Talk:HIV

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Talk:HIV is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

Related Sponsors

BM Pharmacy Generic pharmaceuticals at unbeatable prices. Insomnia, men's health, hair health, pain control. bmpharmacy.com
Online Pharmacy Carisoprodol, tadalafil, sildenafil, vardenafil and more... xlpharmacy.com
MedBasket.com Discreet. Inexpensive. Fast shipping. Great selection. What more can we say? medbasket.com
Frugalmed 2000 reasons to shop with us first. frugalmed.com
Ads by Tiva

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HIV article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Good article 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 delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

Contents

Out of date HIV statistics

The info "About 9 out of every 10 persons with HIV will progress to AIDS after 10-15 years.[8] Treatment with anti-retrovirals, where available, increases the life expectancy of people infected with HIV. After the diagnosis of AIDS is made, the current average survival time with antiretroviral therapy (as of 2005) is estimated to be more than 5 years.[9]" is very out of date - number 8, 1994. New reports are saying that lifespan is now upwards of 24 years and potentially normal. http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?coll=news_articles&sernum=2006/11/13/4&page=1 http://www.terradaily.com/reports/HIV_Life_Expectancy_Now_Normal_999.html

Where access to medicine is possible, HIV is now considered a 'chronic illness'. This distinction is important so as to lessen prejudice. --Skordy (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

How can HIV be a naturally occuring virus in nature if...

It kills 100% of people it infects? It's my understanding that one of the purposes of a virus is to reproduce itself, but if every person who is infected with HIV eventually dies, then at some point, so will the virus itself. This doesn't sound like very smart evolution to me... Davez621 (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

HIV has infected humans for less than a century by most estimates, so it is still considered by many to be a zoonosis. It is now a naturally-occurring infection of humans (transmitted in communities and not laboratory-engineered), but it may evolve further to the less pathogenic (like its parent virus SIV is in the respective natural hosts). Even as pathogenic as HIV is, it won't "burn out" anytime soon (by killing all its hosts), because people have plenty of time to transmit before dying. Contrast with human infections by SARS or filoviruses, which do kill the host rapidly and epidemics extinguish quickly. Hepatitis C virus is a better example of a well-adapted (usually indolent) chronic human RNA virus.Scray (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
HIV has an extremely long incubation period, which allows it to spread more quickly. And my understanding is that it might not kill 100% of the people it infects... We don't know yet. See CCR5 for one known resistance factor to HIV infection. Grandmasterka 01:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Simple, Davez. HIV spreads relatively easily during sex so it doesn't matter (from the virus' point of view) if it kills someone, just so long as it gets spread to someone else. 86.130.68.29 (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

People with hiv typically have a larger right bicep as compared to the ratio of non-hiv infected people. Also during the early stages of hiv, the infected may have a temporary enhanced strength due to the amount of nerve cells that die early off in the infection.—Preceding unsigned comment added by True sheep (talk • contribs) date

This is garbage. Is it vandalism if it's on a talk page? Scray (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
It's OK to remove obviously inappropriate stuff from talk pages. Technically, this probably is vandalism, or at least extreme silliness, and it would be fine to remove it. MastCell Talk 03:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Cure

I have a question,

Would it be possible to create an anti-virul that has a dual purpose: One, remove the lipid surrounding the virus; Two, attack and dismantle the matrix that protects the capsid?

I understand that the lipid is taken from the host cell.

My train of thought is that if we remove the defenses of the virus then the immune system can then target the capsid directly and destroy the virus. I feel that we are trying to out-program the virus when it's very nature is to survive by using the very 'binary' system that allows for all life. Its understanding is far greater than ours currently.

If it is not possible because of it's mutation probablities, would it be possible to create a device that we can insert into the body that detects the virus and it's current mutations, extracts stems cells from the body 'cures' them then reinstates them into the enviornment to seek out and destroy the virus. Im thinkng of a dialysis machine within the body, along the same principle as the artificial heart. Well the two different concepts that form to make one.

Again i really dont know what i am talking about and it probably shows but it was just a thought.

24.14.177.89 (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

cost

Can someone put an up to date cost per year of anti-retroviral drugs in to the article?Pejman47 (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no vaccine?

