Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between October 20, 2005 and May 3, 2006

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Oral Sex?

The article says AIDS can be transmitted by oral sex. I thought the risk for this was negligable?--Sonjaaa 06:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course it can be transmitted by oral sex. If the receiving partner has sores or open wounds in the mouth, for example. Also I :believe it is possible to absorb it even without open wounds/sores, but I lack an actual source and I'm about to sleep :) -- take it :for what it's worth, though I'm sure you will find evidence if you look for it. Piepants 02:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Piepants

As the CDC table makes quite clear, the probablilty of transmission is small but nonzero -- 0.01% per act for the person giving the BJ and 0.005% per act for the person recieving it. →Raul654 06:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually the article says that "HIV is transmitted through oral sex" and this is a direct quote from UNAIDS [1] This is precisely the problem that editors have when sources are removed by other editors. I will restore the source Sci guy 14:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The CDC table implies that the risk of catching hiv by having se with an infected person is less than 1%? If it is that low, why so much money spent on the safe sex issue? Javier

Because that's the risk per "encounter". If the risk is 1% each time and you do it 50 times, on average you'll be infected. Sure, nobody does it 50 times in a single one-night stand, but it doesn't take a terribly long relationship to reach those numbers. Colden46 06:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

If I recall my statistics lessons correctly, after 50 times, you will have a 39,5% chance of being infected ((1 - 0,99^50) *100%) --WS 11:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but u must do it 50 times with an infected person, and most probably, unless you live in swaziland, your partner will not be infected. Javier

What if you have got one with a condom on. Will that cause Aids?

Over at medhelp.org, in their HIV/Safe sex forum, the doctor there says on several occasions that no known case of oral-only transmission is on record. Can anyone produce a medical jounral that contradicts what he's telling people? Or are the statistics that are presented here are several orders of magnatude higher than reality? 206.156.242.36 14:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This reference (Rothenberg RB, Scarlett M, del Rio C, Reznik D, O‚Daniels C: Oral transmission of HIV. AIDS 1998, 12:2095-2105) [2], may be helpful, specifically the section titled "transmission estimates". Quoting: "In an assessment of per-contact risk for transmission associated with four types of homosexual contact, Vittinghoff et al. [28] estimated that the risk for unprotected receptive anal sex (0.24%; 95% CI, 0.05-0.43) was eight times the risk for unprotected receptive oral sex (0.03%; 95% CI, 0.01-0.18)." In light of this, and other statsistics from this journal article, I think it would be fair to include oral sex as a method of transmission. However, seeing as it is less risky (by almost an order of magnitude), it perhaps should be mentioned seperately from the more common transmission events. We don't want to give the impression that it is as easy to get it from oral sex as it is from anal sex, or blood transfusions. -20:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

inflated numbers?

I dont know what to make of this article. what do you all think?--Gozar 00:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Try this link and this link (abstracts only I'm afraid, unless you have a subscription) to read about how the estimates are made. This link has recent data from South Africa, and more recent death statistics can be found here. Evidence that HIV causes AIDS in Africa can be found here (quite near the top) and here (near the end). Trezatium 21:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The Afrol article is largely based on another article by Rian Malan, to which a rebuttal can be found here. Trezatium 18:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see someone explictly state that HIV infection does not occur in 100% of the AIDS cases. AIDS (since this is about AIDS and not HIV)

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/311/7008/785 I will gladly find more references.

