Talk:Sexually transmitted infection/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

More To Add to the Prevention Section

I know that teaching sexual education in our public schools is a touchy subject but I am planning on adding it in as a way to prevent STI"s and STD's; does anyone know of any good refrences I can use?--Mnd marquez (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

---

This article is inconsistent

virtually every second paragraph changes between using STD or STI, thats stupid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.55.42 (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats because as it should this page covers both STI´s and STD´s. STis can cause longer term problems such as autoimmune diseases, infertility, cancers etc etc. Separting them on different pages would result in one page being missed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.39.241 (talk • contribs)

The section about condoms needs to be updated. HIV has and can be transmitted without blood or a penis- vaginas make sex fluids too. It also doesn't consider the failure rate of condoms from heat, or manufacturing defects causing holes, which are very commom. Condoms also break in use when put on correctly and stored correctly. Blueeyedmaiden (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

contradiction

does not the example given in the second sentence of this two-sentence paragraph contradict the first sentence?

"It isn't possible to be an asymptomatic carrier of sexually transmitted diseases. In particular, sexually transmitted diseases in women often cause the serious condition of pelvic inflammatory disease." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.205.132 (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No emotional behavioral effects?

Why doesn't the article discuss the emotional and behavioral consequences associated with STDs? They are a major social stigma in many cultures. --EncycloPetey 04:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't there more STDs?

Why there are apparently relatively few STDs? I think there "ought" to be hundreds of well known STDs. I mean, fluid exchange during sex is a jackpot for microcritters to evolve to take advantage of. Could it be that these missing STDs are really there but are wrongly presumed to be genetically heritable diseases, defects,(or even advantageous traits!?) since they would commonly run in families?-Rich Peterson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.14.86 (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There are only about 30 diseases, some families of viruses i.e. HPV have many int he family but its only classed as one std, there are not too many sti´s either and if the principle transmission of an infection is via other means its not listed as an STI. Infact diseases like Hep A should not be mentioned as its primary means of transmission is fecal oral via contaminated water and then food, sexual transmission is likely to be rare and not an efficient or primary mode of transmission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.39.241 (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

STDs and Chronic Prostatitis

Could someone please help on the prostatitis page? Could someone please summarize the medical literature from MEDLINE and elsewhere on "chronic prostatitis and sexually transmitted diseases" - thank you. Wikipedia says, "Wikipedia works by building consensus..... The primary method of determining consensus is discussion...." ReasonableLogicalMan 21:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stdspain.jpg

Image:Stdspain.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Condom Failure

Come on, I think a source verifying this claim is needed. Seriously, you can't make these kinds of claims without documented support (of the lack of documentation).Wuapinmon (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

More history would be good

I came to this article because my high-school students raised the subject in English class while discussing a novel set in the early 19th century, and they were surprised to learn from me that STDs did exist prior to the 20th century. I had hoped the article might have a little more about how far back they are known to have existed; the closest the current text arrived was to mention a VD hospital from 1746. It would be good if we could extend the article a bit to supplement the technical info with a little more historical context.Lawikitejana (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Students and their teacher could make a good project of researching and writing the history of STDs and contributing it to Wikipedia.

--z (talk) 09:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Herpes has been around since ancient Greek times – in fact, we owe the Greeks for the name, which roughly means "to creep or crawl" – presumably a reference to the spread of skin lesions. Although local STD testing wasn’t available until long after the virus was identified in 1919, early civilisations could see that it was a real problem – the Roman emperor Tiberius introduced a ban on kissing at public events to try and curb the spread. Not much is known about early attempts to treat the disease, but be grateful you weren’t around during the physician Celsus’ experimental phase: he advocated that the sores be cauterised with a hot iron!

The problem certainly never went away – Shakespeare referred to herpes as "blister plagues", implying the extent of the epidemic. One common belief at the time was that the disease was caused by insect bites, which seems like an obvious explanation given the sores that the sexually transmitted disease creates.