I think you need to make room for a discussion of why there are no vaccine for this virus while there are vaccines for lots of other vira. A discussion of why it is so hard to make a vaccine and treat it in general is needed. It's really weird that we have a vaccine for rabies which is the deadliest virus in the world but not one for HIV/AIDS! 83.92.26.61 (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


I think it is really hard to findout how to vaccinate this miserable virus. I just suppose that the scientists and experts try to do their best to figure out and vaccinate this disease but the machanism of the virus is totally different from other viruses. We should make clear to the patients that it takes long time to make a vaccine for HIV, and still we only have a chance to strengthen human body immune system with special drugs. I really would like to research this part in 10years and it takes long time to find out how to get rid of the root host from the patients body, I am just worry about the people who may die for the 20 years without cure with no money. We are finding better solution but it's still not enough to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahreum.hahn (talk • contribs) 08:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that HIV mutates incredibly fast - any infected person has not just one but a cocktail of HIV infections in their body, and it'll be a different cocktail from the time they wake up in the morning to the time they lay down at night! It's like the common cold - it wouldn't be so hard to vaccinate against HIV, except you're only vaccinating against one "strain" in millions that may not even exist anymore except in the vaccination! 137.122.31.11 (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not quite as bad as that. There are portions of the HIV genome that do not change, rather they are conserved. A number of groups have demonstrated that HIV-infected persons have immune responses that recognize many worldwide strains. The tricky thing is to find a bit that is conserved but is also immunogenic, i.e. able to stimulate a meaningful immune response, when given as a vaccine. --Scray (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Detectable through urine tests!

This article does'nt seem to mention that HIV is detectable through urine and saliva tests, the online doctor page FPA quotes 'Although tests can detect HIV in urine and saliva, the level of virus in these fluids is thought to be too low to be infectious' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.246.56 (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

change 'drug abuse' to 'drug addiction'

addiction is considered by some to be a disease in and of itself, with genetic and psychological components —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.57.205.154 (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

no longer a pandemic to anyone but gay men and africans

surely this has to be included in the article: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/threat-of-world-aids-pandemic-among-heterosexuals-is-over-report-admits-842478.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Wig Pig (talk • contribs) 22:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Your statement so close minded, racist and so obviously inflammatory that it shouldn't even be brought up as a joke. Not to mention the most common spread of HIV is through needle sharing and other medical equipment, outside of South Africa. Actually, the presentation of this information by you is worse than the information itself. Instead of citing this site that cites a statement, you should find that statement? Outside of Africa, heterosexual transmission may be rare but does occur, but the most obvious mode of spread is through injection, which is not limited to "gay men and africans" as you put it. --Thehiddenmind (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Rarer in men?

It is raraer for men to catch HIV from women than it is for Women to catch HIV from men during vaginal intercourse, because the infected fluid would not be able to enter the male body through the penis as easily?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.246.56 (talk • contribs) 09:31, June 29, 2008

10-15 years to AIDS, or to immune decline?

Could someone else take a look at the statement "Without treatment, about 9 out of every 10 persons with HIV will progress to AIDS after 10-15 years"? The cited article by Buchbinder[1] seems like it might be saying something different:

Of 588 men, 69% had developed AIDS by 14 years after HIV seroconversion (95% confidence interval, 64-73%). Of 539 men with HIV seroconversion dates prior to 1983, 42 men (8%) were healthy long-term HIV-positives (HLP), HIV-infected > or = 10 years without AIDS and with CD4+ counts > 500 x 10(6)/l.

Looks to me like it's saying that ~69% of the sample developed AIDS within 14 years of infection, while 8% of those who were infected >=14 years ago were healthy. I'm inferring that the remainder are people who did not have AIDS, but did have CD4+ counts under 500. This is a sign that HIV is taking a toll and that they would probably progress to AIDS eventually, but it wouldn't support the statement that 90% progress to AIDS within 15 years. Also note that the study only reported on men, so the gender-neutral phrasing in this entry may be inappropriate.

I don't want to mess with such an important point in the article without some additional confirmation. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Inhumandecency (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of a disconnect between the two.
In reading Long-term HIV-1 infection without immunologic progression, look at the 'objective':
To identify and describe a subgroup of men infected with HIV for 10-15 years without immunologic progression, and to evaluate the effect of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) and recreational drug use on delayed HIV disease progression.
You have to understand the facts that it is:
  • ONLY LOOKING AT SURVIVORS!
  • trying to identify whether a lack of exposure to certain factors affects whether they experience immunological progression
In terms of even thinking about altering the statement about progression times for this Wikipedia article, there is one very important piece of the jigsaw missing: How many would have progressed so quickly that they had died and couldn't therefore be part of the cohort recruited at the 'municipal STD clinic'? In 1994, which is when that report is from, that would have been a scarily high number. Finn (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

can i say something.......