Yes, you're right. Ten cases from the whole of Italy, and 47 from the whole of the USA (see here). Such cases are extremely rare, but I agree they're worth mentioning. Trezatium 21:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Major edits

I am in the process of going through the article, removing duplications, adding in more detail and giving it a major overhaul. Some sections have been dropped as they are better described in HIV and AIDS pandemic and IMO don't contribute to the AIDS article, instead, they confuse it. I am trying to keep the language basic, for most people to understand with correct links to other articles as I go through it. I will also add some diseases and more specific symptoms and prevention strategies. It would be good if it was a good standard for national AIDS day. --Bob 19:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This is done. Now I will look for references and start to cite sources throughout the article as I did over at HIV.--Bob 23:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Haven't done this yet, but is on my list of things to do... --Bob 23:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I just glanced through the article, and noticed that the main body is a bit disorganized (it reads in a very 'disjointed' manner, with topics being dropped and/or interrupted, and then resumed (and subsequently dropped again) farther down the page). I don't really trust myself quite yet to re-structure it at that scale, so I thought I'd mention it here. DarkMasterBob 10:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancy?

under Infection by HIV heading, "the median survival time after developing AIDS is only 9.2 months", and under symptomology, "After the diagnosis of AIDS is made, the average survival time is estimated to be 2-3 years". Do the two pieces of information contracted each other? i know that median is different from average, but the difference here is so huge. Fangyuan1st 19:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The 9.2 months is without antiretroviral therapy, and is what is found in developing countries and in developed countries before the advent of ART. 2-3 years is with ART. This has now been clarified. --Bob 18:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality?

I heard that if a man has a sexual intercourse with another man, one of them at least will give AIDS even though they do not suffer from it. Would someone clarify this?

Someone has misinformed you. AIDS results from infection with the HIV virus, and the virus can only be transmitted during sex if one of the people having sex is already infected by HIV. If two men who are not infected have sex, they will remain not infected afterwards. (Note, though, that this doesn't mean that sex with someone who has a negative HIV test is risk-free: one can be infected for weeks before the test becomes positive.). - Nunh-huh 16:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

That's why the US has a law (proposed by Jesse Helms) to block federally-funding sexual-education material if it so much as references homosexuality--to keep kids confused and throw up FUD. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-15 02:20

Thanks for the incredibly unconstructive comment Brian. This isn't the place to whine about your government's spending and how it is or is not related to homophobia, this is an international encyclopedia project. BigNate37 08:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph (Section 0)

The first paragraph looks like literature review than the encyclopedia to me. It's totally way off from other articles in Wikipedia here. ^_^ --manop 04:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the references make the intro very hard to parse on a scanning read. Most of these facts will be discussed (and cited) further down in the article. As the intro should only cover the content of the remainder of the article, I would not object to the removal of the Harvard references, or the change to footnotes. JFW | T@lk 14:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It is true that the references do make it harder to read, but the references were added because of repeated removal of huge chunks by Sciguy and cronies because of the lack of citations. Foot notes may make it easier to read, but that would entail carrying over this format for the rest of the article. --Bob 21:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

References

Is there a way to number the references in the reference section with the numbers generated throughout the text? As it is, it is difficult for the user to determine which reference is being referred to. --Bob 22:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The template {{ref label}} is probably what you want. See its documentation at Template talk:Ref. The Rod 23:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

So the numbers have to be put in manually then... not good if the references are changed and added to over a period of time by different authors. --Bob 23:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I misunderstood your motivation for including numbers in the footnote seaction. Since the references throughout the body of the document use {{ref}}, they each get their own number, so what about ordering the footnote section to match and changing its unnumbered list ("*...") to a numbered one ("#...")? The subsequent challenge is to keep the order of the references in the document the same as the order in the footnote area. The Rod 23:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You could always use the new <ref> and <references/> tags. For example: "A is a letter in the [[English language]]<ref name=English>{{cite book|title=Oxford English Dictionary}}</ref>. The letter A is derived from Egyptian [[hieroglyph]]s<ref name="English"/>.". Then type "<references/> into the refrence section. This produces:

A is a letter in the English language. The letter A is derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs.

