Talk:Idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Can

Can someone actually involved in or knowledgable about medicine/HIV actually add to this. It seems to be currently being used as a vehicle to support AIDS reappraisal conspiracy theories.--Jersey Devil 19:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to expand it and make it a little more medically relevant/useful. The bottom line is that ICL is extremely rare and there's just not much literature about it, but I've tried to cite what there is. You're correct in that the AIDS-reappraisal crowd points to ICL as some kind of "fatal flaw" in the HIV/AIDS paradigm. It's analogous to saying, "Look, there are people who turn yellow and develop liver failure without evidence of Hep B infection... therefore hepatitis B virus is harmless." In other words, a complete fallacy. MastCell 00:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does that meant that their view needs to be expunged from the encyclopedia? --Striver 14:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. It means that their view needs to be presented accurately, as a minority viewpoint considered thoroughly debunked by the scientific mainstream, in accordance with the NPOV FAQ sections on equal validity and minority scientific theories. There are several pages dedicated to this view (see AIDS reappraisal for a starting point). Their view is hardly being "expunged"; on the other hand, it doesn't need to be plastered on every remotely related article either. MastCell 16:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you view that their view is not relevant to this article, even tough they view this as one of their more important arguments? --Striver 21:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. My view is that AIDS reappraisal arguments should be discussed, in the proper NPOV context, on the AIDS reappraisal page. MastCell 22:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS denialism category

There's been a bit of back-and-forth as to whether this article should be placed in Category:AIDS denialism. I believe it should not. This is a medical condition. Yes, it has been appropriated by a small fringe group to further their claims about the harmlessness or non-existence of HIV, but that seems not particularly central to this condition. AIDS denialists cite a wide body of medical concepts (generally incorrectly) - for example, Koch's postulates, ELISA, passenger virus, etc... it would be giving undue weight to this tiny-minority view to categorize all of these mainstream concepts as being affiliated with "AIDS denialism". Such is my opinion. Thoughts? MastCell Talk 17:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The use of fringe is an ad hominem attack and makes me question MastCell's objectivity in these matters. There are scientists (even one who has won a Nobel Prize who have made plausible scietific criticisms of current HIV/AIDS thinking. Such scientists have been labeled Category:AIDS denialism by the medical community and wikipedia editors. Idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia is a scientifically plausible counter-example and should be included for that in reason in what I admit is a very strange category ( Category:AIDS denialism). --Firefly322 (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ICL isn't a "counter example" to AIDS causation any more than migraines are a counter example to brain tumours; It is just a different condition. 81.159.147.70 (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Categorizing a viewpoint as "fringe" is not ad hominem. It's a reflection of the fact that a viewpoint has little or no mainstream acceptance. We'll have to agree to disagree about the plausibility of AIDS-denialist claims, some of which should strike anyone with a college-level biology course under their belt as fallacious. Reliable sources and experts in the field unanimously reject these claims as wrongheaded, including those about ICL. But that's actually neither here nor there. I'm talking specifically about the use of Category:AIDS denialism on this article. I contend that it gives undue weight to the appropriation of this condition by a tiny fringe group. MastCell Talk 18:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several these so-called aids denialists are established members of Academia. Category:AIDS denialism category is highly problematic, it in itself is ad hominem attack (Henry H. Bauer has written that about the term as applied to him and other prominent scientists with critical views of aids). Nevertheless, Category:AIDS denialism is the term and category being used and so it should be used as objectively as humanly possible. The article already mentions and wiki-links to AIDS denialism in its lede, so I don't see how one can objectively claim that adding Category:AIDS denialism to the bottom is WP:UNDUE --Firefly322 (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the passing mention of AIDS denialism in the article is also undue weight, but haven't tackled that issue. The naming of the category, or its application to living people, are topics for discussion elsewhere. MastCell Talk 20:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think your as dishonest and as disingenous as the South-African president Thabo Mbeki is when he claims that he is just "interested in an open-minded questioning of theories." And, in this case, saying that this or that is for discussion elsewhere is WP:Tendentious editing. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing a Wikipedia categorization scheme, not my personal integrity. I will give your feedback the consideration it warrants, though. MastCell Talk 20:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the talk page

