Talk:HIV
|
|
| Contents |
HIV deniers, check in here!
Despite the hype, and based on years of personal research, I am now of the strong belief that the HIV 'virus' does not in fact exist! The blood test to check for HIV is the only one that doesn't actually look for the actual virus!! Medicos say the virus is too small to see, but can't we see atoms?? AZT, the most common AIDS drug is a toxic chemotherapy shelved in the 60s due to it's toxicity, yet this is given to help the patient's immune system? As if! Maintaining the world's 'belief' of this ghost disease is for the the purpose of keeping this 2 billion dollar income running, and to keep disadvantaged people disadvantaged by killing their societies with these drugs. Try giving 'AIDS sufferers' nutritious food, clean water and cut the drugs. The only 'epidemic' will be one of health!
- D. you are most welcome to put your health where your mouth is and receive an injection of my HIV positive blood (or, because you may wish to plead the risk of other dangers present in the blood of an adult, the blood from a HIV+ newborn - tip: there are thousands of such babies you could source from in Africa). HIV is one of the trickiest viruses we've ever encountered. As such, there is much uncertainty and confusion among those studying it. On the positive side (excuse the pun) there have been enormous advances in our overall understanding of both viruses and the human immune system. Now, perhaps you are one of the 1%-3% (exact percentage unkown) who are immune to this "non-existent" virus? Your opinion is very strong - what's the risk then? My offer is genuine - I'm sure you'll attract a lot of media attention for your anti-HIV cause should you decide to take it up.
- occamster
Other discussion
I'm going to change "HIV can infect anyone. Babies, women, senior citizens, teenagers, and people of any ethnicity can contract HIV." to "Though the risk for infection is indeed greater for individuals partaking in such behaviors, HIV can infect anyone. Babies, women, senior citizens, teenagers, and people of any ethnicity can contract HIV." Is this OK? GWC W57.05 W2.8.8 UT 17.15 EDT
- i clarified it a bit. a marijuana smoker for instance is NOT at risk nearly as much as a heroin user. similarily, a female homosexual is NOT at risk nearly as much as a male homosexual - or heterosexual for that matter either. there is a famous comedian who used to joke that 'if g-d gave gay men HIV because he hated their immorally sexual activity, then he really loved lesbians, because they get HIV far less than even straight people.' - i wish i remembered his name... JoeSmack (talk) 04:57, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
The structure of the virus needs to be described here: shape, genome, enzymes, structure proteins. Life cycle is also missing. See the excellent article in Everything2 (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1048352). History of its discovery would also be interesting. AxelBoldt 10:49, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The statement Certain types of infections must be present for a person to be diagnosed as having AIDS. is simply not true. You can have CDC-defined AIDS simply by have a CD4 T-Cell count of 200 or less plus an HIV infection.
The statement HIV causes disease by infecting the CD4+ T cells. is too limited since HIV infects macrophages and causes damage that way too. Kstailey 21:22, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The statement When the cell divides and the DNA is copied, the virus is copied too. is dubious since I question that a HIV infected cell could perform mitosis at all since it would have to manufacture protiens to do it and in the process would start to make more HIV virons and bring about its destruction. Kstailey 21:31, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
It is proved today, that Robert Gallo got the strain of HIV, he claimes to have discovered fom Luc Montaigner in order to assure Montaigner's results. Gallo then published the results, clainin he had discovered the virus. Read Discovering the Cause of AIDS by Stanley B. Prusiner (http://aidscience.org/science/298(5599)1726b.html) and see also Stanley B. Prusiner. 145.254.193.184 15:25, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
An article is needed on the History of HIV, and its zoonosis, not just on its history of discovery, and the theory of the polio vaccine. Duncharris 12:48, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
There's a story (http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,63441,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1) at Wired saying that two researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory are developing a virus which attacks HIV and mutes its ability to become AIDS. -- Jim Regan 01:23, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
- I suggest this is not included in Wikipedia until it has been reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Even the best "news" reports contain inaccuracies, many of which end up not being corrected. I suggest we search Pubmed in a few months (Arkin A, Schaffer D) to see if this has been published in Science (journal), Nature (journal) or somewhere else. JFW | T@lk 07:53, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
I added a new website to the external links, CME on HIV. It's an educational website for healthcare providers. -- Eridanis 9 June 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not completely sure why the link was reverted. Perhaps you should provide even more context; it might be a useful resource. On the other hand, some Wikipedians have grown weary over anonymous editors sticking links in articles. I hope it will stay this time... JFW | T@lk 15:27, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Did you look at the site? If you want to access anything contained within it, you must register; in order to register, you must be up to snuff. A quote from their website:
- "Only healthcare providers treating HIV/AIDS patients can subscribe and become members of CMEonHIV.com."