References

This automatically numerates the list and allows links both to the reference section and back up to the context. --Oldak Quill 16:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's nice! Is there documentation somewhere on the <ref/> and <references/> tags? The Rod 17:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Here you go: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite --Oldak Quill 17:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That looks and sounds better, but am I mistaken in saying that the PMID external references are then lost? --Bob 22:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that, we can use PMID in the ID box... I will start to renumerate them. May take a while --Bob 22:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Done --Bob 20:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we not use the {ref} template, it's not beneficial in my interpretation. It increases article size and it's better if we directly link to sources and leave the citation a bigger size. zen master T 04:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

MCOTW

This article has become the medical collaboration of the week. Thanks to the several editors who have already worked very hard on this article, I suspect the focus will not be so much on the content (which is excellent) but more the presentation. A few more images (e.g. a good-going Kaposi's sarcoma, oral hairy leukoplakia, an MRI scan of PML) would be nice.

The exact role of AIDS/references is unclear - which of those references is relevant? Can't they be moved back into the main article? JFW | T@lk 15:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

the references sitting in AIDS/references are not referred to in the text at all any more. They can probably be deleted for the most part. --Bob 16:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The French, Hebrew and Vietnamese FAs appear to be a good source of pictures and diagrams. --Oldak Quill 03:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Treatment section

Since the main AIDS article is so long, and since there is already an article for Antiretroviral drug, I suggest moving most of the content there. The Rod 00:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to see too much being chopped off, especially given the prominence and length of the "Alternatives" sub-section. Perhaps if we remove the section from However, treatment guidelines are changing constantly to lopinavir boosted with ritonavir + zidovudine + lamivudine or emtricitabine. Then integrate the data on pediatric cases and the concerns about these drugs, it could be ok? --Bob 23:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I moved the indicated text and accompanying references into Antiretroviral drug (and duplicated the concerns). Doing so reduced the article size only sightly—from 54 KB to 52 KB. The Rod 17:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of the size of the article has to do with the length of the reference section, the external links, the links to other wikis etc. If you take these out, the article size is cut dramatically to just 35kb. Just 3 kb more than recommended. Many FA are over the size limit. --Bob 18:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

But nice work, thanks --Bob 18:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

A useful approach may be found in the thinking of Dr. Leo Galland, M.D. He has made a practice of complicated immune cases, and has subsequently developed protocols that he has written about (search online for him, his Foundation for Integrated Medicine, and/or his articles on Leaky Gut Syndromes).

He breaks down such cases into a cycle of allergic reaction (usually dietary), malnutrition, bacterial disquilibrium, then the resultant strain on liver function and expression of relevant symptoms.

Based on patient lab tests, a physician can ascertain the likely systemic cause of the situation, then goes about an appropriate course of treatment--generally meaning a person first avoids their allergens, then rids themselves of internal problem microgrowth (sometimes with antibiotics), then builds back their immunity, with a basic rotation diet of natural unprocessed food supplemented with vitamins, minerals, amino acids, probiotics, and herbs.

(Galland's credentials include degrees from Harvard, New York University, and training at Bellevue Hospital.)

--Res_q68

Prevention section

No objections to the above... and it might give room for a suggestion for one more portion for the prevention section--something like "other prevention technology" which would include post-exposure prophylaxis, and vaccine and microbicide development. I don't have time to do this in the next couple of days but can help later if folks are interested. Joewright 15:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea, and have an extra paragraph to suggest at the end of section 4.1 ("Sexual Contact", under "Transmission and Prevention", to discuss a previously unmentioned potential protective measure which I think should follow on well from the previous paragraph on current research into circumcision. This paragraph would go as follows:

"Current research is also in progress towards the development of microbicides: creams or gels containing pharmaceutical agents and lubricant properties which might help prevent the transmission of HIV and/or other STIs. The advantage of such an intervention is that it might allow a woman in a relationship with a male partner who is unwilling to use a condom to have some measure of protection, and it might also provide an extra security net in the case of condom breakage. "

If nobody objects, I'll append this paragraph to the indicated section next week or so. Vaccines and PEP would probably deserve a separate section, however.