Syphilis

Mercury was the remedy of choice for syphilis in the middle ages – the understanding of the sexually transmitted disease’s routes and this treatment gave birth to the expression: "A night in the arms of Venus leads to a lifetime on Mercury". This was administered orally or via direct contact with the skin, though one of the most unlikely methods involved fumigation, where the patient was placed in a closed box with only their head poking out. The box contained mercury and a fire was started beneath it causing it to vaporise. It wasn’t hugely effective, but was very, very uncomfortable. Because Syphilis sores have a tendency to vanish on their own after a while, many people believed they were cured by just about any remedy in the STD’s history!

As the sexually transmitted disease became better understood, the ability to cure it increased. In 1908, the arsenic based drug Salvarsan was developed and, while not 100% effective, was a massive step forward. Its lack of effectiveness in the tertiary phase of the STD led to another disease being used as a cure: malaria. Because it seemed that those with high fevers could be cured of syphilis, malaria was used to induce an initial fever, which was considered an acceptable risk because malaria could be treated with quinine. Penicillin eventually confined both these treatments to STD history.

http://www.stdcafe.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stdcafe (talk • contribs) 17:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Now all it needs is proper references.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed category merge

The related Category:Sexually transmitted infections has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.

The discussion was closed and the categories Sexually transmitted infections and sexually transmitted diseases were merged into Category:Sexually transmitted diseases and infections. Zodon (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Category Should Remain Seperate

This category should remain named Sexually Transmitted Disease, as the term is still in wide usage all over the world. The first time I ever heard of "STI's" was yesterday (01JUL2008) on the radio. The definition of "Disease" is:

"An abnormal condition of the body or mind that causes discomfort or dysfunction; distinct from injury insofar as the latter is usually instantaneously acquired." from Wiktionary.

Firstly - all sexually transmitted diseases at some point, but not always, cause local discomfort or dysfunction of the reproductive system.

Secondly - though not specifically inclusive within the definition of "disease"... I know it is common knowledge for people to assume when another person uses the word "disease", that the condition is infectious, and that another person can "catch" it.

Thirdly - I also know it is common for people to assume, when the word "infection" is used, that the infection can be cured simply and permanently.

Fourthmost - The reason why common people assume these meanings of "infection" and "disease" are because people want to simply be able to communicate an appropriate level of human emotional fear associated with the possibility of contracting or "catching" the "infection" or "disease".

Fifthmost - The recent usage of "STI's" is a way to assuage the ever-increasing percentage of the population who have a sexually transmitted disease. These people, apparently, do not wish to be labeled or to think of themselves as a person with a disease. The reality is however, conditions like: herpes simplex virus and HIV virus, are both uncurable transmittable diseases which cause undesireable symptoms for life.

In conclusion - To preserve the serious nature of one becoming infected with a sexually transmitted disease, so uninfected individuals will not have a misunderstanding of what their sexual partner means when they say "I have an infection, it's OK though". An infection will be assumed to be a condition that a cream will cure, with no discomfort. Whereas, a disease will be assumed to be contagious, possibly life-threatening and potentially uncurable... which most all STD's are. Know that "doublespeak may take the form of bald euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs) or deliberate ambiguity." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.217.90 (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that STD should remain the standard nomenclature for this and other articles. Like your quote from Wiktionary says, a disease is "an abnormal condition of the body or mind that causes discomfort or dysfunction." All STDs fit this description. Moreover, the phrase STI is tautological in nature; all infections are transmissible, and the T in STI already implies transmissibility. It is horribly redundant to have "transmitted" and "infection" in the same acronym or phrase. (A less-redundant acronym might be SI: sexual infection). Ut Libet ヽ(;・_・)/ (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

STDs that can be transmited without sexual contact

it probably would be interesting to have a table, or two lists, showing which STDs can also be transmitted without sexual cotnact and which are exclusively thru sexual contact (or separating by exchange of bodly fluids or somthing)--TiagoTiago (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

not possible HIV can be spread by many means, HSV2 can be spread skin to skin, so can syphills these are a list of diseases that are primairly spread by sexual contact it doesnt mean there are not other methods for transmission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.39.241 (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Condom use

This item was inserted yesterday, but it doesn't give enough context to be meaningful, so I am moving it here so it can be improved. Needs to specify where, when, among what population, etc. (A fuller reference would help as well.)

