Talk:HIV/AIDS: Difference between revisions

Propose to merge sections: Misconceptions and Denial

This topic should not be dignified with two short sections one medium section will do nicely.There is a notablity issue IMHO as well. In an aricle on solar geophysics we don't have a separate section for flat earth theories. Nor do we have a section for the theory of bodily humours in articles on pathophysiology. I think consensus is achievable on this issue as the sections are pretty minimal and arguably don't belonghere in the first place. Wikidgood (talk)

Agree and done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"All's well that ends well." Wikidgood (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, a logical progression of the discussion at Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive_22#Conspiracy_theories_etc_edit. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

POINT of PROCESS That was a nice post and in an abstract sense yes the edit may be a logical progression of that separate discussion. I want however to make it clear that the edit was not a direct extension of that discussion but was actually a bit more unilateralist than might have been ideal. No one objects to the content edit but I object to the process. It seems like the edit is made because one page owner decided he was in agreemnent. The implication is that however if in the future I have an editorial approach it will again be up to that one page owner to either implement or thwart my idea and indeed it seems that I am not the only editor who is finding even the most routine edits obstructed by that page ownership attitude. So this is in legal terms what is called "taking exception" to the process while not wishing to revert the edit, which was indeed my proposal anyway~~

Awkward opening sentences

The two opening sentences are awkward and difficult to understand.

The semantic problems are as follows: 1. Although the normal practice in wiki appears to be to expand acronyms such as "HIV" or "AIDS", the acronym "HIV/AIDS" itself is not expanded in normal use. Trying to do so just looks clumsy. 2. HIV/AIDS is a disease, not a virus and not itself an infection. It is caused by an infection by a virus. 3. Many readers will need clarification of what HIV/AIDS refers to, compared to what AIDS refers to.

I would rewrite as follows:

HIV/AIDS is a disease of the human immune system caused by infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).[1] The term HIV/AIDS represents the entire range of the disease caused by infection with HIV, while the term AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) refers to the late stages of that disease.[2][3]

Does that read more clearly and logically? On A Leash (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Am happy with that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that's great. I'd use quotation marks to produce

HIV/AIDS is a disease of the human immune system caused by infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).[1] "HIV/AIDS" represents the entire range of the disease caused by infection with HIV, whereas "AIDS" (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) refers to the late stages of that disease.[2][3]

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It is still awkward, inaccurate and misleading in a way which is harmful to PWA's and helpful to willful demagogues or the ignorant stampede-prone. Specifically, "HIV" is not a "disease" it is a designation for a retrovirus and in this conjoined double acronynm "HIV/AIDS" it really is intended to mean "infection with HIV". However, asymptomatic infection can occur with zero pathology and thus is not a "disease" state at all. Everyone has "cancer" cells and a wide variety of bacterial, viral and other microfauna in their bodies whether or not they are HIV+. To characterize a person who is HIV+ as "diseased" is really a projection of a colonialist, deprecating and in some cases dehumanizing point of view. Even if SOME sources use this Frankenstein acronym, not ALL RS discussing the spectrum of HIV-related pathology and public health management issues do so in lockstep, and there is a substantial body of 1/2/3rd degree RS which discusses it in other terms, specifically in terms distinguishing HIV+ status from full blown AIDS in a very clear manner. In any case, not very many sources go around referring to "HIV/AIDS" in the vast majority of RS people refer to AIDS when they mean AIDS and when they refer to HIV+ status they refer to HIV positive status. Only on this Wikipedia article does there seem to be a tenacious, almost compulsive controlling desire to glom together these separate and distinct concepts (HIV+ nstatus and AIDS pathology). Perhaps that is due to a WP:AGF consistent intention to prophylax against HIV denialism but forcing an unhelpful neologism, or neo-acronym, down readers throats accomplishes similar evils. Somewhere in the ENglish speaking world people are going to be reading about "HIV/AIDS" and conflating the distinctions and the result may be repression against PWA"s perhaps even causing premature death through the effects of stigmatization which in some part the controlling editors of this article will be culpable for. To be blunt. Don't kid yourself that there is consensus on the whole approach of this article, there is not. Wikidgood (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

A simple way to resolve the primary disagreement

On an interim basis I am fine with changing the one word "is" as per this edit which stops the Wikipedia voice from imparting a disease status onto HIV positivity by distinguishing between ontological pathology and the usage of some health care actors. If you can live with this very simple edit, which should not be controversial, I will not be crusading for perfection as the edit takes the reification out of the picture. Wikidgood (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverted here and here, per the WP:Refers essay. And it doesn't matter that WP:Refers is an essay; it should be followed.

