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. 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 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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)

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] 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)

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)

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

Bennett, you are most welcome. Enjoy. JFW | T@lk 22:02, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[2] It seems a new strain known as 3-DCR HIV have been detected.