Hi. Would you care to comment at Talk:Idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia in between reverts? I'm not going to revert further, and I'm sure you're also aware of the three-revert rule (if not, please take a look). I'd appreciate an explanation of your position based on Wikipedia policy rather than a "gotcha" from another article, which smacks of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Thanks. MastCell Talk 17:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should take this WP:3? Can we agree to something civilized like that? --Firefly322 (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine with me. I also left a talkpage comment, so we could wait a bit to see if anyone else chimes in. Up to you. MastCell Talk 18:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:3 is usually a good way. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some points:
  1. The condition is described as idiopathic. This means that the cause is unknown.
  2. The effect is quite similar to that described by the term AIDS.
  3. Since it is usually emphasised that HIV and AIDS are distinct - one being a cause and the other an effect, it follows that AIDS might have other causes. It is not clear to me why this condition is not or should not be described as AIDS too.

It therefore seems reasonable that the article should make some mention of AIDS and its common characteristics. The focus should be on the medical similarities rather than HIV denialism, which seems a peripheral matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with CW and MC, so I've removed the category AIDS Denialism as it hasn't been shown to be warranted as yet. Verbal chat 18:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removing that cat now under the facts of the matter is simply Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Which part of WP:TE is that? Repeating the same argument endlessly without convincing anyone? Accusing other editors of "suppressing" information? Inisisting on undue weight for a fringe view in a tangentially related article? I am seeing some of those behaviors in evidence here, but we likely disagree on their source. MastCell Talk 20:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that we all have a clear understanding of the point behind categories. They are navigational, not definitive.

For example, if you put Eleanor Roosevelt in a category about lesbianism, it doesn't mean that she was a lesbian; you're only saying that a person who is looking for stuff about lesbians might be interested in ER (whom some people choose to believe was a lesbian).

Similarly, adding ICL to Category:AIDS denialism doesn't mean that it is an important issue in AIDS denialism (and it's not any longer). Instead, adding the category just means that you think a person that wanted to read up on AIDS denialism might be interested in this article.

With that idea in mind, I've looked at the content of this article and the content of that category, and I'm not convinced that it's a good fit.

  • The category is mostly individuals, with the occasional article like HIV and AIDS misconceptions. There are no real medical conditions listed, even though there are other conditions (such as most standard chemotherapy regimens) that cause certain signs and symptoms of AIDS (such as getting opportunistic infections). Even traditional standbys of the denialists, like sexual promiscuity and drug abuse aren't in this category. It's a list of articles about specific people and the specific ideas they promote(d). Consequently, this article doesn't seem related to any of the other articles in that category, and I would not add it.
  • Looking at the article itself, it barely mentions its past appropriation by a few AIDS denialists. I'd like to expand this point, so that fewer people here are flying blind: ICL was embraced as a perfect counterexample by some, but never all, AIDS denialists up until about a dozen years ago. (AIDS denialism was a primary reason for funding work on ICL.) Once the data became available, it was painfully clear that ICL isn't widespread enough to explain even 1% of the AIDS epidemic -- and that's before you follow these patients out a few years, and subtract the ones (about half or so) that turn up with blood cancer.
    For the sake of this conversation, let us define ICL as having otherwise unexplained low CD4 counts without HIV, and AIDS as having otherwise unexplained low CD4 counts with HIV. (In either case, we're ruling out all the people that have a known excuse for low CD4 counts, such as those being treated for cancer.) In America, there is one ICL patient for every seven thousand or so people that have AIDS. Given that only one-third of one percent of Americans have HIV, this is a hugely important difference. When you factor in those that turn up with blood cancer before long, we're talking about a difference of more than four orders of magnitude. Most prominent AIDS denialists have decent enough math skills, and consequently, all of the denialists with any pretensions to scientific credibility have dropped this idea like a hot rock. The numbers just don't work.
  • Finally, let's look at this from the perspective of the reader. If you came to this article, would you learn much about AIDS denialism? I really don't think so. You'd get about two sentences, and wonder why anyone bothered you with it. ICL might be properly added to a differential diagnosis list, but for the regular reader, the article won't tell you much about the general idea of the category.