Procrastinator supreme 16:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Acronym formatting

The formatting of the AIDS introductory paragraph has some problems that I hope to resolve here before its back and forth editing blooms into a war. Two problems I notice with the formatting are its capitalization and disruptive italics. It currently appears as follows:

AIDS, or Aids, is an acronym for Acquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome and is defined as a collection of symptoms and infections resulting from the specific damage to the immune system caused by infection with the human immunodeficiency virus, commonly called HIV. Although treatments for both AIDS and HIV exist to slow the virus' progression in a human patient, there is no known cure.

Since the expansion of AIDS is not a proper noun, the capitalization seems wrong. I.e., contrast the lowercase common noun expansion of HIV as human immunodeficiency virus and of SARS as severe acute respiratory syndrome with the uppercase proper noun expansion of NATO as North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and of NAFTA as North American Free Trade Agreement).

It may be helpful to identify the letters used to make non-obvious acronyms, but identifying them with italics only seems distracting for an obvious acronym like AIDS .

The Wikipedia Manual of Style standard for acronyms does not specifically address formatting for acronyms in titles and related words:

Do not assume that your reader is familiar with the acronym or abbreviation that you are using. The standard writing style is to spell out the acronym or abbreviation on the first reference (wikilinked if appropriate) and then show the acronym or abbreviation after it. This signals to readers to look out for it later in the text, and makes it easy for them to refer back to it, for example:

The New Democratic Party (NDP) won the 1990 Ontario election with a significant majority. The NDP quickly became unpopular with the voters, however.....

As the MoS stands, the proper formatting of our introductory paragraph would probably be more like this:

Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, or acquired immune deficiency syndrome (or acronym AIDS or Aids), is a collection of symptoms and infections resulting from the specific damage to the immune system caused by infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Although treatments for both AIDS and HIV exist to slow the virus' progression in a human patient, there is no known cure.

Does that look right? If that looks right, an update to the MoS may help show that the style is appropriate for titles as well. The Rod 16:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes that looks better. But that would mean changing the title of the article as well to "Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome". (something I would support btw.) --WS 16:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I would support that change, and a change in the article name to Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. I would also support a name change of the HIV article to Human immunodeficiency virus. I suggest that here as the articles are related. --Bob 16:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Stemming from my discussions with The Rod, I support the formatting change above (perhaps with minor tweaks too)! Great work! Ditto for suggested changes to the Manual of Style (BTW: I had some input on the above abbreviation/NDP passage in it).

However, in this instance, I don't think it's necessary – and it may actually be problematic, as per the Wp common naming convention – to move the AIDS and HIV articles to titles harking of their spell-outs. HIV/AIDS have entered into common parlance, both Webster's and Oxford dictionaries have entries under the abbreviations, and most users will intuitively enter HIV or AIDS (or Aids, or even aids) in a search box; that's where I think the articles should reside. The various spell-outs can act as redirects. I'm not rigid on this, though. Perhaps this is begging for a standard too? (BTW: AIDS is an acronym, HIV is an initialism, but both are abbreviations. :)) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms)#Acronyms as words in article titles is relevant:

Avoid the use of acronyms in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its acronyms and is widely known and used in that form (NASA, SETI, and radar are good examples).

So, is AIDS almost exclusively known only by its acronyms? The Rod 17:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

In medical journals, both HIV and AIDS are both referred to as their full names in most texts, followed by the initialism/acronym format which is then used for the rest of the article. --Bob 17:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for digging. I would say this applies here, for both AIDS and HIV. In addition to my rationale above, a search of Google (if this is any indication) reveals:

• about 57 million instances for "AIDS" and "disease" (the 2nd is a delimiter to kick out any instances of aids, without which there are almost a quarter of a billion instances)
• 1.2 million instances of "acquired immunodeficiency syndrome"
• 794 000 instances of "acquired immune deficiency syndrome"
• 128 million for "HIV" alone
• almost 4 million instances of "human immunodeficiency virus"
• 74 million instances for "HIV/AIDS"
• only around 600 000 instances for dual spell-outs of the two terms

