Talk:Serosorting

Article improvement

I divided the article into sections and reworded some things to make it more readable. I also added some references. I can think of some types of sources which would make this article better:

• information about heterosexual serosorting
• information about how serosorting works - is there any agency anywhere in the world which facilitates the provision of one person's serostatus to another person with minimal legal release documentation
• metaresearch describing the aggregate of results of many localized serosorting public health studies
• identification of any public figures or entities who speak strongly about serosorting, either for or against or being solidly neutral

If anyone has sources for these things or has any other ideas then post them here. Blue Rasberry 18:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Bias

This article is clearly biased in favor of serosorting. While there are some scientific articles that favor of it as a prevention technique, there are others that show it to be completely useless. Still more imply that its utility is so limited as to be ultimately without value. There is no criticism section that details the health consequences of serosorting on the positive partners, no question about whether or not serosorting is actually effective when the partner being "sorted" has effectively suppressed their viral load with medication, and no discussion of how this behavior motivates increasing numbers of gay men to avoid HIV testing entirely. It is not fair-or accurate-to write an article in which one side of the arguement is completely neglected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.62.28 (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have sources to share which could be used to improve the article? Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Home kits

There is also no mention of the fact that although two people may be seroconcordant, one may have a much more dangerous strain of the virus, such as a drug resistant strain. I find the article to be far too positive in this respect. Additionally there is no mention in the section about partners testing negative with a home kit, that it takes a certain amount of time after infection for these kits (or other tests) to register an infection. I am unsure what the latest timescales are on this or whether an individual is infectious during this period, but I feel it is very important, particularly in light of the general positive tone of the entry, that these issues are mentioned and/or linked to. Adagio67 (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If you have articles which describe any of these issues I can incorporate them into the article. If you ever meet anyone who wants to learn to edit Wikipedia themselves then I can support them in developing HIV articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)