View source for Talk:Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

Big edit needed here...this is full of Duesberg HIV/AIDS denial stuff, and isnt well written...Im going to work on it.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 10:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
The HIV--AIDS denial movement is very small and uninfluential outside of Africa, and involves basically 2 scientists.  In southern Africa, many politicians are involved.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 10:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'd give it a single line. You provide 4 links to these crazies, equal to what you give bona-fide researchers - that alone gives the "rethinkers" an unwarranted authenticity. Sure, canvas the views that HIV is caused by disobedience to God's Laws, or is God's curse. But why give credence to people who are trying to tell us it has naught to do with the plainly seen virii jam-packing an infected person's blood stream and cells. As for the African connection? Since when is Conservapedia the champion of shamans and witchdoctors.
MylesP myles325@yahoo.com.au 6 April, 2006 (why don't my name show up in blue like everyone else's)



:Myles, you've got to press the signature button at the top of the edit window.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 09:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

What you mean this one? --[[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 06:07, 8 April 2007 (EDT) He's got it, by George he's got it! Let's pretend this never happened. --[[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 06:07, 8 April 2007 (EDT) --[[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 06:07, 8 April 2007 (EDT) --[[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 06:07, 8 April 2007 (EDT) Hmm, quite fun...Now I can't stop doing it....

I have no trouble with being asked for a citation, but as a medical professional, I can assure you that "GRID" was an early acronym.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 22:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

==Images==

There's alot of AIDS related images on many of the homosexuality articles, but none on the actual AIDS article. Perhaps some should be added here as well? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:21, 24 November 2007 (EST)

==HIV==
The problem is the HIV virus has never actually been identified or isolated.--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 12:16, 7 January 2009 (EST)
:This is false AlexC, HIV has been identified and isolated for almost 2 decades.  I believe you are inferring that detection of infection is based on antibody detection and that the actual virus has not been isolated. This is false however; isolating the virus is not hard but is not used for detection of infection.  There are many protocols for HIV isolation using different media and the structure of HIV was determined using electron microscopy, which can only be done with an identified and isolated specimen.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 13:49, 7 January 2009 (EST)

::If diagnosis of AIDS is dependent on detecting HIV antibodies, then what does this mean? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:54, 7 January 2009 (EST)
:::That AIDS is dependent on the HIV being present in the system.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:03, 7 January 2009 (EST)

== deadly misinformation. ==

This article gives an outrageous amount of uncritical attention to AIDS skeptics.  Having seen plenty of scary whoppers on the pages of Conservapedia, I have never seen anything so stunningly naive as the following:

"It is estimated that over $1 trillion has been siphoned off from health care worldwide for antiretroviral drugs to treat AIDS, despite growing evidence that a good general diet can be just as effective."

(1) AIDS is a global pandemic.  Treating and preventing it is health care.  Even mitigating its symptoms, which antiretrovirals are able to do, helps not just individuals, but families, communities and indeed entire societies.

(2) A good general diet cannot be just as effective.

Truly, it is articles such as this which makes me glad that no one will ever rely on this site for facts.  Because that could kill them.

== recent edit by JamesCA ==

All clinical HIV tests are polyclonal anti-antibody (usually ELISA) tests.  They will detect antibodies against conserved viral protein motifs that occur even in the rarest strains (they are required for the virus to function).

That said, I have encountered cases in the literature where a patient was negative to ELISA but positive to a PCR test; however, those cases remain so rare that they are the "textbook" cases which prove the rule.  Furthermore, in most of these cases (truthfully, every one of them that I can remember), the negative ELISA had an immunological explanation, as opposed to being caused by a particular strain of HIV. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 01:25, 9 March 2012 (EST)