Since the spell-outs hardly account for one-tenth (arbitrary) of as many instances as for their respective abbreviations, the articles should have/retain titles harking of their abbreviations. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

In summary, then, Google shows a predominance of the abbreviations, while (per Bob above) medical literature uses full names before switching to abbreviations. My last note on this issue is that Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine#The naming issue favors listing them primarily under their fully expanded names and having redirects in place from common names. Is a vote in order? The Rod 03:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess that sums it up, but not totally. I'm unsure if the guideline you cite above is authoritative, even though examples like Severe acute respiratory syndrome adhere to it. Contrast this, however, with other popular acronyms/articles (for arguably cryptic spell-outs, as noted in the guideline further above) like NASA and SETI. Similarly, I maintain that the simpler form AIDS is so overwhelmingly known that to move/redirect it would be unnecessary. In addition, the article is not merely medical, it's encyclopedic: serving as a resource for professionals and not alike, and few of the latter (methinks) would know the spell-out to type it out. Moreover, which long form name should such an article be entitled under: ...immunod.../...immune d.../...Immunod...? And what of HIV?

If you wish to mount a vote, feel free – I'm not wholly opposed to the move and can be compelled otherwise. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason for the inclusion of 'Aids' as an accronym of aquired immunodeficiency syndrome? I've only ever seen it written as AIDS -- never Aids.

come to think of it, ive never seen it written as 'aquired immune deficiency syndrome' either. --DakAD 07:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes: Aids is a common alternate rendition (British English; consult the Oxford English Dictionary). Ditto for the alternate spellout. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

ARC, etc.?

Forgive me if I've missed this, but is it not odd that this article doesn't at all deal with the topic of AIDS-related complex (ARC)? I realise HIV/AIDS is an inherently voluminous topic, but this is a significant enough and distinct notion that deserves brief mention here (a la GRID, wikifying and notations for which should also be refined). What's more curious is that there isn't an article in Wp regarding ARC (note the redlink above). Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know that is a term that is rarely used anymore, but of course you could create a page for it. --WS 20:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I realise that ARC is infrequently used; however, so is GRID (and, unlike ARC, that isn't listed in either Webster's nor Oxford dictionaries); moreover, ARC is still listed among the WHO afflictions related to HIV (B24). I'll make appropriate additions. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

ABC of AIDS

Here are some useful references (all free full text access) that could be helpful for improving the article:

• Adler MW (2001). "ABC of Aids: Development of the epidemic". BMJ. 322 (7296): 1226–9. PMID 11358778.
• Wood CG, Whittet S, Bradbeer CS (1997). "ABC of palliative care. HIV infection and AIDS". BMJ. 315 (7120): 1433–6. PMID 9418094.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Grant AD, De Cock KM (2001). "ABC of AIDS. HIV infection and AIDS in the developing world". BMJ. 322 (7300): 1475–8. PMID 11408309.
• Weller IV, Williams IG (2001). "ABC of AIDS. Antiretroviral drugs". BMJ. 322 (7299): 1410–2. PMID 11397751.
• Weller IV, Williams IG (2001). "ABC of AIDS: Treatment of infections". BMJ. 322 (7298): 1350–4. PMID 11387187.
• Chippindale S, French L (2001). "HIV counselling and the psychosocial management of patients with HIV or AIDS". BMJ. 322 (7301): 1533–5. PMID 11420278.
• Mindel A, Tenant-Flowers M (2001). "ABC of AIDS: Natural history and management of early HIV infection". BMJ. 322 (7297): 1290–3. PMID 11375235.