Also, don't bring this matter to my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

As seen here, you senselessly WP:Edit war. A person does not have to state something on the talk page to revert you. And when a person does revert you, he or she likely intends to take the matter to the talk page. Regardless in this case, with the way you have acted at the HIV/AIDS article and talk page, and at Doc James's talk page and now mine, it should be easy for others to see why I am not the least bit interested in discussing a thing with you. Flyer22 (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You are just making an ad hominen personal attack and trying to create a voting bloc. Please read WP:OSE and review WP:AGF. If you are not willing to justify your reversion with reference to WP policies then you are admitting to a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. You are frankly and unashamedly trying to create a boycott by enlisting other users on a basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and as such you are the one who is creating a problem. You seem experienced enough to know that just saying that you find the wording nin question , "HIV/AIDS refers to..": somehow "tacky" does not constitute a legitimate cause for reversion, and this undiluted personal attack you now make is irrelevant, to say the least. Wikidgood (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Look at your inappropriate posts to Doc James's talk page and your inappropriate post to mine. You don't seem to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines well at all, despite editing Wikipedia since 2005. And now look at your silly characterization of me above. Yes, indeed, there are some Wikipedia editors I'd rather not engage with. After seeing your inappropriate posts to Doc James's talk page, you became one of those editors for me. This is the end of discussion as far as my interaction with you goes on this topic, and perhaps ever. Flyer22 (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you take a deep breath for a moment. I read your threat ("see what happens") and also the links you provided and find nothing in them to support your indignant assertions of impropriety on my part. I see some differences of opinion regarding subject matter and process. This is no big deal for anyone and I have already collaborated quite productively with that other editor. It is flatly inappropriate for you to keep pointing to some past dialogue as somehow pertinent. If you think you have identified some kind of actionable pattern of misconduct then you are free to take it to ANI where you will enhance your lititigious reputation and learn about WP:BOOMERANG.

To however assume salvagable good faith as per WP:AGF I do ask in the interest of collaborative encyclopedia building that you review the links which I have provided especially WP:OSE which you do not seem to be implementing in your practices. Yes, "other stuff exists" - I have engaged in dialogue often with sharp disagreement and so what then?

Please note also that with regard to your strident demand to be insulated from collaborative feedback on your talk page that if you have not pinged me you cannot expect to enforce a timestamp on your requests and demands. I apologize if you were annoyed or inconvenienced but you did revert without explanation and ignored the request to go to so as I apologetically explained I felt that you needed to engage the WP:BRD. This is Wikipedia after all so please don't get so riled up if you have to engage in discussion with people who do not agree with your premises, even if you think that their edit as "tacky", whatever exactly you mean by that.

(Additional paragraph on my Talk Page, subject heading "Frequent Flyer")Wikidgood (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No, all three above are wrong 1)HIV/AIDS is frequently expanded or clarified or defined by its context because it means many different things and everything and is a highly corrupted term often meaning other that what it would seem at face value: 'HIV and/or AIDS'. There are big differences in its used between countries and HIV-groups, especially in the USA compared to other countries who don't use it as often. Most commonly HIV/AIDS means the same as "HIV" or it may mean just "AIDS" or people with these or "any HIV-associated illness that may or may not be AIDS-defining" and sometimes it refers (wrongly I think) to people with HIV who are unwell whether that is HIV-associated, AIDS-associated or not. The media in particular use this term with AIDS added for extra stigma, sensationalism and to 'remind' people that it is the 'AIDS virus' and the destructive pandemic that they are talking about. AIDS is also added for funders and politicians otherwise the urgency might be missed but the real context is usually just HIV and/or people with HIV. Do not use the lay USA experience or perceptions of normal use for what should be an encyclopedia explanation. The problem here arises from the irrational attempt to define HIV/AIDS in one standing-jump phrase instead of individually and then putting it together. 2) Infections by definition are diseases, ie pathophysiological parameters different to what is considered normal, especially when in the context of not being normally resident flora. We refer to asymptomatic HIV disease too, eg some 20-30% of people with HIV have cognitive dysfunction only detectable by extensive neuropsychological testing and this called asymptomatic neurocognitive disorder. This is no different to everything else we know: the flu (which is slang) still refers to being infected, the infection, the infectious agent and the disease process and having had flu infection/disease. HIV/AIDS is used to avoid using disease. 3) The use is so diverse even within 1 community (or indeed this page) that it is not possible or realistic because the meaning comes from the individual context. Ericglare (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

