Talk:HIV/AIDS in the United States

1729:

services--particularly fire extinguishment resources--essential for maintaining urban levels of population density and ensuring community stability." is an implausible conspiracy theory. As the article on Planned Shrinkage itself points out, planned shrinkage was never implemented in any urban area. It's hard to see how an unimplemented proposal could affect the epidemiology of a disease. The source cited simply provides an abstract, i.e., conclusions and no evidence. This passage should be deleted unless positive evidence of the actual implementation of planned shrinkage can be found. The following statement- "Institutionalized racism affects general health care as well as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) health intervention and services in minority communities. The national response to the AIDS epidemic in minority communities has been slow, showing an insensitivity to ethnic diversity in prevention efforts and AIDS health services-" is another bald assertion quoted verbatim from a scholarly abstract without reference to evidence. These two assertions are extreme and controversial, and more evidence for them should be shown if they are to be included.

2459:

section "Catholic Church" where "Public perception," and "Perspective of doctors" are found, likewise "Present day activism" which follows it. Finally, almost as if an afterthought there is "Current status" which actually provides detailed substantiation as to the lethality of HIV/AIDs, and which is what mainly drives the medical response, apart from political employments of the crisis. This section could follow (as a subsection) "Mortality and morbidity," which would then be followed by "By race/ethnicity" and "Down-Low culture among black MSM," and " Risk factors contributing to the black HIV rate." Before or after this the historical response sections should follow, but at least they should all be placed together, after expanding "Mortality and morbidity," to include some of the Current status data. And perhaps a separate page on Medical effects of HIV/AIDs should be considered for this article to link to.

1621:, homosexuality, but the sad truth is your changes rarely improve any of the articles. On this talk page alone you confuse etymology with meaning, demonstrate that you are uninformed about measures which have been proven to decrease HIV transmission, and demonstrate that you are confused about whether there is a "furor" about what causes AIDS. I in my turn am perplexed by something you've added to the article: "Many people have strong feelings about AIDS and its causes". The cause of AIDS is well-known, and it is facts, not feelings that are important. You also seem to be forking articles, creating a mess that others will have to clean up. Rather than demanding that someone justifies returning the article to its "pre-Ed" state, you should be discussing such bold changes before making them. As none of your suggested changes and cuts seem to improve the article, I'm returning it to its "pre-Ed" state. - 2073:(bad wording, what I'm trying to get at is that HIV is a serious disease of public health concern, but because the risk of infection through casual contact is low, because treatment regimens, awareness and prevention has been effective, and because we thoroughly understand what HIV is and how it causes AIDS, its significance for public health has dropped from it's original status in the 80s to somewhere around the level of other sexually transmitted diseases rather than a terrifying epidemic). That's what I'm trying to get at - that it's no longer a public health concern for purposes of travel. I think it's worth including that the visa ban has been removed, but it'd be nice if we could get some background on exactly why it has been removed - and pick a wording that doesn't portray it as illusory. What do you think of the above suggestions? 818: 497: 476: 507: 354: 2453:

you have a 3 sentence section, "Mortality and morbidity," which does not provide much of anything in detail. That is followed by "Containment and Medical treatment", "Medical treatment," "Travel restrictions", "Public health policies', "Public perception,' 'Perspective of doctors," which should be together under a historical section, but most which begs for more data as to why these responses are needed or were met with such.

2437:

serious treatment. Also, in the United States there has been a sort of melding of the government's efforts to deal with the disease, and the political climate concerning the whole thing that is so intertwined that I don't think the two can be completely seperated at this point if we're to give the article a thoroughness that isn't so profoundly intellectually dishonest that it fails under its own ponderosity.