--WS 01:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This is great; thanks! (A segue: I study biology and work in the HIV/AIDS milieu, so I know a bit about the topic.) ;) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory statistic

Under Epidemiology, it is stated 'In the United States, for example, the number of persons with AIDS has increased from about 200,000 in 1996 to over 400,000 in 1996.' This does not make sense, and no reference is given to fix this. -- Mithent 21:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

this has been changed. --Bob 00:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Map of Africa

The data on the African map is sadly out of date. I checked just two countries (Senegal and Zimbabwe) against the UNAIDS website, and both are shaded the wrong colour for their relevant AIDS range. The info on the image suggests that it's based on 1999 data, and the AIDS situation has changed for a number of sub-Saharan African nations in the last seven years. It should probably be updated...The Disco King 16:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just changed the map to one of the world based on more recent data. --Bob 00:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Good job Bob! Thanks! The Disco King 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

YO!

I'm doing a report in school about aids and this really helped me a lot!! thanks

Same here. But not about AIDS. And more than once. Wikipedia rocks! Twilight Realm 03:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory statistics

From the article (at AIDS#Epidemiology): "Sub-Saharan Africa remains by far the worst-affected region, with an estimated 23.8 to 28.9 million people currently living with HIV. More than 60% of all people living with HIV are in sub-Saharan Africa, as are more than three quarters (76%) of all women living with HIV." However, the picture in that section [3] says otherwise. What's going on here? Twilight Realm 03:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing. You simply failed to understand the data and the map. --Bob 16:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sick Leave and Sick Pay

There were red links for both "sick leave" and "sick pay". I've directed them both to disability management, an article create to address precisely such issues. This at least turns the red links blue, but ... the disability management article is a really terrible article, needing a lot of work. --Christofurio 14:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps something could be done then. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

real quick question

it's been a while since i've contributed in the AIDS article here, but i wanted to ask anyways. :) does the CDC definition of AIDS diagnosis only apply to those when they are unmedicated? for instance, if one is HIV+ and the cd4 drops under 200, yet after HAARTs they pop up to say 350, do they still have AIDS? for that matter, if they develop say esophageal candidiasis, an opportunistic infection, and it is successfully treated, does that change the AIDS diagnosis? i was under the impression once you are diagnosed that was it, but nothing is stated to this in the text (or maybe so and i just haven't seen it). the article should say 'regardless of treatment effects' if it is true just to make things more clear. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no change in diagnosis. The person is still considered to have AIDS. However, this may change in the future if diagnostic tools and definitions change. --Bob 18:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then I shall add "(when without the effects of medication or treatment)" next to the definition of AIDS from the CDC where it occurs in the article. If someone has a better way to phrase it, by all means, change it in the text. :) JoeSmack ^Talk 15:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of the first paragraph

Could someone edit the first paragraph as it would appear that it has been vandalised. I am reffering to the section which is as follows;- "the reason it happens is because some stupid people who got really drunk at a rave had unprotected sex. and black people had sex wtih monkeys.

Ali G is soooooooo funny, is he actually gangster?"

Origins of Aids

We don't know where or when it originated, these are all theories, I don't see Polio and Syphillis and Small Pox being claimed as to come from Europe. We don't know the first person to have AIDS and we will probably never know. iT is ignorant to simply claim it orginates form africa because africa has a higher rate of aids than other places

Font size for references

Hi all. There is a proposal [4] to create and use a CSS class "references-small" which would specify the font size for references in articles where small reference font is wanted, as in AIDS. The proposed changed to AIDS would then be to replace

<div style="font-size:90%"> <references/> </div>

with

<div class="references-small"> <references/> </div>

The manual of style favors font-sizes in CSS instead of in articles (Formatting issues). The definition for references-small in the CSS would be

.references-small { font-size:90%; } in Mediawiki:common.css.

So there would be no visible change for the AIDS article. I also have no intention to ever change the definition of "references-small" to a larger font, despite me wanting to have a 100% font for the references. The advantage of moving the font size into CSS is that I (and others) can use my own private CSS file (which overrides the default only for me) (example: User:Ligulem/monobook.css). Please support me at the above referenced proposal page. Thank you for your careful consideration. --Ligulem 08:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

AIDS in nonhumans

I am admittedly not an expert on AIDS, but...