AIDS should not be conflated with the lay jargon 'end stage' as it is not specific for time of infection, time of illness nor death as many HIV-associated deaths are not from AIDS (especially if you use the British/Australian definition of AIDS). The vast majority of people in Western countries with AIDS had their AIDS-defining illness a long time ago, are now well and their health is far better than the group doing the worst with non-AIDS HIV-illness. AIDS should not be conflated with being unwell as it is a specific definition (well 3 different ones). This is lack of connection between AIDS and illness is because everything about the definition of AIDS is curable except that once you have had AIDS you have it forever by definition.Ericglare (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Taking a deep, cleansing breath...

I don't think this is controversial (see main page titles at CDC and WHO, for example). There is a broad consensus that HIV infection is a disease and should be treated with antiretroviral medications to prevent complications regardless of CD4 count, because all persons with HIV infection are at increased risk for certain complications (e.g. TB). Certainly there are some situations where this is difficult to recommend due to expense/logistics, but experts in the HIV/AIDS field are no longer deeply split on the benefits of treatment with current drugs (this wasn't so true a few years ago). HIV/AIDS is a disease. -- Scray (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see my below post which I posted before I saw your remark thanks.I don't know where you get this notion that "HIV is a disease" HIV is a virus. The disease you have in mind is AIDS and latent AIDS. Many people who are HIV positive do not have AIDS and this article title suggests otherwise to lay readers. The fact that someone in the information department at an agency titles an article in a certain manner in the USA in a particlar manner is suggestive I admit but does not in any way establish an RS that "HIV" is a disease or even that HIV infection is a disease. Ultimately we may need an article on HIV infection that would solve a lot of the problem, IMHO.Wikidgood (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

From the 8th (2015) edition of Mandell's Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases (Elsevier, ed by Bennett, Dolin, and Blaser; ISBN 978-1-4557-4801-3), Chapter 124, "General Clinical Manifestations of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection" by Timothy Sterling (Vanderbilt University) and Richard Chaisson (Johns Hopkins University), section on "Classification of HIV Infection" paragraph 1, page 1542: "Although distinguishing between HIV infection and AIDS has been historically useful for epidemiologic purposes, the distinction is somewhat arbitrary and is less meaningful from a clinical perspective in an era of potent antiretroviral therapy (ART)." Reliable enough? -- Scray (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Not at al. It is inapposite. He is speaking in the passive voice which George Orwell decried in his essay on the English language. What he is really saying is basically not even correct but his point is that he is going to have you prescribe antiretrovirals whether or not there is AIDS and also that as you monitor T cells there will not be a hard and fast line. But there certainly is a point at which you PCP prophylax and MTB prophylax etc and if you over-prescribe when the patient has good T cells and is does not exhibit signs and symptoms of disease then you do the patient a disservice. But he would probably agree with everything Ihave said because he was making a point that from a CLINICAL perspective the distinction is not critical.

− −

But he also admits that his off the cuff remark is not valid from an epidemiological perspective and so I can rest my case. And in fact the root cause of the disagreements between myself and our distinguished colleague(s) who have background in clinical practice is that I am more focused on epidemiology and public health management issues as opposed to clinical practice. But any clinician who comes onto WP expects everything to reflect their clinician point of view wherein lies the problem. It is all consistent with WP:AGF which is why I did NOT express any of this to Noam when he contacted me...so in summary that quote is taken out of context and wrongly and has nothing to do with WP:NAME.

