Talk:HIV disease progression rates

Untitled

You're doing a great job with cleanup. Keep it up, it could be shaved even more. Nice formatting too.

You might mention with Rapid Progressors that drug/alcohol abuse, especially amphetamines, activates latent cells that might otherwise be dormant for years. Also alcohol for instance, a drug that characteristically damages the liver over time already, will also be fighting against anti-retroviral treatments for metabolising priority thus rendering HAARTs less effective.

The newest "oh my lord there is an HIV strain that kills in 5 seconds" media coverage of the man in New York chronically abused methamphetamines. You could use sources from there. JoeSmack (talk) 17:31, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I noticed viral strain varitability in the intro but not in RP/LNTP sections. Some strains attack faster, others slower. Important sentence for each I think. - whoops, this has it's own section, sorry.

P.P.S. I think you should use the AIDSinfo definition of LNTPs which is 7-12 years, not 12 years. JoeSmack (talk) 17:49, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

P.P.P.S. The technicalness of this article can make it pretty hard to read. Here is an example from the section on co-infections (hep G. has been shown to slow AIDS progression btw, in case you didn't know):

"Activated cells also release IFN-alpha which acts on an autocrine and paracrine loop that up-regulates the levels of physiologically active NF-kappa B which activates host cell genes as well as the HIV-1 LTR (Gaynor, 1992; Baeuerle, 1991)"

...thats like...wow...I don't even know. Technical cleanup is next step, I know you're working on it as you can though. JoeSmack (talk) 17:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Opinion

This article's sections need to be split up into paragraphs. It's very hard to read, and it's also rather dry. Lots of good material, if you're a doctor :). njaard 06:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Long-term nonprogressors and elite controllers

Given that this article directs readers to the article on long-term nonprogressors, I should probably highlight the comments I have just posted on that talk page Finn (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge of Andrew Stimpson

This is a case of a Scottish man who appeared to clear HIV spontaneously after initial positive results. The article just survived an AfD discussion, but there was support for merging it, due to concerns about it only being one event in his life. This seems to be the most appropriate merge target. Fences and windows (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Opposed. I'd like to see the Stimpson article improved to include all the sources first and maybe then rethink if any merge makes sense. Teh Stimpson article seems to very promising as a good article and would be an interesting case for the many AIDS/HIV articles to reference. -- Banjeboi 03:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. There's no clear evidence Stimpson ever had HIV or, more saliently, progressed at all to disease. I also agree with Benjiboi re: sources. HIV disease progression rates is a medical article, where anecdotes rarely belong, particularly anecdotes such as this with so few verifiable facts. Reliable sources for this case, satisfying WP:MEDRS, should be added to the biography. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. One is a biography, the other a medical article. Once the biography is up to standard, may be worthwhile adding a link to the applicable section? --Haruth (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Agree with last comment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.2.105 (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)