Talk:Peptide T

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

AIDS Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject AIDS, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to AIDS, HIV, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.AIDSWikipedia:WikiProject AIDSTemplate:WikiProject AIDSAIDS articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemicals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Junk science edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

“Neuro-AIDS”? edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

Add topic