Jump to content

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 84.240.9.58 (talk) at 12:17, 3 December 2010 (→‎Can human work job and if he is HIV infected?: new section). 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.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 18, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
December 23, 2005Good article nomineeListed
July 10, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
September 26, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 19, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 4, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on August 5, 2024.
Current status: Good article

Template:WP1.0

HIV virion production per day estimate

In this edit the per-day estimate of HIV virion production was revised from 109-1010 to 1010-1012, to match the cited ref. Of the two refs cited there one (Robertson PMID 7723052) does not address this at all; the other (Rambaut PMID 14708016) specifically states "HIV has remarkable replicatory dynamics: it has a viral generation time of ~2.5 days and produces ~1010–1012 new VIRIONS each day31." Reference 31 there is Perelson et al. PMID 8599114, which specifically states "The estimated average total HIV-1 production was 10.3 x 10(9) virions per day" (i.e. 1010). In a recent review PMID 17960579, Perelson states that by estimating viral clearance for each HIV-infected patient, "with the amount of extracellular fluid estimated based on the patient’s weight, allowed us to estimate that on average about 1010 virions are produced each day in a typical chronically infected patient [3]." Ref 3 there is PMID 8599114. I think this makes it clear that Perelson regards the proper interpretation as 1010, and that the Rambaut cited this number incorrectly in the cited ref (and only tangentially - it was not the main point of that paper). I've changed the number in our article to 1010 and added a citation to the more recent review. -- Scray (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treatments in development

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/hebrew-u-researchers-develop-treatment-to-kill-hiv-cells-1.311823 http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jIsETGLQloz0bNMUSBJCp1Eg88Ow http://sify.com/news/israeli-scientists-develop-aids-cure-says-journal-news-international-kjfvadbdhhj.html 94.159.250.36 (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


AIDS denialism vs dissidence

The word dissident is a broad term for people whose views fall outside the mainstream HIV/AIDS. And it does include some people who outright deny it but it appears the wikipedia article is referring to more than those who deny AIDS existence and therefore the term Denialism is misleading. There are many people who are considered dissident who do not deny the existence of AIDS or that HIV is a factor in AIDS progression. Some simply believe it is not the only factor, some still believe conspiracy theories regarding AIDs being a creation of governments to wipeout black and homosexual populations, and there are many more dissident beliefs. I suggest changing the title of the section to Dissidents and expanding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.68.127 (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article is clearly referring to only those people who have been described in reliable sources as denialists. Watering down a term because you don't like what a reliable source said would be a violation of the neutral point of view. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Microbial translocation causes to an IL-10-dependent inhibition of CD4 T-cell expansion and function by up-regulating PD-1 levels on monocytes which leads to IL-10 production by monocytes after binding of PD-1 by PD-L1.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scien801 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current research

I would like to see an overview on current research themes on HIV. Also, a link to bits that the community can do, say donate to research foundations or support their efforts with their idle compute time (http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/research/faah/overview.do) would be of interest to the reader. Smoe (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment denialism