404: 734: 629: 713: 608: 386: 414: 177: 2633: 2580: 1068: 1019: 970: 913: 856: 156: 84: 63: 2501: 32: 272: 245: 639: 282: 2532: 925: 1031: 2452:

I was not arguing for the political aspects or response aspects to be removed, but for a restructuring seeing as the main reasons for the response are directly related to the medical effects of HIV/AIDs, but which is placed in different sections after those on the responses. To wit, after the intro,

2154:

1. SUMMARY: On November 2, the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (HHS/CDC), published a Final Rule in the Federal Register that will remove HIV infection from the list of communicable diseases of public health significance and remove references to HIV

1566:

That is true, though it is fundamentally misleading as well as intellectually dishonest. but it is indisuptable that the highest rates of infection occur among homosexual men- therefore homosexuality IS an influential infection vector for HIV, if we're to give the CDC's data credence. I would tend to

2421:

I think most readers want to know what the status of the disease itself is in the US, and that it would make more sense if a basic history of the disease itself was first, followed by Current status section, and a Mortality and morbidity subsection, with a historical trajectory. Then a history

2163:

As of January 4, 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention made effective a Final Rule in the Federal Register removing HIV infection from the list of communicable diseases of public health significance and removing references to HIV from the scope

1759:

The immigration/travel policy is worthy of much expansion. I'm considering attempting a major reorganization/rewrite of this page. The legislative ban on travel/immigration was in effect since 1987 with changing qualifications for waivers until July 2008. The PEPFAR reauthorization signed in 2008

2458:

Then we have "By race/ethnicity" and "Down-Low culture among black MSM," and " Risk factors contributing to the black HIV rate" which should go together in a section dealing with medical effects. Next there is "Activism and response" which should belong in the historical section, like the next

2417:

On an article on a deadly disease why would Public perception (first section) be the primary focus? Is this the norm for other diseases? And why is By Race/Ethnicity a subsection of it? It makes this article look like it has a political agenda, and in any case it is misplaced, and should be under

2050:

It's important and desirable to mention that the US has lifted the (in my opinion unfairly discriminatory) travel ban on HIV-positive people. Incidentally, the previous version already did that. To state that the US no longer considers HIV a communicable disease is ridiculous without explaining the

1634:

Persons aside, though, if somebody wants to "improve" an article by removing large parts of it that were uncontested for quite a while, it is usually a good idea to explain exactly why what was removed on the talk page. And if this explanation contains "little holes in condoms" and similar ... errr

1594:

Sorry, Alex, but I don't understand your point here. Please explain why you reverted all my changes. In particular, was there some way in which one or more of my changes failed to acknowledge the perception (by some) that AIDs was perceived as a "homosexual disease"? And if so, what is the best way

1559:

Myth: AIDS is a gay disease. Fact: Although the majority of people infected with HIV in the United States are gay, AIDS affects everyone. In other countries, it effects equal numbers of males and females, most presumably heterosexual, and their children. The highest increase in recent years in this

1186:

The article says that black women are 19 times as likely as white women to become infected with HIV. I think that it should read "HIV infection is 19 times as prevalent among black women than among white women." The way it is currently written makes it sound as though a black woman who has sex with

2479:

In the "Containment" section, I added a subsection on public health policies that have been brought up as a result of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. This includes President Reagan's Commission on the HIV Epidemic, President Clinton's National AIDS Strategy, and President Obama's National HIV/AIDS Strategy

1521:

The broad brush charge of "homophobia" towards anyone who objects to homosexual relations or or fails to support efforts of the homosexual movement is basically a political psychological tactic and is often economically (at least) harmful to those who are labeled such, and should have no

1285:

Gay activists opposed the GRID name from the outset, as having homosexuals identified as being disease carriers was at odds with the political goals of gaining acceptance for homosexuality. Their protests, combined with early evidence that the disease was not specific to gay men, resulting in the

1159:

If this is the case, then it may very well be suggested that their illicit status contributes to transmission of the disease - when shunned by a society who considers their occupation to be "illegal", they do not receive the education, services, contraceptives or other things necessary to stop HIV

1976:

I would suggest removing the "...it is not a communicable disease that..." part, leaving " is not a significant public health risk for introduction, transmission and spread through casual contact." Though it is a communicable disease, the essence, the important part, is the fact that it is not a