Levels of knowledge were high with 89.9% stating that STD transmission could be prevented by use of condoms. Of those who had sex with casual partners 59.3% never using condoms, 7.6% using them sometimes and 33% using them all the time. Zodon (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

STD UK Stats Film

Please view the video here as I'd like to submit it as an external link

Thanks

Willsmore (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry coul not find section for this and the page is now locked

I think someone needs to mention suceptibility of the GI tract and intestine in the pathology section with regards to enteric infections. Additionally break in skin also applies to muscosal surfaces not just the skin. Will someone please put in backet next to muscosal (live cells) and skin (dead cells) so they can see why the skin is less suceptible than muscosal surfaces. --Pedrous (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Types and their pathogenic causes

Currently this section primarily lists diseases, with their causative agents in parenthesis. The viral section was different for some reason (listing agent then disease). I have adjusted most of the viral items to match the overall pattern. However somebody keeps changing some of them back to cause then disease, with no explanation. Please explain why favor that order, and why only for selected items. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a list of STD´s and infections.

Mono is sometimes a symptom of some bacterial and viral infections including EBV and CMV, this is a list of sexually transmitted viral infections and then the latin equivalen in partenthessis if this is appropriate.

some people also develop cancer or CFS as a complication/ symptom of ebv, should these be listed too with ebv in parenthesis. Its also like saying cold sores and then in parenthesis (HSV 1). EBV and CMV are too very different infections and should be therefore be listed seprately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.39.241 (talk • contribs)

If you check the heading of the section ("Types and their pathogenic causes") and the entries, it is a list of diseases and their pathogenic causes. Latin, etc. has nothing to do with it. Gonorrhea is the disease, Neisseria gonorrhoeae is the organism that causes it.

For most of the items this seems the most accessible way to do it - more people are familiar with Gonorrhea or Syphilis than the organisms that cause them. Admittedly for some of the viruses this makes the organization a little more difficult because they may cause multiple problems, e.g. (HPV).

Therefore Mononucleosis is a condition, and EBV and CMV are causative agents thereof. As far as listing EBV and CMV separately, seems reasonable. They were at one point. I will split them to separate sub-bullets again.

Don't see the point in listing all the possible ramifications of each infection here, just the main disease(s). This is an overview, not an exhaustive catalog. I think the details on belong in the articles on individual disease/agent. (e.g. AIDS has a whole host of possible complications, but beyond the scope of this article). Zodon (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I still think CMV and EMB should be listed separately they are not closely related in terms of patho genesis or with regards to Mono, only a few ebv sufferenes get mono and even less from CMV. You can read more about them at http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/virol/herpes.htm --Pedrous (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that they are now separated (though both under Mono).

Only a few HPV infectees get cervical cancer or genital warts, however those diseases (plus a few even rarer ones) are why we care about HPV infection as an STI.

What diseases other than mononucleosis do CMV and EBV commonly cause (except for in special cases, like immunocompromized, pregnancy, newborns, etc.)? - i.e. if think they should be further separated, under what disease headings should they be listed?

Yes but you have listed it by HPV (the viral infection itself) and then bullet pointed the cancerous aspects with EBV you have listed it the other way around and together with another almost unrelated infection.

I think they should be listed separately by the infection first not a symptom, maybe you could bullet mono under EBV because its more closely alligned. Format well

Epstein-Barr EBV (Herpes 4) - Saliva

   Mononucleosis

Cytomeglovirus CMV (Herpes 5) - Saliva, Venereal fluids, Urine, Feces, Sweat

Scientists only offically link what they are certain of not what they suspect, EBV and CMV are probably linked to more cancers and brain disorders i.e. breast cancer and schizophrenia than is publiclly acknowledged but officially at the moment these infections dont really have many complications. It wont probably be untill vaccinations are developed will it be known as the complications disappear. --190.148.78.245 (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.78.245 (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out HPV, I thought I had fixed all of them, but guess I missed that one or something happened to it. I have fixed it to consistent formatting.

Of course since wikipedia is based on WP:MEDRS we can't go beyond what is documented.

If you think the items should be listed in an alternate order, please suggest how to make it accessible and work for the whole section. The items should be consistent (putting disease first in some cases and pathogen in others just invites confusion). The organization that was here (mostly) was disease first, and most of the items are more easily recognized by the disease name. Unfortunately, that does lead to some difficulty with organisms that don't cause disease or that cause multiple diseases. I would be quite persuadable to another organization/layout, as long as it was consistent and clearer. Zodon (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Like i said this could go on forever if you list them this way, it should be by the viral infection and important facts should be bullet pointed, incidentally you forgot the no risk hpv group which is almost all of them theres only about a dozen that carry a degree of risk. Please change it back to the way it was and list by the viral infection first. Your trying to write the viral section like teh bacterial section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.78.245 (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about going on forever?

What is the point of listing infections that cause no known disease? (i.e. the "no risk" HPV group) Humans play host to a whole ecosystem of bacteria, etc., which probably gets shared/disturbed/etc. by sex, but unless it causes problems, what is the point of listing? Do we even have references to establish them as STD/STIs?

Writing the viral subsection like the rest was the point - since they are all part of the same section (subdivisions of the same list) they should be treated consistently. Zodon (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Level of detail in types and causes section

Recently these items were added under HSV.

• Reinfection of an identical HSV in other locations is unlikely however an infection can spread around the initial infection site.[1][2][3]
• HSV 2 prevalance varies from 0-80% globally.

They seem to present too much detail and it isn't clear that they provide most important points about the infection, so they seem inappropriate in overview of STD. Zodon (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

[user:190.148.39.241 suggested replacing text of first bullet item with]

• Infection can spread but reinfection in other areas are unlikely

HSV2 is the only STD that provides a good indication of an countries STD rates, if you ever going to look at an STD figure if travelling etc it will be the HSV2 rates.

This is because its uncurable, almost always sexually transmitted and fairly contagious. No other diseases have such a wide disparity of infection rates.

Reinfection aspect is important as an individual can only have this in one location and therefore only be contagious from this area, the general public believe the infection can occur again and again in different locations like HPV but this is not the case.

Unfortunately if you go to the Herpes simplex page you dont get an overview you get very detailed and woffly information. There no bullet point informaiton at the top of these pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.39.241 (talk • contribs)

Most of this seems more apropos of the article on the disease/virus than here. This is not the place to discuss improvements to that article.

Wide disparity in infection rates and claim that other diseases don't have such a wide disparity suggests that it is not a good indicator of a countries STD rate. (A good indicator would probably be one that varied consistently with other STD rates.)