Overall, I understand Firefly322's impulse to include it, but I think on balance that it's more appropriate to skip it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added two categories which seem appropriate. While reviewing the matter, I looked at the AIDS category and found that it has been supplanted by an HIV/AIDS category. My impression is that a dogma is being promulgated - that HIV=AIDS and that the two are inseparable. The condition described here is inconvenient for this dogma and so here we are. The literature on the condition doesn't indicate that much progress has been made in figuring it out and so it is still idiopathic. I found this paper in the NEJM which indicates that it caused quite a stir in AIDS circles in about 1993 but it's not clear to me what happened since. Maybe the categories I have added are good enough to help readers to pull the matter together as appropriate. What seems to be missing is an account of the matter in the AIDS denial article. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like Category:Immunodeficiency; it's appropriate. Since it is a subcat of both Category:Immunology and Category:Immune system disorders, then those two are redundant and can be safely removed with no loss of information.
As for the "dogma" — not really. Leaving aside the fact that two-thirds of HIV+ people (including all recently infected people) do not actually have AIDS (yet), it's really just a matter of definition. Don't be misled by the "plain language"; AIDS is not an acquired immune deficiency syndrome; it is Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. To give you an analogy, the eastern edge of Grinnell College is bounded by a street named East Street. There are many streets that happen to be east of the center of town, but there is only one East Street. AIDS is defined as the existence of certain measures of immune dysfunction in the presence of HIV. There are other immune deficiency syndromes, and some of them are acquired, but none of them are AIDS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South African President

Has just announced he is HIV negative. Does that mean he has this condition? Or is it bad press reporting? Meaning he does not have HIV??

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8642864.stm

is the source

AIDS stands for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. A Syndrome is a collection of signs and symptoms, unlike a disease which is a word reserved for something with a known cause. It is for this very reason that AIDS is not called AIDD (the last D for Disease), because are thousands of people with HIV negative CD4+Lymphocytopenia with no identifiable cause having been found, though many know exactly when their illness started, therefore they do have AIDS. Lab rat148 (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the statements in your post are incorrect, so it's hard to respond. Zuma does not have a low CD4+ count (at least, the source you cite says no such thing). He doesn't have HIV, he doesn't have AIDS, and he doesn't have ICL. Your understanding of the term "syndrome" is also largely faulty. For instance, Down syndrome has a known cause—an extra copy of chromosome 21. SARS is a "syndrome", but it's known to be caused by a specific virus, just like AIDS. I can't make sense of your last sentence; could you clarify what you mean? MastCell Talk 22:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Lab rat means to say that they have an acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, because they know when their illnesses started, i.e., they were not born with these conditions. The story works like this:
  • All illnesses are either acquired or not acquired (hereditary).
  • All complicated or poorly understood immunodeficiency conditions are syndromes.
  • Any immunodeficiency syndrome that is acquired/non-herediary is automatically Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome.
I believe that it is technically a species of etymological fallacy, very similar to saying "My hands commonly feel cold, and therefore I have the Common cold in my hands". The same problems exist in trying to differentiate what used to be called Mental retardation (which is defined as a problem that appears in childhood) from Senile dementia, even though both conditions produce the same major symptoms. You can have an intellectual disability (see, e.g., every person with Alzheimer's) without having the Intellectual Disability (the mental problems that most kids with Down syndrome have). Similarly, one can have an immunodeficiency condition that happens to be acquired and happens to be a syndrome, without having the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome.
It's an inevitable consequence of trying to use descriptive names. If we'd named that HIV-related disease "Montagnier–Gallo disease" then nobody would confuse it with any other condition.
P.S. Lab rat148, the medical word for "unknown cause" is idiopathic, not syndrome. "Idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia" means, "Low CD4+ count, and we don't know why". "CD4+ lymphocytopenia syndrome" would mean something like, "Low CD4+ count plus some other conditions that form a recognizable pattern". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Idiopathic_CD4%2B_lymphocytopenia"