The claim that antiretroviral therapy is not indicated when CD4 counts are above 500 is not supported by empirical evidence. Hence it belongs in the denialism subsection. KBlott (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. First, this section is about the well-known issue of AIDS denialism. Linking anything else to that term in this context is confusing to the lay reader. Second, the information you have added may belong in the article, but it belongs in the treatment section, not down at the end. It may also be worth adding in the main article AIDS (rather than HIV). Third, you talk about a "claim that antiretroviral therapy is not indicated..." etc, but there are no citations making that claim, so there is no evidence of any "denialism". I propose to revert your edits in the denialism section. Then I think we need to look at the Treatment section: it currently states "One study suggests the average life expectancy of an HIV infected individual is 32 years from the time of infection if treatment is started when the CD4 count is 350/µL.[123] Life expectancy is further enhanced if antiretroviral therapy is initiated before the CD4 count falls below 500/µL." Do you believe there is any information in the two citations you have used for your edits that contradict (and post-date) the above quote? If so, the treatment section may need editing. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with hamiltonstone, as reflected in my prior edit summary when I deleted this passage the first time. It is an important point, already made in the Treatment section, and I also agree that it more properly belongs in the AIDS article. Treatment denialism has far more to do with whether to treat HIV rather than when. The NA-ACCORD result is not a revealed truth, and remains controversial; the accompanying editorial in NEJM highlighted many limitations, including:
The strengths of the study notwithstanding, the results of the NA-ACCORD study cannot be considered definitive evidence that everyone with HIV should start receiving antiretroviral therapy. This was not a randomized trial, and the patients who chose to begin therapy early might have differed in other important ways from those who chose to defer therapy — ways that improved survival but were not measured. Although NA-ACCORD investigators tried to account for this potential bias by controlling for known associations with an increased risk of death in patients with HIV infection (e.g., increased rates of coinfection with hepatitis C virus and of injection-drug use), some unmeasured factors inevitably remain. For example, in many ways, patients who were offered and began potent combination antiretroviral therapy with a high CD4+ count in the late 1990s were the ideal patients: highly adherent, committed to doing whatever they could to prevent AIDS, and willing to push through the sometimes punishing side effects and drug-regimen burdens of the early therapies. This sort of “health-seeking” behavior cannot be measured in the NA-ACCORD study yet could still substantially influence outcomes; its effects can be accounted for only in a randomized, prospective study. In addition to differences in baseline factors, such as HCV infection and injection-drug use, the rates of virologic suppression after 12 months of therapy differed between the two groups among patients with a CD4+ count of more than 500 cells per cubic millimeter (81% in the early-therapy group vs. 71% in the deferred-therapy group), which suggests different levels of adherence to therapy.
I think some of the edits are tending to overplay the notion that this is a settled issue even among treatment advocates. -- Scray (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. The paragraph requires evidence that treatment guidelines call for withholding therapy. Your citation proves this fact and should be included in the paragraph. Discussion of the controversy does not belong in the section on AIDS. AIDS typically occurs in people with HIV who have CD4 counts less than 200. This controversy affects people with HIV who have CD4 counts above 500. (The lay confusion between HIV and AIDS is an example of denialism. No AIDS carrier who has been denied antiretroviral therapy is confused about the distinction.) KBlott (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I've understood what this is responding to; I just want to reiterate that this may warrant inclusion, but under "treatment", not "denialism". hamiltonstone (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think KBlott is responding to hamiltonstone (agree it's a little confusing due to premature outdenting). I do agree with KBlott that HIV (rather than the AIDS article) is the right place to discuss treatment timing; the confusion evident in my previous comment reflects the problem (just in my head, perhaps) with the non-existence of an HIV infection article (HIV is, after all, specifically a virus). But, I digress; treatment timing doesn't belong under denialism. -- Scray (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly, you are denying the validity of the cited study and are demanding the results be replicated with a randomized trial. Have you considered the ethical implications of such a demand? We know that smoking causes cancer. Yet, we have no randomized trial to "prove" this fact. This is because the evidence that smoking causes cancer is coherent and so we know that such research would place the study subjects at a health risk.
The evidence supporting the use of antiretroviral therapy in viremic individuals is equally coherent. There is simply no empirical evidence to support the practice of withholding therapy. We know, for a fact, that those who are denied therapy do get sicker and will die sooner. The citation you provided did not give evidence to support its position. It merely denied the fact that AIDS carriers who initiate therapy sooner outlive those who do not.
This debate is political, not scientific. Are AIDS carriers entitled to the same rights as HIV-negative smokers? Or are we entitled only to the same rights as laboratory mice? KBlott (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are talking somewhat at cross-purposes. I am not concerned to withhold reliably sourced information about treatment from the WP article and have no issue with the cited academic article from NEJM. However I am not seeing any reliable sources being cited to indicate that treatment is being withheld for non-medical reasons from a class of people eligible for that treatment. Even if i was, it would not belong in a section on "denialism" unless that term was itself being used in reliable sources. These conditions are met for the concept AIDS denialism. They are not met for this material. I have no issue with these research results being included in the WP material on treatment as long as they are currently-valid research and don't give undue weight to particular POVs (I have no reason to believe these are concerns, I only add those qualifiers because I have not examined those possibilities). hamiltonstone (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scray has already provided evidence that therapy is being withheld. Citing additional evidence would not be a problem. Citing evidence that this practice is for the benefit of patients, on the other, would be very difficult, since it does not exist.
The definition of denialism is cited at the opening of the section. The definition is taken from Wikipedia itself. This practice satisfies that definition. Scray himself has already denied the validity of the cited research. You, on the other hand, deny that the practice is even occurring. KBlott (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not denied that NA-ACCORD is valid, and from what I read here hamiltonstone has not denied that the practice is occurring. In both cases, we're asking for sources for stated claims. As WP editors we're not engaged in research, and our opinions really don't matter. What I've stated (factually) is that NA-ACCORD was observational and not a randomized trial, and that even the NEJM's editorial raised issues (as quoted above) giving pause to dogmatism about the benefits of early initiation. Whether or not I believe that initiation at all CD4 counts is likely to be beneficial (and I do), we must live up to the requirement for reliable sourcing. A reliable secondary source stating unequivocally that initiation above 500 is beneficial, in the absence of a similarly-reliable opposing source, would suffice. I'll look when I get a chance, but if you find one first then continue being bold! I really don't think we're in disagreement about anything except sourcing. -- Scray (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In every reasonably well designed study comparing early therapy to deferred therapy, early always trumps deferred. Here is one example. However, it would be a bit difficult to provide unequivocal proof as randomized trials of this nature are grossly unethical. As I recall, that hasn't stopped researchers from conducting them, though unethical research and the denialism which is used to rationalize it are two different things. KBlott (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This meta-analysis of 18 different cohort studies also confirmed that early treatment trumps differed treatment. KBlott (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure we are as close to agreement as Scray suggests. First, we cannot quote Wikipedia - it is not a reliable source. This material must be moved out of denialism into the treatment section unless there are reliable third party sources that are saying it is "denialism": per Scray, "as WP editors we're not engaged in research, and our opinions really don't matter". I'm not seeing anything that even comes close. Second, separately to that issue, while this is not my field, the conclusions in the NEJM paper were cautious. See in particular the para beginning "The benefits of initiating antiretroviral therapy earlier after HIV infection must be weighed against potential adverse effects of treatment." The strongest statement appears in the final sentence: "Significant advances in our understanding of the role of HIV infection in inflammation and immune activation resulting in potentially irreversible immune-system and end-organ damage have renewed the impetus for earlier treatment of HIV." But this stops short of the authors even calling for it themselves, let alone suggesting revision of treatment guidelines. The paper just doesn't seem to go that far. The current WP article text goes way further. Third, on a minor note, there is no citation for the claim "...most national guidelines say to start treatment once the CD4 count falls below 350". I'll have a go at a revision. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a copy of the NIH treatment guidelines as requested. Notice the strange wording of the guidelines which reflects the current controversy. You can check the link provided to verify that my wording accurately reflects the current guidelines. The NIH really is as crazy as these guidelines make it seem. Since this debate is political, rather than scientific, its chronicling certainly has no business in the treatment subsection. However, since the two of you deny that this debate is based in denialism, I propose splitting off the chronicle into a separate article. KBlott (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a web page which claims that 'At that point, a large number of experts were already recommending the aggressive "hit early and hard" strategy, and a large number of activists were offering strong reasons for the more conservative "wait and see" approach. ' This supports my claim that opposition to proper therapy is coming (at least in part) from "AIDS activists" (ie denialists). However, this is an incomplete description of what is really going on behind the seens here. To answer the question raised by Lisa Keen. Complete suppression of viral replication now occurs routinely in clinical practice. However, this does not result in a cure. Denialists claim that this is the rationally for withholding therapy. Obviously this is nonsense. Insulin does not cure diabetes. However, no endocrinologist would think of denying a diabetic insulin. Some other factor is preventing consensus among "experts". KBlott (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the agenda here is to expose a conspiracy to deny treatment, that's not what WP is about - this is not a soapbox (for "exposing" self-identified "AIDS activists" as "denialists", or identifying the "Some other factor" that is preventing consensus among "experts"). Reliable sources seem to indicate that experts are split on the topic of early treatment; there's enough doubt (discussed in the NEJM references) to explain why they might be split, so I don't even see a reason to suspect a conspiracy. -- Scray (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those 'other factors' that affect treatment guidelines are (1) cost, (2) public health, and (3) the needs of researchers vs the needs of their study subjects. As for “conspiracy theories” I will leave those to you. Evidence speaks for itself. I have already provided you with proof that there is no evidence to support the practice of withholding therapy (provided you are ready to commit to taking at least one pill, containing at least three antiretroviral compounds, at least once a day, for the rest of your life). You and your friend both deleted that proof. If you stop reading things into the literature that are not there, you will see that this is what the current treatment guidelines trying to tell you. 50% of legitimate AIDS experts will tell you to start taking antiretroviral therapy now. The other 50% will tell you to wait until you are ready to face reality. This is because denialists are not merely self-destructive. They are also a threat to anyone they have sex with (factor #2). The disruptive behaviour of denialists has generated enormous costs to the system (and more deaths than the Nazi holocaust). It is much cheaper just to let some people die (factor #1). As for factor #3, (the needs of researchers vs the needs of study subjects) that is still very much a work in progress. Conflicts of interest do exist. For background material read the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. You are the only one here that refers to those conflicts of interest as 'conspiracies'. Additional evidence of conflicts of interest is posted here. I would be happy to provide you with additional evidence if you would kindly stop deleting it. KBlott (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not a forum for your views and the WP:Talk page is not here for you to convince others about the motivations of researchers. This page is here for us to discuss verifiable improvements to the article. Clearly, you have strong views on this subject - this is a place for neutrality. -- Scray (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding of "denial" in this context?