−

Independently of your thoughtful research I notice however also that even the article itself proves my point by referning not to "HIV/AIDS" but rather to "AIDS". ROTFL!

− −

"AIDS was first recognized by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 1981 and its cause—HIV infection—was identified in the early part of the decade."

− −

See? Everybody refers to this as AIDS not 'H-I-V-slash-A-I-D-S". It is in fact both the common name and also is technically correct to call it AIDS as per http://de.wikipedia.org, http://es.wikipedia.org etcetera,Wikidgood (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

And on review I notice he also qualifies his remark that the distinction is only "somewhat" arbitrary and less meaningful from a clinical perspective..

Exhibit B

.well and so here on a level of (LOL) I will show you yours if you show me mine: Clearly distinguishing the topics, to wit:

:Medical News Today

What Is AIDS? What Is HIV?

Last updated: 3 September 2014

Knowledge center

AIDS (Acquired immune deficiency syndrome or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) is a disease caused by a virus called HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus). The illness alters the immune system, making people much more vulnerable to infections and diseases. This susceptibility worsens as the disease progresses.

Incidentally, I cannot validate the text quoted which rather ambiguously blurs the distinction between early illness associated with HIV infection and AIDS as a legitimate 2015 citation - it is still only November 2014!! LOL

Exhibit C

What Is the Difference between HIV and AIDS?

When a person is infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) we say that he or she is "HIV positive," or "has HIV." A person who has HIV is classified as having AIDS if one of two things happens:

the CD4 count has dropped below 200/cc, or

an HIV-related infection or HIV-related cancer develops.

A CD4 count below 200 cells/cc is called AIDS by definition. A patient may have 200 CD4 cells or less and feel very healthy, but he or she still has AIDS by definition. The reason 200 was chosen as the cut-off for AIDS is that most HIV-related infections and cancers occur in patients with less than 200 CD4 cells

NB this is only the USA and UN definition and it is not used in Australia, Britain, NZ and many other countries - there are 3 definitions at least not 2.Ericglare (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

RS Validation of Exhibit C

Who Is HealthCommunities.com For?

HealthCommunities.com is a health website dedicated to educating users about diseases, conditions and overall well-being...

Our Founder: Stanley J. Swierzewski III, M.D.

Dr. Swierzewski was one of the first physicians to realize the value of using the Internet to enhance the doctor-patient relationship. In 1998, he founded HealthCommunities.com, Inc., a network of specialty-specific websites providing trustworthy, physician-developed and -monitored medical information.

Dr. Swierzewski received his bachelor's degree in business administration from the University of Massachusetts and his medical degree from Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, where he served as associate clinical professor. He completed his residency at the University of Michigan Medical Center in Ann Arbor, where he received numerous awards for his research publications.

In addition to Dr. Swierzewski, HealthCommunities.com content has been reviewed by a variety of physician reviewers (see below).

In summary, people surfing into the HIVAIDS article will be confused from the beginning and many will leave Wikipedia clueless as to the distinction.ommon name of AIDS is in fact AIDS not HIVAIDS and the silly disregard of the naming convention by ENglish language WP only, and unlike all other WMF projects, is silly. Wikidgood (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Structural problem with Wikipedia.en HIV and AIDS issues, eventual solution ->Move/Rename ef Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

Other users, albeit often an overuled minority, have previously expressed concerns with agglomeration of AIDS disease with Hum.Im.Virus and I would like to point out that this problem does not exist on other WMF projects.The problem is not because bad, controlling or inappropriate people edit here. The problem is that there are usages in English language RS which suggest the page name which itself is an endless fount of confusion and disagreements.

The previous thread got into an unpleasant edit battle as a direct and proximate result of the problem. Now I am going to go on faith here because I made a proposal on Ebola which someone who edits there a lot dislikes and rather than discuss my proposal in a manner I found to be serious and respectful he actually went out and modified OTHER pages which I had cited as precedent. I asked that he not make a habit of it and am going on faith that he will not do so.