Would also require reliable sources indicating it is used in such a way. Zodon (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Its hard to obtain many statistics because std rates change, i think this probbaly indicates sexual behaviour more than anything else.--190.148.78.245 (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, then i think this should be renamed STI or sexually transmitted infections especially as this is the term which is being widely used within the medical community. Incidentally any individual infection (serotype) could trigger an autoimmune disease so even infections which do not have a disease assocaited with them could still be responsible for one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.78.147 (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't quite follow this. What are you suggesting should be renamed to Sexually transmitted infections? The whole article? Some particular section (e.g. "Types and their pathogenic causes"). Zodon (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes the title should be renamed STI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.78.147 (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes rename the whole page STI its makes this much easier to write as anyone can become infected wheras not erveryone develops disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.214.9 (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2009 --190.148.78.110 (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this topic has been discussed before, e.g. in March 2006 (see the archives). Which isn't saying it won't happen. I expect that at some point the article title will be changed, however it is reasonable to assume that such a change may be controversial. If it looks like it has been a while since the topic was broached, and you feel like pursuing it, make a more readily findable proposal. (Create a new section proposing the change, giving reasons, etc., maybe publicize the discussion in the talk page at Wikiproject medicine, or at least the reproductive task force, etc.). Zodon (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also under bacteria section please write add Urinary Tract Infections (UTI) - Some are thought to be linked to sexual activity. I forgot about these until that Brazilian model died the other day. --190.148.214.9 (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

may also be worth considering adding Vaginitis too. someone should also add Gi Tract to membrane list and Intestine in pathology, also highlight break in muscosal allow pathogens in and explain difference in musocal surfaces (live cells) to skin (dead cells). --190.148.214.9 (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Also when you changed the HPV section you did not add mouth and throat cancer and also respiratory papilomatis or the number of HPV infections (30-40) also genital warts is no longer used as gential warts also infect areas outside of the genital area, this is why herpes is no longer called genital herpes. Also add PID - Pelvic Inflammatory Disorder --190.148.78.110 (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Since this is general coverage of STDs, not clear that the number of types of HPV is highly important here. (Most of the disease comes from a few types (e.g., 2 low risk types cause estimated 90% of warts, 6 or so types cause most of cervical cancer).) :HPV is only responsible for a small percentage of mouth and throat cancers, not aware of sources calling those diseases STDs. (Not sure whether Anal cancer is considered an STD, but since large proportion of cases do seem to be associated with HPV, left it in.)

The article on genital warts calls them genital warts, if you have references, etc. for more common terminology, probably best to start there. Zodon (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also mentrual blood is a source of infection esp chronic infections like HIV. --190.148.78.54 (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems tangential to sexual transmission. Zodon (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well here is a list of possible links http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=proption+of+hpv+cancer+mouth+cervical The mouth throat and respiratory tract are suceptible to viral infections as they are epithelium, like the gentials, from what i know they were labelled as genital diseases because back then people did not participate in oral sex and they were alomost always seen in the genital regions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epithelium —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.78.5 (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What has happended to this page is it going to be updated, there are more infections out there than the ones stated in this page mayvbe some of these previous comments need to be removed as they have been here for a long time as the page is getting cluttered. --210.113.200.111 (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Prevalence

The following addition was made to the prevalence section. Since it was unsourced, and not clear how important the observations are, moved it here.

Other Prevalence Factors

• Capital or large cities, airports (international gateways) and ports tend to have a higher rates of STDs compared with rural areas, although populations can and do move between them.
• Developing countries tend to have higher rates than developed (differences in culture, education, health services etc.)
• Age - the likelyhood of infection with specific STDs increases with age i.e. Herpes, HIV, Chronic Hepatitis while clearable infections i.e. HPV tend to decrease.
• High risk vs low risk groups i.e. sex workers etc.

Comments: The observation about population mobility is already covered in prevalence, so first item seems redundant (or should be worked in with other mobility observations once sources found.)

Significance of developing vs developed - is this any more so/different than other health care disparities?

Age - is this even worth mentioning? Chronic diseases increase with age (i.e. more time over which one could have contracted them), seems too obvious to be worth mentioning. If it is to be mentioned, need to clarify (likelyhood of infection probably highest among those with most sexual partners, etc. - typically younger), probably meant percent of individuals infected. Also, may be HPV poor example, since unclear if it is cleared or just not detected.