With this edit I am prompted to wonder whether you (KBlott) are confusing (i) the specific term AIDS Denialism as it's used in the biomedical context (refusal to accept HIV and the cause of AIDS, therefore also denying the basic principles underlying HIV treatment) with (ii) Denial as it is used more generally, which could be used juxtaposed with "HIV" in the case of a person who refuses to believe they are infected (as a defense mechanism) rather. The two concepts are related but distinct, and confusion of them might be contributing to the current kerfuffle. Just a thought. I do think it's pretty clear that you're attempting to create a new term, which could be called "antiretroviral denial", to refer specifically to the non-prescription (of antiretroviral drugs) by health care providers for reasons (e.g. nihilism or treatment guidelines) other than a refusal to accept the scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS and antiretrovirals are relevant to HIV/AIDS treatment. There are words other than "denialism" that could be used to describe these behaviors that would avoid this confusion. -- Scray (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than speculating about what I am “attempting” to do. Let’s focus on what I did do. I placed the definition of the word “denial” in its proper context. (Denialism = denial + ism). I provided verifiable evidence from a reliable source to support my claim. So, why are you objecting? KBlott (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To your first point, word combinations take on meaning with usage as I am sure you're aware. AIDS Denialism has a specific meaning (see our article) in this context, and it does not involve the form of denial you're suggesting. Combining the words "heart" + "burn" to mean something other than the conventional usage of "heartburn" would be similarly erroneous and confusing. To your second point, I'm not sure to which citation you're referring. I recall that you cited a letter to the editor from 1996 (not a reliable source) and a review article from 1991 (predating HAART) - but you might be referring to one of your other edits; please clarify. -- Scray (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treatments in development