So let us look at what other WMF projects do with this problem; do they glom HIV and AIDS into one article?

The answer is that they do not. And again, please do not now charge off onto other language projects and try to get them to change the name of their articles because I do believe that would be flatly unethical and I would use all lawful means to hold accountable anyone who unethically harms the world's PWA population.

SO here is some DATA:

Spain: Sida page and IVH page

Portugal: Same

Germany: AIDS page and HIV pageA

Czechoslovakia: AIDS page and HIV page

Russia: Синдром приобретённого иммунного дефицита (AIDS) Вирус иммунодефицита человека HIV

Italy: La sindrome da immunodeficienza acquisit AIDS page/ HIV page Il virus dell'immunodeficienza umana

Poland: Ludzki wirus niedoboru odporności, HIV Zespół nabytego niedoboru odpornościAIDS ' So it seems that this page is presenting a specifically Anglo-centric if not US-centric view and eventually should be subject to a MOVE discussion.

In the meantime, it might be helpful to bear in mind that it is only Eng Wikipedia which so stubbornly insists on stigmatizing PWAs and confusing readers by agglomerating HIV and AIDS into one title. Wikidgood (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wikidgood, looking at references it seems that pretty frequently HIV/AIDS is written about and researched in a way that covers the complete spectrum of the illness that happens when someone is infected with HIV. When doing so the subject is often called HIV/AIDS. And on Wikipedia English the previous discussions on naming have decided that using the inclusive subject title works best for the main article about HIV infection and AIDS. IMO there are good reasons to have one main article that discusses the full spectrum of the disease from infection to AIDS. It is reader-friendly to combine the most important information in one article rather than separating out the HIV infection illness into a separate article which would require people to read at least two articles to get complete information on the illness or have loads of repetitive information in which would also be a waste of time for the reader.

I see no evidence that the use of HIV/AIDS is stigmatizing to anyone or that it is a US-centric name. WHO uses the heading when discussing some of their latest work. [1].

And please reconsider frequently reverting the article and causing the content to be unstable. Instead try to gain clear consensus on the article talk page on this article which has a large number of page views. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Sydney, is it, thank you for thoughtful consideration of these matters. However it seems that you overlook the evidence that it is only the English speakers who insist so stubbornly on conjoining the separate and distinct phenomena of HIV infection and the status of AIDS itself on Wikipedia mainspace. All of the other primary WMF projects do not do so. ANd it may indeed be true that CDC is unduly influential on WHO. It is simply the case that the Anglo-American viewpoint on page naming is not consistent with the international custom and that raises a serious question in terms of WMF policy: do we aspire to a global perspective or do we allow WMF projects to Balkanize?

As for your separate argument regarding user convenience and non-repetition, I don't think a broad intention like that really informs us on the questions before us which arise out of what IMHO opinion is a proclivity to tag team page ownership and an inertial preference for this so called "stable version" concept. If you peruse the various WP policy and guideline and essays and discussions you will realize that there is in fact no preference for stasis on WP, at all, and what keeps WP alive is that content is always subject to dynamic growth as new editors become active and the facts on the ground change.

I in no way insist nor have I insisted on any one particular fix such as a PAGE MOVE or specific wording. I have and continue to follow the suggested guideline of BRD and TRYSOMETHINGELSE as comments come into the dialogue. Unfortunately, there appears now to be a phenomena of reversions which igore the discussion and actually destroy the benefit of criticisms which have been incorporated. The process on this page is very poor because there is a kind of militant resistance to any change at all even changes which those who resist change themselves suggest. I am referring to the reversion by drjim back to the wording that uses "the term HIV/AIDS". It was two editors on this talk page who wanted to implement the concept of the essay on "Refers" in an inappropriately dogmatic way which I was just going along with. So actually by reverting my edit, jim is supporting my reluctance to worry about the matter with respect to their objection.

But then which is it? Is this just a situation of localized bureacratic resistance to change? It seems that the reverters just want to revert anything that Wikidgood comes up with just because it is a Wikidgood edit.

Of course, you are not party to that yourself; I just want to caution you that the ownership inertia on this page is something you may wish to be wary of supporting.Wikidgood (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Latent infection is never construed as equivalent to illness and disease it is merely a risk factor

There is a basic confusion going on here in that people are tenaciously defending a straw concept. Obviously HIV infection is a medical concern a health concern it is not per se disease in many cases. Someone who seems educated enough to know better has posted on this page an egregious mistatement fueling the misconception but which refers only to SOME HIV positive people who have coinfection with HPV and yes some of them are ill and have a disease going on. Not ALL of them. HIV infection per se I don't see an RS stating that the bare fact of infection, asymptomatic infection if there is no decline in CDC cells that constitutes a disease state. THere are SOME but not ALL HIV positive who have disease JUST LIKE TB positive people are usually not in a disease state. Similarly almost everybody has numerous infections and cancer cells this is a plain medical fact no RS denies. Just because you happen to have say some pneumocystis pneuomonia in your sustem does not mean you have PCP pneumonia. Yes PCP is the name of a disease. This page just confuses readers and editors alike and that is in no small part because HIV and AIDS are very complex topics. It is not confusing because anyone on this page is evil. I answered Jim's question here.

To what sentence in the article does this refer? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

BRD Outcome: Try something else/ meeting the objection four square

OK I will accept the criticism and modify my approach even though I think that the real point is being missed by some editors.

The objection to my original edit is based on a casual reading of this - couple of lines stating the obvious. It relies upon something called the [[use-mentiondistinction[[. I am fully aware of that issue. That is not really a sufficient basis to confuse people about the distincions between HIV positive status and AIDS.

However, I notice that the existing lede already did violate that concern anyway. It is silly therefore to assert it as a basis to revert the clarification edit which I had made But I will roll with it and spell all of this out for those who care about this issue.

I am now and have been keenly aware of the use-mention distinction which is the basis of cited rationale for reverting the original fix. I have always been even though when I studied philosophy I did not subscribe to the analytic school I respect it.

Please take notice that however I do not take issue with that concern. I have no beef with the use-mention distinction despite my lack of particular interest in that whole Anglo-American post-emnpiricist POV. I am going along with it on en.wikipedia.

However assuming that the use-mention distinction cited by the short paragraph in the "refer-to" is not in dispute and is controlling, (1) HIV/AIDS is IMO an exception because (a) it is a contrived term, actually a melding of two acronyms (b) it tends to create confusion which is contrary to the encyclopedic mission.

Moreover, (3) I have nevertheless gone along with the objection and purged the l lede of much of the language which treads on this use/mention worry. I took out the word "term" in particular, so, be happy. HIV/AIDS refers to the full spectrum from infection to AIDS itself. That works for me and it does address all concerns raised above by all other commentators.

The revision also is (4) more internally consistent because it does not contradict itself as it did before when it said BOTH that HIVAIDS is a "term" covering the spectrum,and also is, existentially and ontologically, a "disease". The current revised lede nicely avoids this inconsistency. Wikidgood (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

HIV infection is not a "spectrum of concern" as your most recent edit suggests. Even persons with no overt symptoms of HIV infection have increased CD4+ T cell turnover, loss of CD4+ T cell functions, reduced responsiveness to vaccines, increased susceptibility to tuberculosis, more rapid progression of liver disease if they also have HCV infection - in sum, HIV infection is a disease with a late stage called "AIDS". Thus, the designation HIV/AIDS. This is an accurate and widely-accepted terminology. BTW, you have not followed BRD, because you have not allowed the revert of your changes and instead you keep changing the lead; I am not going to edit-war with you, but I don't appreciate your editing pattern. Your walls of text above are also hard to follow. -- Scray (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

For those trying to follow along, I'd like to highlight this addition I made above which provides a reliable source for my position. -- Scray (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikidgood, you seem to have some kind of objection to recognising that HIV/AIDS is the name of a disease. I’m not following what you objection is, precisely. You say, "Somewhere in the English speaking world people are going to be reading about "HIV/AIDS" and conflating the distinctions and the result may be repression against PWAs perhaps even causing premature death through the effects of stigmatization which in some part the controlling editors of this article will be culpable for."

The term HIV/AIDS encompasses the whole spectrum of disease caused by HIV infection: the initial primary disease, asymptomatic phases and the later symptomatic disease - which includes (but is not restricted to) AIDS. Can you explain how this stigmatises that subgroup of people with HIV/AIDS who have an AIDS diagnosis (PWAs)?

The term "HIV/AIDS" as the name of a disease is not controversial. It is the preferred term in the medical literature for the full spectrum of HIV-related disease, although the term "HIV disease" is sometimes used synonymously.

The distinction between AIDS and non-AIDS HIV disease is of diminishing medical relevance in the era of combination antiretroviral treatment for a number of reasons. One is that many people with an AIDS diagnosis who are receiving effective treatment enjoy very good health over a long period, which was not usually the case in the 1980s and early 90s when the onset of AIDS signalled a very grim prognosis. Another is that some of the most serious and even life-threatening manifestations of HIV/AIDS are not actually AIDS defining – many people who become seriously ill as a result of HIV/AIDS do not in fact have AIDS. A third reason is that different countries use different surveillance definitions that distinguish AIDS from non-AIDS HIV disease which makes the distinction ambiguous as well as not terribly relevant clinically. Many countries no longer even bother conducting epidemiological surveillance for AIDS - only for HIV/AIDS - thus the term AIDS is actually falling out of use in many parts of the world, at least in medical contexts. The US, if anything, is actually behind the rest of the world on this trend – mainly because the CDC’s 1993 epidemiological surveillance case definition changes to include CD4 parameters made US-style “AIDS” a more useful disease category for statistical purposes than the narrower case definitions used elsewhere.

Back to my original point:

Although the acronyms HIV and AIDS expand to Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome respectively, the term HIV/AIDS does not expand to "Human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome". HIV infection is already implied in AIDS - it's like referring to mammals and primates or to humans and women.

HIV/AIDS (the topic of the article) is a disease. Why not say this, rather than using the vague and awkward circumlocution represents a spectrum of concern - especially as an introductory sentence? On A Leash (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Have restored long standing version until consensus develops. HIV/AIDS is not a "spectrum of concern" but a spectrum of disease. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Both the "refers to" and "spectrum of concern" aren't supported by the preponderance of the sources, object to their use as well. Zad68 02:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "spectrum of concern" is confusing wording. It is vague and unclear what it means. I prefer the previous wording. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Reminder: the conflation of HIV and AIDS was objected to before

Note that in October this editor brought the problem up it was not something which I myself brought up. So far I have not seen much constructive collaboration toward fixing the problem he identified except that in some context DrJim introduced the term "spectrum". I worked that word into the text, but now that that term is associated with me because I so like it the trend of the Resist-Change/Defend-Stable-Version camp is to attack use of that term. That is quite similar to the reintroduction of "The term HIV/AIDS..." which my carefully crafted edit dispensed with. So this resistance against my edits is on two counts inconsistent - clearly personalized. Wikidgood (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Stable consensus: the word "spectrum" stays

Look Jim himself above emphasizes this and I concur. I think that his high level of training is a resource of great value and this is an instance in which you should follow his lead and stop complaining about being confused. HIV AIDS is a very complex topic and if you are easily confused or object to "walls" of text - what would be half a page in a pathology textbook = then you need to seriously reconsider whether this is a topic upon which you should be too involved. So please WP:PUTDOWNTHESTICK and build from what we do apparently agree with. Wikidgood (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The distinction between HIV and AIDS is that one is a virus (a type of infectious particle) and the other is a disease (a type of abnormal bodily state). HIV/AIDS is simply the name of the entire disease caused by HIV infection. AIDS is one particular part of the disease HIV/AIDS (but far from the only one). What "problem" is there to be fixed?

Personally I think the word "spectrum" is redundant, but maybe that's just me. HIV/AIDS certainly represents a spectrum of clinical manifestations, but so do all diseases. On A Leash (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Did we miss this: "Physicians involved in a selenium and amino-acid field trial in Botswana, however, are reporting that this nutritional protocol reverses AIDS in 99% of patients receiving it, usually within three weeks." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030698770400012X

See also: http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/2007/pdf/2007-v22n03-p129.pdf "Nutritional Supplements Can Delay the Progression of AIDS in HIV-Infected Patients: Results from a Double-Blinded, Clinical Trial at Mengo Hospital, Kampala, Uganda Edith Namulemia, M.BchB., M.Sc. Epid.,1

James Sparling, M.D.,2

Harold D. Foster, Ph.D.3"

http://whttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987707002605ww.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020186.Foster.AIDS.pdf http://www.orthomolecular.org/library/jom/2006/pdf/2006-v21n04-p193.pdf http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v02n03.shtml http://www.orthomolecular.org/library/jom/2007/pdf/2007-v22n03-p129.pdf http://www.orthomolecular.org/library/jom/2007/pdf/2007-v22n03-p123.pdf http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/2008/pdf/2008-v23n01-p006.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.196.226 (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Coukd someone weave in the following point which IMO should be introduced into the lead, and has not? (My edits did not really modify any assertions particularly the ones being debated, and were primarily stylistic. )

TO WIT:

HIV infection, and even AIDS itself, are treatable and far more managable in recent years with the introduction of new drugs such as protease inhibitors....

something on those lines, perhaps less detailed?

The salient point though I think that there is indeed no utter lack of hope, which an overly literalistic encyclopedic mission could perhaps overlook, doing violence to the higher instincts of intelligent beings.

THanks in advance any decent writer with knowledge of the subject matter can pull this off I would as soon let someone else take the lead and be bold on that point I don't want to take on too much. Wikidgood (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

We already say "There is no cure or vaccine; however,antiretroviral treatment can slow the course of the disease and may lead to a near-normal life expectancy." which means that there is a great deal of hope if one has treatment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

History and criminalization of transmission of HIV

Shouldn't the section about the History of HIV/AIDS be the first part of this article? People searching for HIV on Wikipedia are probably looking for symptoms indeed but I think the part about history should come first so we have a well done peace of medical information. Either way I tried to do it and introduced also the "criminalization of transmission of HIV" but someone reverted the edition arguing lack of referencesDiogo sfreitas (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Diogo sfreitas For health articles the consensus is to say what diseases are and explain the disease itself before sharing the history. The presumption is that people want basic information before they want a cultural explanation. This is in the medical manual of style.

I just checked your edit and it seems correct that it was removed. You added information about criminal transmission without citing any source which talked about criminal transmission. On Wikipedia when you add information it is necessary to cite some source for the information so that other people can verify that it is correct.

I hope that you are happy with the outcome of this. People here at least are trying to follow the rules, and I hope you feel like you got fair treatment and the same result that anyone else would get. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Was not removed. I found a ref and put it here [2]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

discussion about HIV screening topic coverage

Hi, at Talk:Public HIV testing in the United States#Broader topic of screening, there is ongoing discussion of re-focusing that article to be about HIV screening more broadly. This is a follow-on to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public HIV testing in the United States (which closed "no consensus"). Feel free to comment at the new discussion. --doncram 22:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

No longer current. Needs extensive updating.

This article seems to rely on the 1993 CDC classifications but CDC updated them in April 2014 and now uses a 5 stage system. (See http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6303a1.htm?s_cid=rr6303a1_e ) This has important implications for this articles structure since it arguably claims AIDS is the last of three stages of disease progression while CDC 2014 claims AIDS is the 4th Stage (numbering the stages from zero makes it also Stage 3, (Stage 4 is "Unknown")). I'm not the guy to do the editing here, having limited relevant background. As an aside, I find it very odd that a disease which if left untreated is typically fatal has no (formal) diagnoses for progression past "AIDS". Abitslow (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The 2014 change in classification was very minor. Have updated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Removed

This [3] as it is in the disambig. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Putting causes in the infobox

Needs discussion before it occurs. Thus removed [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Doc James In the "causes" field someone listed "HIV" as the infobox is designed. Why is this not expected? And why are the fields other than classification for this infobox never completed on English Wikipedia? Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Started the discussion here [5]. I am not seeing consensus for the addition of all these fields. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)