- This link was added along with a slew of others, all to the same company's website(s). I'm getting tired of people defending the value of external links which have little or no use to Wikipedia's readership. This is an encyclopedia, and not a place for healthcare providers or educators to subscribe to or peddle services. The link might be helpful to those professionals specifically seeking "CME" on the subject, but that's not what Wikipedia is here to present. Am I the only one who sees this? -- Hadal 02:38, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- No, you are exactly, 100% right. →Raul654 02:44, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Beg your pardon, but who do you think are the readers of Wikipedia? If you look at the bio of JFW, you will notice that he's a doctor. Has a doctor, he found this link useful. As you said, I added a bunch of other websites to specific section of Wikipedia : ADHD, organ transplantation, spasticity and insulin resistance. All websites were clearly targeting these specific medical fields. I think that you're sharing my point of view about the fact that ADHD, diabetes of type 2 and spasticity, for example, are subjects that most doctors will be glad to read about and not the general public. It's not like if I added a car website "for car dealers only" on a general wikipedia car page, don't you think? Regarding the fact that all websites were coming from the same company, yes it is right. To create online presentations and travel around the world to record them, you must have the funds to do it. But they are all free to healthcare providers and the speakers presented on their homepages are some of the most respected in their medical fields. And "CME" stands for Continuing Medical Education; each doctor must get credits for learning sessions each year to keep its practice license, it's mandatory. - Eridanis
Eridanis, you've managed to misread my intentions. I stated that adding links is not everybody's idea of productive contributions, and many wikipedians are weary of endless dumping of links on pages. You have managed to justify adding HIV-CME, but this way it looks too much like linkspam, especially from a newcomer. You would do readers a bigger pleasure to abstract useful information from these websites and update the articles you've mentioned. JFW | T@lk 20:20, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sorry Jfdwolff. - Eridanis
Microbicides
Can someone add to the AIDS catagory microbicides? They are usually intervaginal substances (gels, cremes, sprays) that disable the HIV virus. It is an interesting new avenue towards fighting aids.
--ShaunMacPherson 23:04, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Immunity
I have recently heard that some people are immune to HIV (it's been confirmed through lab tests) because of a genetic mutation known as Delta 32 on a certain gene. Apparently, this also causes immunity to the Bubonic Plague! I know it sounds kind of insane, but its true, and I'm probably not the only person who knows about it. It sounds like a bit of interesting info to put on the page.
- I'm trying to find out if this is just a newspaper report[1] (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/01/content_379267.htm) or if this has reached the professional literature yet. CCR is a gene known to be involved in the pathogenesis of AIDS, and apparently 10% carry the delta-32 mutation. Oh, I just saw that Kahn & Walker discuss it in their 1998 review in the NEJM - it is actually a deletion of 32 base pairs from the gene. This should definitely be in the article. JFW | T@lk 21:06, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Suggestions
This article needs a lot of work, but I don't have the energy right now. A couple of points:
- there needs to be a section on the ways to transmit HIV
- why is "Aids reappraisal" and "criminal HIV infection" in the History section?
- the pathogenesis and life cycle sections should be combined
AxelBoldt 04:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Lify Cycle
Hello all. I've just found this article and I've made a couple of changes: added a bit to the Life Cycle section. I'll try to do more e.g. shape, history, CCR5-delta32 etc as I have time.
Cheers
Bennett
New development - 3-DCR HIV
[2] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4260467.stm) It seems a new strain known as 3-DCR HIV have been detected.
the section on Common Misconceptions, "AIDS and HIV are the same thing" is very poorly written. if no one has a problem with me changing it, i'd like to distinguish the difference between the two highlighting that you can get AIDS without having HIV. the current discription throws in some stuff about HIV longterm non-progressors and "many HIV-positive individuals may never develop AIDS" due to advancement in treatments. not only do these two things not belong under this Common Misconception, but no treatments have ever been proven to successfully stave off AIDS forever. HIV longterm non-progressors as far as people can tell have to do with Hep G, but we really know very little. JoeSmack (talk) 03:49, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Question about HIV...
How does HIV actually destroy the T-cell that it has infected?
- Remember how viruses work: They are merely little bits of genetic material that "hijack" the host cell's mechanisms and cause the host cell to start cranking out many, many new copies of the virus. Eventually, the host cell bursts, releasing all the new virions (virus particles) to go infect new hosts. It's simply this rupturing of the host cell's membrane that kills it, and it's pretty-much the same story with any virus, from good old cold viruses (rhinoviruses) to HIV.
- Atlant 11:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I actually read a couple of pubmed articles that said HIV infected cells don't make up the majority of the t-cells that die. Instead HIV somehow sends a signal to the CD4, CD8, etc. to begin apoptosis (cell suicide). -- 128.62.118.63
- Uh-oh, I don't know about that so that could also be true! Perhaps a better-informed person will be along to help out here...
- Atlant 11:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Does HIV cause AIDS?
The facts are that in the United States and Europe antibodies to HIV must be detected for a diagnosis of AIDS. The same diseases without HIV antibodies are simply not called AIDS.
In places like Africa, where HIV antibody testing is not widely available, about half the diagnosed cases of AIDS have antibodies to HIV. Cleary HIV cannot be causing AIDS in the other half who do not have HIV antibodies. -- Fred2005
- Please state your source for those contradictory statements. -- Ec5618 13:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't get it. If AIDS is defined as the disease that causes HIV antibodies, how can AIDS not be caused by HIV? -- Ec5618 17:16, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Considering that there are many scientists who disagree that HIV is the cause for AIDS, shouldn´t this be noted in the article?
- Those scientists are in a miniscule-but-vocal minority. →Raul654 21:57, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
What was the link between HIV and AIDS based on?
Dr. Luc Montagnier of France created this link between HIV and AIDS, can someone please point me in the direction of the scientific evidence that was used to make this claim?
- That's a *HOTLY* debated point. There have been accusations (with actual evidentiary claims to back them up) that Gallo stole Montagnier's work (if memory serves, Montagnier sent him a sample of the virus and then Gallo published before Montagnier, leading many to suspect he used the sample sent him in an unethical way). For a time, I believe Gallo was investigated for unethical behavior relating to that. →Raul654 04:09, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
For a brief history of AIDS:
- start here: NEJM, December 10, 1981 (http://content.nejm.org/content/vol305/issue24/index.shtml)
- then, the association with HTLV, in the same issue of 'Science':
- Gallo (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6601823&query_hl=62)
- Mongagnier (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6189183&query_hl=65)
- By 1984, Gallo gets more confident (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6100648&query_hl=87) about the virus he calls HTLV-III.
- At the same time, Montagnier chases down (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6100650&query_hl=65) LAV.
- Then, at the end of 1984, two articles in 'Nature' report cloning the virus:
- In November, Gallo (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6095086&query_hl=105).
- In December Montagnier (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6096717&query_hl=93).
You be the judge. I'm inclined to call it a draw. Polacrilex 04:59, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I may just be crazy but I really think there should be a "simple" translation of all this medical jargon. Quite frankly I'm not sure that I want to draw my own conclusion. I would like to think that if I test positive for HIV and have my life runied, that there is a good reason for someone doing so.
--Warrick FitzGerald 02:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Now that is a more difficult issue (if I understand your point correctly). Simply proving an association between HIV and AIDS is easier than proving a causal relationship. The best method that science has to do the latter is contained in Koch's postulates, in which four findings must exist between an organism and a disease to establish causality:
- It must be found in patients with the disease, but not in those without (not satisfied by HIV, in which some patients with detectable virus never develop symptoms)
- An individual sample must be isolated from a patient with the disease (satisfied by HIV)
- The organism so isolated should cause the disease when introduced into a healthy animal (hopefully never done in humans, and difficult to do in animals)
- The organism should then be able to be isolated from the now diseased animal (again, difficult to do in animals).
Polacrilex 16:28, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)