hiv dont just affect people having sex, and sticking needles in their arms. someone people are stabbed with needles by hiv infected people. in hopes of infecting those people with one prick.....it should be added in the article that hiv can also be used as a weapon to infect others by simply pricking them with a bloody needle.......most gang members these days do that. and the crime is on the rise. I know of 3 people that were infected with HIV by being stabbed in gang fights, and in public. people infected with HIV contain a life changing weapon in their body, If you double cross a person with HIV , they will infect you. thats why i stay away from everyone and everything with "HIV" its way to scary.......I will not give anyone the chance to stabbed me with a HIV infected needle....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.188.118 (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources to substantiate these claims, then please consider adding them. I seriously doubt, for example, that "most gang members these days" use HIV as a weapon. Scray (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Since the likelihood of being infected from a needlestick is around 0.3%, it seems unlikely to replace the Mac-10 or Street Sweeper anytime soon. MastCell Talk 03:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Or heart attacks caused by Big Macs. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, the risk from a deep puncture with a hollow-bore needle that was just taken from the vein of a person with HIV is much higher. Scray (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


Celebrities that had AIDS

I would like to know which celebrities died from this virus, i.e. Freddie Mercury. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.214.67 (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

See List of HIV-positive people. -Optigan13 (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

KUDOs on evolution of this material

Just wanted to give some well deserved KUDOs to the primary providers on this entry. I've watched this entry closely over the last two years and I'm very happy with the evolution of the content that I've seen in that time. I'm still a tiny bit frustrated with the amount of overlap between the HIV and AIDS wiki entries, but in that last two years I've also gained a better understanding of the "politics" that are involved in that approach. Keep up the good work! ZacWolf (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The clinical course of infection

I would like to propose restructuring this section to add a new section after "Latency stage", adding "Chronic stage". I think the current "AIDS" header (while not necessarily "untrue") is not the complete picture. I think by focusing on the more clinical designation of "Chronic stage", we can better explain that there are different "outcomes" of this stage. AIDS being one possible outcome, but another being that even without treatment, AIDS is not necessarily the final "stage" of the infection, as a more common cause of death among those on successful treatment or long term non-progressors, is death from comorbidities before developing AIDS. I'm new to this, so would appreciate any thoughts, and some possible acceptable "sources" that I could start with to substantiate these statements. ZacWolf (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand where you are coming from, Zac; BUT that is about disease progression and it would be totally incorrect to start talking about long-term non-progressors and those on "successful treatment", but suffering from co-morbidities, under your suggested heading 'Chronic Stage'.
The real issue for me is that AIDS (especially the CD4 < 200 criteria) is increasingly just a reporting classification. I get my treatment at Europe's largest HIV treatment and research centre and they would quite simply NEVER dream of using the term 'AIDS' in any sort of diagnostic sense.
Personally I would prefer to see the terms 'Primary', 'Asymptomatic' and 'Symptomatic' used to describe the progression of HIV. Finn (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Doctors may have found a way to destroy HIV !!!

There's news going round of a possible major breakthrough against HIV. Dr. Sudhir Paul of the University of Texas Medical School at Houston says they have found a way to destroy the virus. Check it out : http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/stories/NWkmsb20080730_hiv_breakt-hrough.1971ecbd.html I think there should be a new section in the article titled Treatments Under Development so that we can keep track of these. If someone with an account could please do that, that would be great, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.240.125 (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds too preliminary for an encyclopedic article. There have been HUGE numbers of "breakthroughs" like this one that never worked out. Nothing against the hypothesis or scientists - it's just too preliminary, is not even a treatment per se. Scray (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Scray makes a good point, and I'm not encouraging adding it to this article, but I've added a paragraph (second para in the vaccines section) on this development in the article on gp120, the protein Dr. Paul refers to. In addition to a news source (in my case the Washington Post, which seemed a little bit more realistic), I looked through one of the papers they've written and tried to make the description a little more scientific/specific. Check it out, and if one of the more biology inclined contributors to this article (I'm a materials person) can make better sense out of it all, please do. The paper appears to be available for free (see the reference). -- Lone Skeptic (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I am with Scray on this. Even IF FOX is regarded as a reliable source and even IF there is mileage in this 'discovery'; then it would (at best) have potential as the basis for a preventative treatment - not a cure. First it has to be explored under more realistic conditions, then (assuming it is still looking good) whatever is learned about it has to be applied to developing a vaccine (or possibly a microbicide to prevent sexual transmission). That is a lot of ifs - and all manner of 'discoveries' and compounds, that have managed to answer all those ifs, have still failed at the final hurdle: working in the real world. Just look at how many preventative vaccine trials have been halted in last twelve months (with one of them even appearing to increase the likelihood of HIV transmission). This is many years off even ranking as a potential candidate for a potential preventative treatment. Finn (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Confusion between mL and µL