1697:

The reference to the boy who was retroactively diagnosed with AIDS in 1969 is from a government website. There is a sentence, un-cited, directly after it saying that it was later confirmed that he did not have AIDS. the NIH website (which has the original reference) has more than one citation for

2436:

I would ordinarily tend to agree that the political aspirations need to be removed from the article insofar as possible. However, Race and Ethnicity is a distinguished and notable variable in the CDC's infection-rate data that simply cannot be glossed over if we're to give the subject matter any

1308:

I don't know of any evidence that "gay activists" had anything to do with the name change (and it certainly does not square with my recollection of that history): in fact, the name was changed when it became apparent it was incorrect, and that the disease was not restricted to gay men. (And how

1190:

Now, to the extent that most people who engage in high-risk behavior tend to do so with members of their own ethnic group - that would be the reason why different ethnic groups have different HIV infection rates. Blood transfusions would be an obvious exception, and a great example of where race

982: 2005:

All diseases are communicable, and there is no question that HIV is a serious infection. The important thing is that HIV is not a consideration for visas, and not a public health concern for reasons of casual infection. I believe it is relevant and should be included, but in no way should the

1947:

of public health significance, indicating that, while HIV is a serious infection, "it is not a communicable disease that is a significant public health risk for introduction, transmission, and spread through casual contact". From the same date, HIV status ceased to be a factor considered in the

1522:

place in a encyclopedia except as describing the opinion certain persons. But to suggest that a segment of society actually believes that any who oppose them are fearful of them, or of being one of them is to suggest a irrational psychological condition on the part of those who believe this.

1246:

Its not skin pigmentation per se that has the effect- rather it is the cultural differences among the black community in the United States. Black men are more likely to be "on the down low" (i.e. in the closet) than any other race, due to their cultural views on masculinity, among other things.

1348:

as it is currently mostly about, after all, a major part of gay history in America (that is, not a history exclusively belonging to gay people but a history that points toward modern attitudes regarding gay people and modern gay identity). I'm totally open to debate on the matter though.

1191:

doesn't affect one's chances of becoming infected with the virus. (Most people don't choose sexual partners completely at random with regards to ethnicity, whereas race is irrelevant in blood transfusions. (Only blood type / rh compatibility matters, not ethnicity or gender or whatever.))

1509:

that anal intercourse is a major factor in transmitting AIDS. There is the directly related question about "unprotected" anal sex: i.e., how useful are condoms? Do they break, slip off, contain tiny holes? Do men forget to use them? (And if so, what does this say for the effectiveness of

1728:

This- "The pattern of the AIDS outbreak itself, has been gravely affected, and even strongly determined, by the outcomes of a program of 'planned shrinkage' directed in African-American and Hispanic communities, and implemented through systematic and continuing denial of municipal

1425:

I think it belongs in the category due to the fact that the higher infection rates are promoted by lack of testing, which in turn is most likely promoted by cultural aspects inherent to African Americans, if we are to take the CDC's statistics. You can read more about that here:

2236:

Simply mentioning travel visas, and not the context which provided the reason why, is not an improvement. And the link itself was dead. I thus provided a current CDC page as the ref and added the context of this ruling, and made it clear what was being rescinded and

1247:

Therefore, they tend not to get tested regularly as a component of the cultural phenomenon, which tends to promote the infection vector. In any event, the CDC statistics support the fact that black and Latino people have higher infection rates than other races.

1266:

I see that the last comment in talk on this page is almost a year ago. Nobody is talking any more. This article is abandoned, not in conflict, ignored, or what? The comcepts here cry out for discussion, as in the main AIDS article, but it seems to be ignored.

1072: 1226:

I think "19 times as likely as white women" vs. "19 times as prevalent among black women than among white women" is basically a difference without a distinction. Adding "due to perceived differences in culture" might do what you want to fix, if properly

1187:

Mr. A, an HIV positive man, is 19 times as likely to become HIV positive than her white friend would be if she had sex with Mr. A. Although I am not a medical professional, my gut feeling is that skin pigmentation doesn't affect one's HIV vulnerability.

