Talk:HIV

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HIV article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 90 days

HIV 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.

Article milestones Date Process Result September 18, 2005 Peer review Reviewed December 23, 2005 Good article nominee Listed July 10, 2006 Peer review Reviewed September 26, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 19, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 4, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept 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

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Q1: Why is the connection between HIV and AIDS written as a scientific fact? A1: This is required by Wikipedia's official Neutral point of view policy, especially the sections Undue weight and Equal validity. This policy requires that articles treat views on various subjects proportionally to the level of these views among experts on the topic. The fact that infection with HIV causes AIDS is uncontentious in the scientific and medical literature. The beliefs of the people who continue to dispute the link between HIV and AIDS, and the consequences of their promotion of these ideas, are discussed in the article on AIDS denialism. Q2: Some sources say that the AIDS epidemic is a result of behaviours such as receptive anal sex and drug use. Why does our article not emphasize this? A2: HIV can be contracted by many routes, including vaginal intercourse[1] or from mother to infant.[2] Many HIV and AIDS misconceptions exist; please check that article and references therein before raising a point here. Q3: Why does the article not cite any of the websites that dispute the role of HIV in AIDS, or promote alternative therapies for AIDS? A3: Wikipedia relies on reliable sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In medical articles the Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) guideline states that the best sources include general or systematic reviews in reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. The information provided by other sources such as websites, blogs, newsletters, advocacy publications, and the vendors of unproven remedies range from factual to fraudulent, with many containing misinformation and unfounded claims.[3][4] These types of sources are therefore not appropriate for Wikipedia articles. Q4: Why was my post to this page deleted? A4: Did you read and abide by the Talk page guidelines? Most likely, someone decided that you appeared to be using the page as a forum for discussion of the topic itself rather than as a place to suggest concrete improvements to the article on HIV. There should be an explanatory edit summary if you look at the history. Try rephrasing your post as What about this source? or, better This sentence is misleading/erroneous, as indicated by this source. It should read as ... The sources in question should be current, abide by the Reliable sources guideline, and not be used to give undue weight to any particular view. See also AIDS HIV and AIDS misconceptions AIDS denialism Origin of AIDS References ^ Smith DK, Grohskopf LA, Black RJ, et al. (January 2005). "Antiretroviral postexposure prophylaxis after sexual, injection-drug use, or other nonoccupational exposure to HIV in the United States: recommendations from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services". MMWR Recomm Rep. 54 (RR-2): 1–20. PMID 15660015. Retrieved 2009-03-31. ^ Coovadia H (2004). "Antiretroviral agents—how best to protect infants from HIV and save their mothers from AIDS". N. Engl. J. Med. 351 (3): 289–292. doi:10.1056/NEJMe048128. PMID 15247337. ^ Kalichman SC, Cherry C, Cain D, et al. (March 2006). "Health information on the Internet and people living with HIV/AIDS: information evaluation and coping styles". Health Psychol. 25 (2): 205–10. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.25.2.205. PMID 16569112. ^ Benotsch EG, Kalichman S, Weinhardt LS (December 2004). "HIV-AIDS patients' evaluation of health information on the internet: the digital divide and vulnerability to fraudulent claims". J Consult Clin Psychol. 72 (6): 1004–11. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.72.6.1004. PMID 15612847.

Template:WP1.0

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Viruses GA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses 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.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine: Reproductive GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Microbiology GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology 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.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International development GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International development, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of international development, including such areas as appropriate technology, microfinance and social issues, 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.International developmentWikipedia:WikiProject International developmentTemplate:WikiProject International developmentInternational development articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please, change " Both SIVcpz and HIV-1 appear to have been transmitted relatively recently to chimpanzee and human populations, so their hosts have not yet adapted to the virus. Both viruses have also lost a function of the Nef gene that is present in most SIVs; without this function, T cell depletion is more likely, leading to immunodeficiency.[121] "

to

"SIVcpz appear to have been transmitted relatively recently to chimpanzee and human populations, so their hosts have not yet adapted to the virus. This virus have also lost a function of the Nef gene that is present in most SIVs; without this function, T cell depletion is more likely, leading to immunodeficiency.[121] "

because:

1)The article cited [121] refers to SIVcpz but not HIV-1.

2) Persons infected with HIV-1 strains that have deletions of the Nef gene actually develop AIDS symptoms much more slowly than those infected with standard HIV strains [Learmont JC, Geczy AF, Mills J, Ashton LJ, Raynes-Greenow CH, Garsia RJ, Dyer WB, McIntyre L, Oelrichs RB, Rhodes DI, Deacon NJ, Sullivan JS' (June 1999)]

Thank you!

193.232.122.114 (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Topher385 (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"HIV-2 is much less pathogenic than HIV-1 and is restricted in its worldwide distribution. The adoption of "accessory genes" by HIV-2 and its more promiscuous pattern of coreceptor usage (including CD4-independence) may assist the virus in its adaptation to avoid innate restriction factors present in host cells. Adaptation to use normal cellular machinery to enable transmission and productive infection has also aided the establishment of HIV-2 replication in humans. A survival strategy for any infectious agent is not to kill its host but ultimately become a commensal organism. Having achieved a low pathogenicity, over time, variants more successful at transmission will be selected.[103]"

I'm pretty sure that the previous statement is not quite correct, or at the very least confusingly worded. HIV-1 is rapidly overtaking HIV-2, even in the areas where HIV-2 is endemic. On average, HIV-1 patients also have a higher viral load, which would seemingly correlate with an enhanced ability to transmit the infection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.33.98 (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

is it saliva can trnsmit hiv? I ever hear that 2 gallons of saliva can transmit hiv is it true? And can it transmitted via urethera (The saliva get in to the body via saliva) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.44.177 (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under Acute Infection section: "During this period (usually 2–4 weeks post-exposure) most individuals (80 to 90%) develop an influenza or mononucleosis-like illness called acute HIV infection, ..." Would someone be able to provide a citation by the claim of "80-90%"? The citation at the end of the list of symptoms seems more to be about the symptoms than prevalence. I am curious if there were any data that could be extrapolated to the general human population about the likelihood and severity of acute HIV infection/seroconversion. If there is a lack of generalizable data, I think it would be more ethical to remove the specific percentage range, as the way it reads now it may be mistakenly confirming someone's belief of not being infected due to not having experienced any seroconversion symptoms.

Thanks

Pilcher CD, Eron JJ Jr, Galvin S, Gay C, Cohen MS. Acute HIV revisited: new opportunities for treatment and prevention. J Clin Invest. Apr 2004;113(7):937-45 [2] suggests a lower rate of symptomatic acute HIV infection, and a significantly lower rate of about 50% if you only consider the influenza/mono-like syndrome. To avoid the inference that the absence of this syndrome in any way suggests that the person is not infected with HIV, it might be worth referring to the fact that of 60 million individuals worldwide with HIV, fewer than 1,000 were diagnosed during the period of acute infection. We do already state that infected persons may not experience any symptoms. I'll remove the 80-90% since it's directly contradicted by this reference but will await suggestions on any other changes you feel need to be made. - Nunh-huh 00:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Typo: "20h" should be "20th"

67.180.210.149 (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - nice catch. Cheers! -- Scray (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Experimental treatment options, future treatment options. This could help shine light on the possibility of future treatment options and why there isn't a cure available.

Found some interesting information that came out a few days ago about the possibility of an HIV vaccine:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111013141816.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.178.18.22 (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a lentivirus (a member of the retrovirus family) that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS),[1][2]" This is an over simplification of what these two papers contain and only takes the first question of the abstract. The paper it's self questions that the two may not be mutually exclusive. HIV can lead to AIDS but is not the cause of AIDS, HIV is a virus, AIDS is a syndrome. A disease can be part of a syndrome but not required to meet the criteria. AIDS is not a disease.(Center for Disease Control(CDC), US National Library of Medicine, World Health Organization(WHO),Pan American Health Organization(PAHO), United Nations)^[1] HIV does not cause AIDS. HIV can be a contributing factor to the development of AIDS but is not a cause in and of it's self. (CDC, US National Library of Medicine, World Health Organization,Pan American Health Organization, United Nations)^[2] There are several markers the CDC use to classify AIDS- CD4, CD8, Platelet counts, are but a few. When the numbers or percentages of these markers drop below a certain level someone is said to have AIDS.(from the CDC markers and flags in communicable diseases 1981)^[3] Graves Disease, Lupis, Crones Disease, Microscopic Polyiiangitis, Agammaglobulinemia, Hypogammaglobulinemia, the list goes on. As of 2004 there were 100 disease exclusive of HIV infection known to suppress the immune system that could lead to AIDS. (US National Library of Medicine 2004, Internal Medicine Journal Volume 34, Issue 6, pages 348–354, June 2004- opened for public use, CDC,WHO)^[4]Bilingram (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing that there are other things that can cause AIDS, therefore HIV does not cause AIDS? Surely you can see the logical error there. You have not provided a link to the Internal Medicine Journal article you're talking about, and I can't find it; so far as I can see, the articles in that journal require payment for access. Please read AIDS denialism, as well as the FAQ near the top of Talk:AIDS denialism. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to go into the source cited for "Insertive anal intercourse for uncircumcised men (2010 study)." I noticed that the risk was actually "1.43% (95% CI 0.48%-2.85%) if ejaculation occurred inside the rectum occurred, and it was 0.65% (95% CI 0.15%-1.53%) if withdrawal prior to ejaculation was involved." So, the statistic is misquoted. This needs to be corrected, and given the evidence of biased editing, I would say the whole table needs to be checked.71.233.149.246 (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What bias are you concerned about? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edited this out, but it was reverted as "vandalism". The following statement as it is found on the HIV page is completely wrong. The figures are *clearly* incorrect (they contradict all the other numbers on the Wikipedia page, and they can't be found in the cited paper either).

"In 2005, it was estimated that HIV would infect 90 million people in Africa, resulting in a minimum estimate of 18 million orphans.[8]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanuck (talk • contribs) 04:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too am puzzled by the label "vandalism" on the revert of your earlier edit; in any case, I've updated and refactored the sentence using numbers from the 2010 report. I hope you'll agree that it is improved. -- Scray (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "picture" of the virus titled "Diagram of HIV" should in fact be titled "Theoretical Diagram of HIV" since the virus has never been seen. To the best of my knowledge there are no "experts" in this field who claim to have isolated the virus and generated an image of it. There *are* images being circulated which carry labels that *claim* that the image is of the virus but such images never site their source. A good example of this kind of propaganda can be found on the NIAID website (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Understanding/Biology/Pages/biology.aspx). If indeed there is a consensus among "experts" that the "Diagram of HIV" accurately reflects scientific observations then sources must be sited. I propose that the title of the image should be changed to reflect the true consensus that the diagram is theoretical at best. Better yet - remove the diagram altogether and replace it with an image of Santa Claus.