I could have just read the article wrong but under HIV#Acute_HIV_infection CD4+ T cell counts per mL is frequently referenced, I believe this should be counts per µL. 61.68.182.136 (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Good catch - fixed. Proper units are cells per µL (or per mm3, which is the same thing), not per mL. Scray (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Prevention section needed

As per WP:MEDMOS this article needs a Prevention section. For a good source for Prevention, I suggest the following recently-published review:

  • Padian NS, Buvé A, Balkus J, Serwadda D, Cates W (2008). "Biomedical interventions to prevent HIV infection: evidence, challenges, and way forward". Lancet 372 (9638): 585–99. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60885-5. PMID 18687456. 

Eubulides (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Mistake in the article

Hi, this is my first time posting in wiki so hopefully I'm not doing anything too out of the ordinary.

I think there is a mistake in the main HIV article where it talks about CD4 interactions.

It should be changed from MHC class I to MHC class II and subsequently the link changed as well.

I don't know how me talking about this actually goes on to getting the article changed but hope this is at least a good start.

Jun

Junviolin (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome! I assume you're talking about the HIV#Structure_and_Genome section, and I would say that it was not wrong, but incomplete. I've added class II and references for downregulation of CD4, class I, and class II to support that sentence. BTW, the last sentence in your post is correct - there is no guarantee that a comment will change Wikipedia, so be BOLD and make changes! Now that you've edited this page, you know how easy it is. --Scray (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


item needs to be placed in HIV transmission section

there is an article in the nytimes about 3 children being infected with HIV because of pre-chewing. This, I deem, very important to be placed under routes of transmission. Rare yes, important yes! could this mean that the virus that these individuals had has mutated past being less infectious? hmm but the cultural impact it could have in some communities as stated in the article are the most important; this is why its an important consideration under this section. Google infant infected by hiv caretaker, i dont know how to place the link in here. Thanks! ([user talk:Daekl]) 0145 23 september 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daekl (talk • contribs) 08:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

HIV oraquick discussion should be posted on HIV tests

There is a lot about HIV testing, one of the most common methods now a days is the oraquick test. in just unde 45mins, usually, the test comes out postitive, negative or inconclusive. Usually its detects not only HIV 1 but also HIV 2. That article should have a page directing them to the "hiv test' article. Thanks ( [Daekl])

Origin of HIV

A recent study, covered in a BBC article, "Colonial clue to the rise of HIV ", suggests that HIV may have crossed from other apes to humans sometime between 1884 and 1924. This is earlier than the stated years in AIDS origin, which says 1919–1960. Someone else might want to add this to AIDS origin (and briefly mention it in this article under HIV#Origin); I'm not feeling ambitious at the moment. I might be able to access the actual scientific paper if anyone wants, just let me know at my talk page. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

AIDS origin has already been updated, but I've updated this article under HIV#Origin. --Scray (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Prize

I've added mention of this to the discovery section. This is likely to open the whole can of worms with Gallo, but fortunately AP did their homework and published an article quoting Gallo, so I think my inclusion is reasonably NPOV.

We really do need some referenced information (news articles, etc) on the original controversy. Historically it was quite a big thing IIRC, Reagan and Chirac had to get personally involved to resolve it. -Kieran (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Discovery attribution prior to nobel prize

i changed it a little to reflect this

In 1991, however, further studies showed that the virus isolated by Gallo was identical to Montagnier's and different from the viruses carried by the patients Gallo claimed to have isolated it from. Three years later, the U.S. government conceded that the French should receive the lion's share of royalties from the AIDS test, affirming Montagnier's role.

which is from [2], but i'm not sure how to insert the reference in the article--Mongreilf (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the reference. I intend to clean up this article in a few weeks, since it's a bit of a mess. I hope your part survives, but we'll see how notable it is. To learn how to do references, which are important to editing medical articles, please see WP:CITET. Also this tool is a great one to automatically generate references. I use it all the time. If you need help, just drop a line on my discussion page. I'm not the best of teachers (I have the patience of gnat), but I'll do what I can for you. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
cheers. i'll probably be fine figuring it out. show preview is a wonderful thing. the discovery controversy is a great story, very notable, and would probably merit an article of it's own. i am however too lazy to write it myself--Mongreilf (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia content modification information:

  • This page was last modified on 7 October 2008, at 23:27.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Talk:HIV".

The URL for this specific entry is:

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.