1712:

on 18 January 2007. On the talk page of that article, source was asked, none was provided. The claim was subsequently removed. Its occurrence in this article was apparently overlooked. Accordingly, I have removed the unsourced claim from here as well.

1743:

I was under the impression that the US has a complete ban on immigrants and visitors who have HIV/AIDS; however, this article seems to imply that it is a strong restriction and that infected people can still get in. Does anyone know anything about

2051:

technical context in which that language is meant...and we shouldn't have to do that in a general encyclopaedia article. I'm concerned that the editor placing this quote has cherry-picked a sentence that seems support an AIDS denialist viewpoint.

1141:

Although I have sympathy towards those suffering from AIDS, the above infomercial is misplaced here, which is supposed to be about improving the article. I thus deleted it save for a small portion as a reference of what I am referring

2592: 2645: 868: 1411:

who participated in New York City’s gay pride events in order to build bridges between the two communities because he believes the gay population’s experience in dealing with it would be an invaluable resource to

1486:

implies irrational fear. I'm not sure Knowledge is in a position to say that it is "irrational" to fear the transmission of a usually fatal disease. Whether we can assert that it is normal or rational to fear

1361:

Fro some reason this article ends with Magic Johnson catching AIDS and the Ryan White foundation. Is there nothing to add about the last ten or twenty years? Did part of the article get cut off by accident?

1677:

That would be correct- when you make changes to other user's edits without explaining why in the edit summary, it can be viewed as vandalism, as one should be able to explain why they reverted an edit.

363: 255: 796: 1760:

lifted the legislative ban, and reverted full authority for determining "excludable diseases" to the dept of HHS. I don't know if they have revised the list of "excludable diseases" since then.

1663:

I think you have something wrong here - unless you can explain why you keep removing parts of the article, it is not those restoring the content you deleted that have to explain anything. --

2794: 786: 2764: 2195:

Given the context of the paragraph, that HIV was removed from the list is somewhat irrelevant and unnecessary. I put in the part about visas, but no about being removed from the list.

1567:

give the CDC preferential treatment as an authority on the subject matter, due to their extensive medical qualifications which surpass that of the citation example you referenced there.

1536:

I would also tend to support that. It is a fundamental misuse of the word root "-Phobia" at the core and brux of the issue, which tends to display scientific ignorance, if nothing else.

2799: 2418:

Current status. These two topics are followed by Containment with its subs Travel restrictions and Medicine disbursement, then finally Mortality and morbidity and Current status.

2729: 2544: 537: 368: 1985: 1160:

transmission. Thus, making sex workers illegal actually creates the problem, rather than the actual problem being with sex workers themselves, as the article tends to suggest.

762: 2789: 1881:

should go in the article? I tried to put it in the text with supporting footnote but it was taken out by an editor who thought it "implies that HIV is not communicable". See

300: 2734: 2121:

I think they're fine, and I encourage you to add whatever language you feel is necessary to explain the reasons. I'll drop in again soon to check up on this. Thanks, WLU.

554: 2604: 2704: 304: 227: 217: 2006:

seriousness of the infection be downplayed. I also don't think this particular bit of information is worth repeating on any of the pages that aren't US-specific (per

2724: 741: 718: 2759: 2709: 2361: 2357: 2343: 590: 580: 1844:

story. I've tagged it as POV for the time being, and will have a full read through of the two sources and do some cleanup, but I'm planning to remove it again. -

1208:"my gut feeling is that skin pigmentation doesn't affect one's HIV vulnerability." I am certainly not in a position to judge, but this may not be the case. See 1996:, and also removed it from their list of diseases that are significant for public health reasons based on its low risk of being spread through casual contact. 2653: 1753: 2769: 544: 193: 2749: 2699: 1989: 1940: 1905: 2719: 2422:

of the response by the government and country overall, including Containment with its subs Travel restrictions and Medicine disbursement could follow.