I think it's important to note researchers at a university published this study to indicate that this was a serious academic study. For example, the U of Michigan is noted in the preceding paragraph regrding BanLec. i also think it is noteworthy that it was an interdisciplinary team of chemists and biologists. Chefallen (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The publication in a refereed medical journal demonstrates that something is a serious academic study. My preference would be to remove the reference to U of Michigan for the same reason. The interdisciplinarity is not relevant in the context of this article, which is also already very long (so we should look for every opportunity to trim the prose). Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS denialism again

There is a disagerement about the title of the article's final section. Here is a copy of my post to editor KBlott:

Before we get into an edit war over a heading, I thought i would explain the issue here. There are two prevailing terms used in the literature for the issue covered by the HIV article: "AIDS denialism" and "HIV denialism". Those are the prevailing terms, and that is why one of those two headings was used in the article; it is also why that is the title of the main article on the subject, AIDS denialism. I have no particular issue with which of those two terms is used to head this section, but it is a title based on the literature, not my preferences. Omitting both HIV and AIDS from the title implies something broader that is not what the WP article is doing. Would you prefer "HIV denialism"? If so, please propose at the article talk page - my initial reaction is that "AIDS denialism" is preferred, just because that is the title of the main WP article, but I'd be happy to change to HIV denialism, if that is what you and other editors supported. Will also post to article talk page. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I will change it back to the original title until an alternative consensus is reached here. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and again...

Another day, and the same editor now attempts to introduce this:

Considerable debate still exists within the HIV community surrounding the question of when to initiate antiviral therapy. This debate has no empirical basis. [2] Legitimate scientific questions regarding the timing of antiretroviral therapy were addressed by 1990. [3] They were quickly resolved. [4] However, considerable political opposition to the widespread use of antiretroviral drugs persisted. [5] [6]

There was never any serious opposition to the widespread use of antiretrovirals by virologists. However, all scientists require funding in order to conduct their research. This can potentially place scientists in a conflict of interest. Anthony Fauci is the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. NIAID conducts a considerable amount of HIV/AIDS research. Fauci is a vocal opponent of the widespread use of antiretroviral drugs. [7]

I feel KBlott is perhaps not hearing what others are saying, but i will continue to try and explain a few of the issues.

  • The text pushes a particular POV - it is not neutral to say that there is considerable debate within what is essentially an expert community ("the HIV community") and then say that it has "no empirical basis". It may be that the particular citation may claim that, but given that the text itself concedes that this is still debated, that wording, and its sole cite, implies a critical POV.
  • The referencing does not meet an acceptable referencing style. In itself minor, the problem is more significant because of the four externally linked PMID refs, only one even has the abstract available to be read. When I read that abstract, it did not provide apparent support for the point in the proposed text for which it is being used as a cite.
  • The comments about Fauci are a violation of WP:BLP as they imply conflict of interest without supplying high quality reliable sources that both make that claim and set out the evidence for it.
  • Even if one were to set aside all of the above, there is still a process problem: KBlott knows there is disagreement on these issues, and they should be discussed at the talk page, not through significant changes to the article, some of which have been previously reverted. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no disagreement among virologists about when to initiate antiretroviral therapy. KBlott (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KBlott, the added cite definitively undermines your case: it includes these points:

"This is a very good study that at least suggests strongly that there is a benefit to starting treatment early," says Dr. Anthony Fauci,... None of these guidelines have been supported by the gold standard of medical evidence, the randomized controlled trial. And as convincing and as large as the current study is, Fauci notes that it too lacks this scientific imprimatur.... Still, Fauci acknowledges that the sheer size of Kitahata's study gives its findings some weight... "The real critical issue that everyone is struggling with is, What about the potential long-term deleterious effects of ART that might override the beneficial effects?" says Fauci.

Yet you have added this reference to a para that violates WP:BLP and have not in any way changed that slur against Fauci. The Time article indicates that the WP text you have added that refers to Fauci is demonstrably false. What the additional cite shows is that there is a major study supporting early intervention, but that there is also a "lively" debate in the professional community about how to proceed - and this is happening in 2009, when you also elsewhere added text that claimed "Legitimate scientific questions regarding the timing of antiretroviral therapy were addressed by 1990", which appears obviously untrue. I remind you that the "treatment" section of the article already contains fairly strong text on this subject:

There is no empirical evidence for withholding treatment at any stage of HIV infection,[2] and death rates are almost twice as high when therapy is deferred (until the CD4 count falls below 500) compared to starting therapy when the CD4 count is above 500.[8] However, the timing for starting HIV treatment is still subject to debate.[9]

The United States Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents in 2009 recommended that antiretroviral therapy should be initiated in all patients with a CD4 count less than 350, with treatment also recommended for patients with CD4 counts between 350 and 500. However for patients with CD4 counts over 500, the expert Panel was evenly divided, with 50% in favor of starting antiretroviral therapy at this stage of HIV disease, and 50% viewing initiating therapy at this stage as optional. They noted that "Patients initiating antiretroviral therapy should be willing and able to commit to lifelong treatment and should understand the benefits and risks of therapy and the importance of adherence".[10]

Given you are not only avoiding the talk page and failing to address the objections of other editors, but are also including unfounded and potentially libelous claims against a living scientist, I will revert immediately. If this is reverted, this will go straight to WP:ANI or similar forum. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The timing for starting HIV treatment is not a subject of debate among virologists. The treatment guidelines are clear on this point. KBlott (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is true. You provide a specific example: Anthony Fauci is a virologist. Do the treatment guidelines clearly state that "the timing for starting HIV treatment is not a subject of debate among virologists"? If they did, what evidence do they cite?
KBlott, I think the POV embedded in your otherwise useful edits is undermining their value considerably. Try to stick to factual statements rather than pressing a specific agenda. -- Scray (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fauci is an MD, not a virologist. KBlott (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, "virologists" don't typically create clinical treatment guidelines. Those are usually developed by MD's, because they actually prescribe antiretrovirals and treat patients with HIV/AIDS. You can't seriously be arguing that Anthony Fauci is not an authority on HIV/AIDS, right? But why are we talking about this in the first place? MastCell Talk 04:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Fauci is NOT a virologist. He is merely a physician. Therefore, his is not an expert. He is a vocal opponent to "Hit early, hit hard" and he is in the minority. However, he controls research funding. So, many virologists are not free to speak their minds. Historically, this had a profound negative impact on the public debate. However, those days are over. Most HIV physicians now recommend triple therapy for every infected individual who is mature enough to use it responsibly. This practice should have started 23 years ago, before 25 million people died. KBlott (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fauci, as an immunologist who has spent over 25 years studying HIV/AIDS, is not an expert on treating HIV? Wow. Yobol (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Wikipedia claims that Fauci is an immunologist it does not make it true. He is an MD, nothing more. I agree he has spent the last 25 years disrupting AIDS research. KBlott (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O, the humanity. MastCell Talk 23:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. KBlott (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verging on disruption

My attention has been directed here from WP:AN3. It is clear to me that KBlott is being a disruptive influence here, by continually repeating the same points and not paying attention to the responses. I would like to give notice that I am prepared to take administrative action to solve the disruption if the other editors who are involved here request it. I don't want to intervene in discussions that are making progress, but I have the impression that that point has passed. Looie496 (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamiltonstone is a denialist. I publicly debated denialist Peter Deusberg before many people here were born. Denialism is not a DSM defined disorder. However, there are claims in the literature that Deusberg is a malignant narcissist. There appears to be some overlap between denialism and narcissism. However, the relationship between the two personality phenotypes remains to be elucidated. Narcissists are attention seekers. According to the literature, the worst thing you can do for a narcissist is feed his delusions by paying attention to him. Healthy discussions are a good thing. However, Wikepedia policies notwithstanding, some public discussions serve only as platforms for narcissistic abuse. There are other forums for this discussion. It does not belong here. KBlott (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denialism within the HIV community

Hamiltonstone has still not availed himself of the opportunity edit my [proposed changes] to the HIV#Denialism section. This is not surprising. AIDS carriers must take antiretroviral drugs every day for the foreseeable future or face a markedly increase risk of mortality. It is this distressing fact that denialists within the HIV community do not want to face. There is an abundance of denalism related material within the literature that can be cited while avoiding the stigmatizing word "denial". I will rewrite the material—yet again—from scratch and give Hamiltonstone plenty of time to recover from his [distress]. After that, I will present the proposed changes to Hamiltonstone and give him an opportunity to modify it. KBlott (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read my reply to you on my talk page (You have posted on my talk page since I wrote that reply - were you deliberately ignoring it?); or the point made by Scray, with which I have concurred, at the edit warring incident report page, before making posts like the above. I will not comment on my talk page, because this isn't about me, it's about content. I will comment - as can all other editors - if and when any proposed revision is posted here at the article talk page, where it belongs. Please bring your proposal here, and I expect editors including myself will provide input to a consensus view based on WP's core policies and guidelines. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're more charitable than me - KBlott passed well into WP:SHUN territory awhile back from my perspective. MastCell Talk 00:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Attitudes such as yours remain quite common in the medical community. [1] If I were in your shoes, I can see how I might not want that fact to come to light. KBlott (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An addition to the intro:

"Without antiretroviral therapy, someone who has AIDS typically dies within a year"

From non-HIV infections of course. HIV does not kill you in and of itself; it is the destruction of the immune system, and subsequent overwhelming by opportunistic infections that kills you. This ought to be mentioned. 98.176.12.43 (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is mentioned in the very first sentence of the article. Yobol (talk) 03:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pathophysiology

I wonder if the section on "Pathophysiology" could do with some rearranging and some extra information.

The first three subsections, "Sexual", "Blood or Blood Product" and "Mother to Child" would seem to me to belong under a different subheading - say "Transmission", and the subsection on "Genetic Variability" also probably belongs elsewhere.

The subsections "Structure and genome", "Tropism", and "Replication Cycle" are clear and informative and make an excellent start to the topic of the pathophysiology associated with HIV infection, but apart from a single sentence in the third paragraph of the article's introduction, there is nothing to follow about the mechanisms of CD4+ depletion and related phenomena. There is a "Pathophysiology" section in the AIDS article which attempts this, but it is currently marked for cleanup.

Thoughts? On A Leash (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can human work job and if he is HIV infected?

Does human can work at job if he is HIV infected and if he have AIDS?

  1. ^ Elias A. Said et al. 2009, PD-1 Induced IL10 Production by Monocytes Impairs T-cell Activation in a Reversible Fashion. Nature Medicine. 2010; 452-9.
  2. ^ a b . PMID 9627563. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ . PMID 2201072. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  4. ^ . PMID 2017626. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  5. ^ Richman, DD. Reply. Rev Infect Dis. 1991 Jan-Feb;13(1):186-7.
  6. ^ . PMID 1620179. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  7. ^ . PMID 2109198. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference pmid19339714 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference pmid19339713 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents (2009-12-01). Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-1-infected adults and adolescents (PDF). United States Department of Health and Human Services. p. i. Retrieved 2010-10-12.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HIV&oldid=400301220"