High risk vs. - tautological. However more detail on higher risk groups might be apropos. Zodon (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Amended with some possible sources, [reworded age and developing vs developed]

Prevalence Considerations

Locations, cities (especially capital cities and those with international airports) and populations located near ports (esp in developing countries) tend to have higher rates of infection compared to rural or isolated areas. Source http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTHIVAIDS/Resources/375798-1103037153392/CAHIVAIDSRegionalOverview.pdf

Differences in culture, education, health services impact curable and uncurable STD rates. http://www.avert.org/stdstatisticsworldwide.htm Source http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTHIVAIDS/Resources/375798-1103037153392/CAHIVAIDSRegionalOverview.pdf

Age - Number of sexual partners increases with age, so do uncurable STD´s. i.e. Herpes Viruses , HIV, Chronic Hepatitis. And curable std´s in areas that lack resources. Sources Herpes Viruses http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/virol/herpes.htm http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102248947.html http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1819739,00.html?imw=Y

HIV http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/other/ajph_msm_race.htm

Hepatitis - see charts on left hand side. http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/virol/hepatitis-disease2.htm

High risk vs low risk groups

(if this needs explaining then it would be)
high risk= sex workers, homosexual and bi sexual men 
medium risk: heterosexual couples.
low risk: Homosexual woman.
(Number of partners, penetrative and receptive nature of certain acts etc.)

this is a sensitive and contentious issue hence no detailed initial explantion. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTHIVAIDS/Resources/375798-1103037153392/CAHIVAIDSRegionalOverview.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.39.241 (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases link

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases external link appears to be broken. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I updated the link. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a single citation in Sexually transmitted disease#Condoms

I'd heard that "some viruses are small enough to pass through latex" and I came to Wiki to find out whether the claim is fact or fiction. As far as I'm concerned, Wiki has failed me: The article disputes it without citing any verifying source. Clone53421 (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe what you heard was relating to intestine condoms. Might also want to see Condom#In preventing STDs and the articles on particular STDs.

But agree that a few more citations would improve article. Zodon (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Expand section on Prevention to include all prevention options

Expand section on Prevention to include the importance and methods other than condom use such OK2, oktohookup, ok2hookup, dental damn, Jasmin (female condom), the various types of lubes etc. I'd do it but I'm too new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ok2hookup (talk • contribs) 04:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

STD research and sex.

Many people say that if someone is researching the topic they are planning to have sex. Most people belive that you should research STDs and sex no matter if you are or are not going to have sex, this is a precotion if you are ever in the situation where you are asked to have sex. Many people get an STD or die every year because the don't know the risk of having sex. I'm writting this for anyone who sees it is important to research the topic before having sex, even if it's oral or anal you should be informed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.55.253 (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge from STD testing

1. The STD testing and the STD articles are not yet long enough to justify being individual articles.
2. The STD article section about testing/diagnosis is completely empty of information.

Perhaps a forking could be made after substantial expansion, but we're far from there. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree feel free to merge.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

See also

I am still a little surprised that there is no reference to cancer in the see also section.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Viruses_Added_to_List_of_Cancer-Causing_Substances.asp

On another note, will this page ever focus on infection as opposed to disease, by limiting the scope of the article to disease your eliminating the mention of a whole host of pathogens which could be transmitted sexually. Just because there is no disease linked with them (currently) this does not mean they do not impinge on a persons health CFS, auto immunity, cancer, NS issues etc etc. Besides it's pretty well established particulary with viral infections that they only take and never give anything back.

signed Peter

See also sections are not really recommended even though commonly present. If you wish to add a referenced section on other conditions feel free.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I have also noticed some other human retroviruses have not been mentioned (spurma, Herv), maybe you need to add more to your list in order to make it more comprehensive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrovirus#Classification

Additionally there is no mention of Polyomaviridae these are similar to Herpesviridae (most are exposed to them in childhood otherwise in adulthood) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyomaviridae

Hope this helps improve your article.

Signed Peter

Who took out all the viral infections, cmv, kshv, adenoviruses, htlv etc from the article? Signed anonymous