1088: 1043: 994: 945: 888: 344: 334: 2321: 695: 549: 2754: 2739: 1936: 1901: 442: 1924:

I suggest a version of this that is slightly less technical, does not plagiarise the source, and may address the concerns of a deleting editor:

1833: 2779: 1514:

as a disease-prevention strategy? (like seatbelts vs. airbags) There is also the related furor over whether HIV really does cause AIDS or not.

685: 184: 161: 1111:..you can email him now for your own healing too on his email: He is always able to help you get your heart desire granted................ 2784: 2689: 138: 128: 1192: 2438: 1968: 1859: 1836:, an IP editor added "... blacks are more sexually egregious than other races." I'm not seeing "egregious" in either the summary source 1814: 1761: 1679: 1568: 1537: 1430: 1248: 520: 481: 309: 2714: 2694: 2540: 2524: 1781: 1323: 1167: 661: 532: 438: 428: 391: 103:, and related topics on Knowledge. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the 2558: 2517: 1502:

then we can quote them as saying just that, but I'm fairly sure that a quick googling session will uncover their actual reasoning.)

1407:

Many African-American leaders as of late have spoken out against HIV and the need for more testing among their community, including

1370: 2774: 1209: 2744: 2684: 2616: 1858:

The problem is that the CDC statistics from 2017 onward tend to support the notion, and rather strongly allude to the point.

1769: 1071:

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available

295: 250: 528:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

2564: 2293: 1698:

people believed to have AIDS or a similar disease prior to 1970. Should we remove the following, contradictory statement?

1127: 834: 652: 613: 2126: 2056: 1631:

100% ACK - Uncle Ed may have his merrits outside a certain scope of articles, but this one is clearly within said scope.

43: 1800: 1635:... phrases, then the remover should not really be surprised that his improvement goes the way of all bad edits. -- 104: 91: 68: 2322:

http://web.archive.org/web/20100821072159/http://www.blackaids.org:80/image_uploads/article_575/08_left_behind.pdf

1498:

objected to the linking of AIDS with homosexuality, and to described their objections. (If all they ever said was

2612: 2596: 2203: 2081: 2018: 1749: 1603: 746: 2360:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1920:

of public health significance and removing references to HIV from the scope of medical examinations for aliens."

1648:

None of this is too the point. Absent an explanation of your reversions, I still think they should be un-done.

1448:

Google give 24 hits for 'LaRouche "Prevent AIDS Now Initiative Committee"', doesn't seem to be notable at all.

1427: 1271: 1196: 2442: 2122: 2052: 1964: 1863: 1818: 1765: 1683: 1572: 1541: 1434: 1327: 1252: 2173: 1890: 1785: 1171: 750: 2155:

from the scope of medical examinations for aliens. The final rule will go into effect on January 4, 2010.

1745: 2665: 2552: 2399: 2379:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2367: 2325: 1944: 1917: 1714: 1449: 1377: 1345: 1338: 49: 2547:

until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ‑‑

1699: 1474:

and adding stigma to homosexuality in the general public, particulaly since it seemed that unprotected

1417: 2485: 2464: 2427: 2242: 1956: 1527: 1505:

I'd like to put back part of this passage right away, though, because it's a relatively unchallenged

1395:

HIV rates are highest among the African-American community today (2/3 of all new teenage cases). See

1319: 1232: 1163: 1147: 1115: 1035: 512: 2495:

RfC on whether to mention Ronald Reagan's handling of the AIDS crisis in the lead section of his bio

761:, on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 31: 2274: 2263: 2147: 1878: 1849: 1309:

logical would it have been to object to replacing "Gay Cancer" with "GRID" in the first place?) --

1802: 1730: 1363: 1316:

You still should have left the full acronym and the year of change in the text. I replaced them.

1119: 660:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

192:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2636: