This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

AIDS Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject AIDS, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to AIDS, HIV, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.AIDSWikipedia:WikiProject AIDSTemplate:WikiProject AIDSAIDS Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Pharmacology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology 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.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mcfang, Annieyan, Aasetiawan, Yp90.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hivseminar. Peer reviewers: Ba2136, Alignad123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States alone, 1.1 million people are living with the human immunodeficiency virus and on a global level, over 33 million people are affected by this disease.^[1] The human immunodeficiency virus, also known as HIV, is one of the fastest evolving viruses and scientists are constantly working to provide new treatments and drugs to control the affects and prevent the spread of the disease. HIV is spread through the passing of bodily fluids and it is a virus that destroys the body’s CD4 cells which is a specific type of white blood cell that aids in helping the body to fight disease. Without these cells, the body becomes highly susceptible to disease and the immune system is weakened and compromised. HIV can eventually lead to AIDS when the CD4 cell count becomes too low. Scientists have seen that HIV is closely related to other immunodeficiency viruses such as simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) and feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV). By studying these viral lineages and the evolutionary origins of HIV, scientists have observed that even when primates and wild cats are found to carry these viruses, they do not harm the animal which is surprising since HIV very much affects its human carrier. Researchers are using this information to develop new vaccines and treatment plans and to learn how to prevent the spread of HIV among high-risk populations. When analyzing the research done in combating this constantly evolving disease, it is seen that scientists rely heavily on evolutionary techniques such as the creation and analysis of phylogenetic trees.^[2] Researchers often base their hypotheses of future and effective treatments on the analyses of the ways that HIV strains have evolved over time and on a worldwide level. One of the leading and most effective treatment plans the use of antiretroviral therapy or ART. Antiretroviral therapy is the combination of three antiretroviral drugs that are used specifically to suppress and stop the progression of the HIV virus. This is evolutionarily significant because ART can be described as a drug cocktail in which multiple drugs are used simultaneously to slow evolutionary forces.^[3] Human intervention has now become a significant evolutionary force as scientists rely on artificial selection of extreme strains of HIV to slow the spread of the disease.^[4] Researchers are employing the Red Queen hypothesis in that they are simply trying to keep up with the evolutionary changes that HIV is making and trying to slow the spread of the disease instead of making huge efforts to cure the disease on a whole.

Hi all,

I'm having a little trouble understanding the sequence of events at this article. Here it is as I see it.

1) I deleted speculation from 2001 (a mere 4 years after HAART became available) suggesting in essence, that HIV antivirals would create a "super bug". The statement is speculation by a single author that does not seem to have been picked up in secondary sources (WP:PRIMARY), and is based on the remarkably limited dataset of that time. It is now 2015, and the prediction has not come true.

2) I included the edit summary that 2001 data was hardly state of the art in 2015, referring to the informaiton as out of date. In fact, the inclusion of this material violates WP:MEDDATE and thus violates WP:MEDRS on multiple levels.

3) I was reverted and got a message for "unexplained deletion of material". From my POV, the deletion was both explained and appropriate.

4) I reversed the reversion, per item 3.

5) A second author reverted me without explanation.

I've repeated the deletion based on the explanation above. If you don't like it, please at least give an edit summary when you revert me.

Thanks. 73.162.132.47 (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your sequence of events, you were also editing from 2600:1010:b006:7821:661:249c:bffa:5feb (talk · contribs). When I reverted your edit, I accidentally reverted without a proper edit summary. In part to amend, this I left a user warning template on the talk page for the aforementioned IP address. Your edits have tripped the Section Blanking edit filter, and I came across them as I was patrolling for vandalism. I don't mean to imply that you were vandalizing the page, but that's just what I was doing when I came across the edits. I understand that your edit summaries did contain explanations, but they explained that the reference was old. It seemed like a case where expansion or improving would be better than removal, but I see now how that might not be the case.

Typically, when I see a section blanked without good explanation, I will revert it. If the user has a good reason for removal, then they can always re-remove it after it has been appropriately discussed. It seems clear now that you had a legitimate reason to believe that the information was given undue weight, and so I'd say that we've reached a good outcome by adhering to that process. No harm, no foul.

When it comes to not seeing the talk page messages, making an account would probably alleviate that issue. Of course, editing anonymously is your right, but you might want to be in the practice of checking the talk pages of the different IPs that you edit from. —Hermionedidallthework (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thnx. 2600:1010:B006:7821:661:249C:BFFA:5FEB (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As part of a health policy class, a group of four of us students will be editing this page over the next few weeks. (Mcfang, Annieyan, Aasetiawan, Yp90)

Some edits that we will be working on include:

Updates to the "Limited effects of current drugs" section, which is noted to be outdated (Aasetiawan & Annieyan)

Updates to the "Contemporary treatment issues" section to expand on the role of medication adherence/compliance in contributing to HIV drug resistance and the access issues that impact adherence to HIV regimens (Mcfang & Yp90)

Annieyan (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will be answer question #4 which looks for plagiarized material. I did not find any evidence of plagiarism from the submitted content. Both wording and sentence structure were of original creation. A citation is needed for the following sentence, "In cross resistance, an entire medication class is considered ineffective in lowering a patient's HIV viral load because all the drugs in a given HIV class share the same mechanism of action." Checking the source materials found no exact or near matches to text in this article. Also used Unicheck which did not discover any instances of plagiarism. Srmyers1022 (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will be answering question #3 which looks at the formatting of the edits. I thought this group did a very good job in following Wikipedia's formatting style. Their information was very easy to read and they provided a good amount of sources to back up their information. There are a few things I would recommend improving. First, citation [10] is in a line all on its own. I assumed it was meant for the sentence above but I was not sure. I would recommend moving the citation to the line above if it is the citation for that sentence. Second, in the section of "Limited effects of current drugs", I would recommend adding links to the specific pages of NRTI, NNRTI and protease inhibitors. As pharmacy students, we know what these all are. For someone who is trying to learn about this topic, they may not know what those drugs do. Having a link to those individual Wikipedia pages may be helpful. Otherwise, I thought you guys did a really great job! Raymondtotah (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will be answering question #2, which evaluates if the information is verifiable with sources that are open access. In addition to reviewing the citations accessibility, I also wanted to mention that some citations were added right before the '.' and some were right after. It would be good to make this consistent. I looked at all of the sources, and if I don't make a comment, I found them to be correct and accessible by anyone.

[1] - I wasn't able to find access to this textbook besides buying or renting it. If you have a link to view this in an open access format, I'd suggest adding it to the citation [3] - It would be useful for this citation to link out to the article as opposed to making the user search on PubMed, etc. for it. Additionally, I found this article to have a paywall blocking public viewing beyond the abstract. You can try attaching the article as a PDF to help with this access issue. [4] - This article is open access, but I needed to google it to find the article. It would be useful to link directly to the page or attach the PDF. [5] - This citation appears to be a duplicate for [6], but it lacks a link to the article (so keep [6] and remove this one). [6] - This article has a link directly the article 3 ways (which is way better than 0!) It's open access, which is also great. Was a little confusing to see three different links, two of which are directly to the article. Any way to condense the links on this article to 1? [9] - This citation doesn't link to the article, and the article isn't open access. Can you add a PDF of the article to the citation? [11] - This citation also lacks a link to the article. I also couldn't tell if it was open access or not, since the link from PubMed to the article kept turning up an error on the site... All of the other citations looked good! I think just a couple of steps at making this more accessible to the general public will go a long way! Jlan07 (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These edits and changes reflect a neutral point of view. All of these changes simply define relevant terms or bring up studies that have been done by the World Health Organization. I cannot tell what stance these authors take on any given subject, so I believe this information is neutral and educational. Branistheiceking (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]