk 16:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Semantics

Why does it say "HIV was classified as a lentivirus"? To my knowledge HIV is STILL classified as a lentivirus. I could be wrong, but if so the article should say what HIV is currently classified as.Orb4peace (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're reading too much into a historical past tense, but it's easily fixed, "Is" is less wordy, too... - Nunh-huh 09:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transmission risks

Although the box listing transmission risks lists "receptive anal intercourse" as causing five times more transmissions than receptive vaginal intercourse (50 per 10,000 acts as opposed to 10), the different risks are not mentioned in the text of the article. If these transmission statistics are true, then it would be more specific to say "Receptive, unprotected, anal intercourse is the primary cause of transmission" rather than just "unprotected intercourse". Also, discussion about reasons people choose anal intercourse (such as a method of birth control when condoms are not available) would be useful as well. Link from NIH:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=10743535&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus Just-unsigned (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sole phrasing 'unprotected intercourse' was chosen for being the largest subpopulation of those infected with HIV in terms of sheer numbers and not chances of infection. As you probably know HIV is spread through three modes: sex, blood and mother-to-child - it is important to emphasize that unprotected sex is the 'big' one. As for the link, we've discussed that it is long in the tooth in places above, do you have any new and replicated research on the subject? Knowledge and research on HIV changes a LOT in 8 years. Hell, it has only been researched for about 25 years. It's not that the study is useless or anything, but the alarms are going off in my head, you know? JoeSmack Talk 17:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statistics cited are found in the box listing causes of transmission (in the article). I assume that they come from cases studied and represent human beings that have contracted HIV. Are you questioning the validity of the statistics shown in the box, or just saying that it would be better not to include what they mean in the text?Just-unsigned (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with JoeSmack here. The infobox is a compilation of the probability of getting AIDS through each of those methods, and says nothing about how many worldwide AIDS cases are actually caused by each of those methods. That "unprotected sex is the main source of infections" is what is literally sourcable (an explicit source can be found in the AIDS article). Only if there is a reliable source that specifically says "most HIV infections are caused by anal intercourse" could you actually say that. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already provided just such an article from NIH. The only response I got was that the NIH conclusion was published in 1999 and therefore invaled because it was 8 years ago. The person making that comment offered no other info to refute the NIH proposal. A strange criticism condering the fact that almost all the references for this article are from before 1999. As far as the infobox being a compilation of "probability", the risk factors are based on surveys of HIV postive patients willing to provide information about their sexual history- the same way all human behavioral related studies are done.The only relevant question is "How large was the sample group?"Just-unsigned (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoop, I'm sorry, the way you go back and edit what you've already said logged in and not logged in makes it hard to follow conversation. 'Almost all references for this article are from before 1999' is not true at all, look at the refs section again. Also, look how many older studies are cited in pairs or triplets with newer ones so a person can trace back in the research. Some older studies as mentioned somewhere on this talk page do not need to be current as it doesn't reference medical science but progression of thought about the disease, history, important discoveries in important time periods, etc. There are some lone medical science references that are dated and old, and if you can find better references for them, by all means please do. But in a 'from now on' type stance, I'd rather information only be added if it is current. JoeSmack Talk 18:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, more than half of the references ARE older than the link that I posted. You simply use the age card when you have no other basis to dissagree. Either show that NIH has changed their opinion based on newer studies, that NIH is wrong based on newer studies, or prove that NIH doesn't know as much about HIV as you.Just-unsigned (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New (2007) Link on Risks per act

Anal sex- 1 in 1300. Vaginal sex 1 in 100,000. This information needs to be a topic in the article.

http://aids.about.com/od/hivaidsstats/f/infectionrisk.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please dig up their source, about.com is not an AIDS researcher. JoeSmack Talk 00:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes and References Section out of date

I noticed that more than half of the notes and references are older than 1999. Some are even from the 80s. I agree with Joe Smack- these are too old to be trusted and should be deleted.Just-unsigned (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no expiration date on scientific data. If you can find better studies, then that's great. Unless you're talking about epidemiology work (e.g., how many people in which countries have this disease), then the age of the study is really quite unimportant. Duesberg's 1988 "I think AIDS is caused by poppers" paper has significant historical interest, even if it was written before many WP readers were born. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I agree. Hey- check out this link from the NIH. It is their opinion that most women contracting HIV are actually getting it from anal intercourse and not vaginal. Just-unsigned (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=10743535&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC) ==[reply]

Anal Sex Overlooked in Heterosexual HIV studies

This topic should be addressed in the artcle: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/re/aids/fulltext.00002030-200103090-00017.htm;jsessionid=H1JcbpVLkw81vrxGGZtyT05R0LpGTwZtHGWtTByF6W5YZcnf6BZX!1390229169!181195629!8091!-1


Archive?

This page is pretty long. Should we archive the older discussions on this page, and try to start the new year with a clean slate? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "cleaner slate"? Maybe create an archive page for Summer 2006 to Summer 2007 and archive the threads that have not been added to since last Summer. --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Bob (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content fork

There is much more information about the transmission and prevention of HIV on the AIDS page than there is on this page. I have proposed that we fix this content fork by moving the information from AIDS over to this page (on the grounds that you can transmit and prevent transmission of HIV, but not really AIDS), and that the AIDS transmission information become a very short "go look at the HIV article" note. If you have any thoughts on this, please feel free to join the discussion on the other page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this already covered in here?

I'm not sure if this is already covered in this page: [1]
- 91.5.187.167 (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest presenting risks seperate from persuasion

The following discussion concerning anal intercourse and HIV transmission has been moved to Talk:AIDS#Anal_Sex_Overlooked_in_Heterosexual_HIV_studies. (last version: 4 January 2007). Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made below this section. No further edits should be made to this section.

I think that each activity that is known to transmit HIV should be a short topic of it's own and not in the context of a sexual persuasion (such as homosexual, heterosexual, bi-sexual, lesbian etc)

The topics should start with shared needle use, and talk about it's risks, who's doing it, how much, etc. Next would be anal intercourse. Then vaginal. Then oral etc. until all proven methods of transmission are covered. Why? Because, for instance, just as needle sharing is not part of a specific sexual persuasion, neither is anal sex- it is practiced by different groups in different amounts. If,for instance, needle sharing was found to infect mostly homosexuals, we would not say "homosexual intercourse is the primary cause of infection". It is also not correct to say "heterosexual intercourse is the primary cause of transmission worldwide" instead of describing the specific acts involved, be it anal, vaginal or needle sharing. It would be more accurate to say "the largest group of new cases is among heterosexuals", leave out the word intercourse, and then list the most likely causes with statistics to back them up. It is not even neccesary to use terms of sexual persuasion at all- just have headings that come right out of the box that lists the different forms of transmission. That's why the box doesn't use terms of persuasion. Some statements, like "heterosexual intercourse is the primary cause.." may be true, but not accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Just-unsigned (talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a bad idea. There are three risk groups as correctly outlined in the article, Sex, Blood product and MTCT. This article doesn't even state heterosexual intercourse is the primary cause of transmission worldwide. It correctly states The majority of HIV infections are acquired through unprotected sexual relations. This discussion is further covered at Talk:AIDS#Anal_Sex_Overlooked_in_Heterosexual_HIV_studies. --Bob (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made below.

I give up. Good luck with the article. Just-unsigned (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HIV&oldid=187872348"