As I understand it, AIDS is not exclusive to humans. Following that, this article is unfortunately neglecting like...all other creatures and immunodeficiency viruses, etc.. SIV is mentioned once (ironically in a section devoted to the origin of HIV), and is not even defined.

Please let's be more accurate. ¦ Reisio 20:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

phrasing of 'dying from AIDS' or 'AIDS-related illness'

hi everyone. i'm sure this has been discussed before, but i was over at [[Randy Shilts]'s article, (who wrote And the Band Played On, great book on the beginnings of AIDS), and it is phrased there that he 'died from AIDS'. shouldn't it be 'died from AIDS-related illness'? and why the heck isn't there that article yet, or at least a redirect to opportunistic infections? JoeSmack ^Talk 02:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If someone dies of an AIDS related illness, one is simultaneously dying of AIDS. It's better to be specific if one can. A man who dies of an acute myocardial infarction secondary to thrombus formation in the left anterior descending artery is also dying of a hypertension-related illness and a hypercholesterolemia-related illness, but the former formulation is more informative. (In short, nearly all proximate causes of death have ancillary, underlying, or related secondary causes of death. If someone dies of pneumocystis carinii pneumonia secondary to AIDS, that's the most informative way of specifying it.) - Nunh-huh 03:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

of course, if the illness is described it would be better to state it in addition to being afflicted with AIDS. however, AIDS never really kills a person per se, it makes them suceptable to extremely dangerous and fatal disease. at least thats how i understand it. so would it not be more accurate to describe someone 'dying of AIDS' as 'dying of AIDS related illness'? the cons i can think of for that are however that it sounds more vauge (even if it's more precise), and that if i kill someone with a gun, i killed them just as much as the bullet did. opinions anyone?

oh, and i use WP:AWB pretty regularly with a bot i run; i could easily change most every occurence to one way or the other :/ .... JoeSmack ^Talk 06:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If the proximate cause of death is unknown (i.e., if the death is reported as "of AIDS-related causes") then "dying of AIDS" and "dying of AIDS-related illness" provide exactly the same amount of information. I don't know that uniformity is necessary. What would be good is determining the actual cause of death. - Nunh-huh 20:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Should somebody maybe update the chart about transmission rates of AIDS?? It's from 1992.. Not very helpful. thanks, Ardo 22:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's from 2005... --Bob 00:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Stigma section error

In the Stigma section, the ordered list items are stuffing up because of the Ref tags. I can't figure it out - someone else can? --203.206.245.238 02:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

ease of reading

Guys, this thing is written like an 8th grader with a medical dictionary. How did this happen? It first of all needs to be a bit more accessible; it isn't actually that hard. For example 'malignancies' to 'malignant cancers'. Also, the long run on sentences are tiring, especially when packed with like 8 diseases in their original latin that you'd never remember anyways. Try and keep examples to 2 or 3. Here's what i mean:

  High-grade B cell lymphomas such as Burkitt's lymphoma, Burkitt's-like lymphoma, 
  and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), including primary central nervous system lymphoma, 
  have substantially increased incidence in HIV-infected patients and often portend a poor prognosis.

to something a little easier on the eyes:

  High-grade B cell lymphomas such as Burkitt's lymphoma, Burkitt's-like lymphoma, and diffuse
  large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), show up a lot more in HIV-infected patients. These particular 
  cancers often foreshadow a poor prognosis.

I'm pretty sure this is all related to people adding little bits here and there, but it just kinda got out of hand. This whole article could use a good thorough copyedit. Anyone else agree? JoeSmack ^Talk 17:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry guys, i'm hung over and being bold, so if i remove anything that is totally vital you let me know (as i'm being kinda ruthless on my edits here).

Agreed. This article is needlessly overloaded with medical terminology in parts. ---Robert Merkel 05:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)