Talk:Adult-onset immunodeficiency syndrome

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Name of the article

AIDS 2.0 is indeed a random moniker awaiting a more precise and maybe correct descriptor. Wakari07 (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you state in the article, the disease is provisionally called Adult-onset immunodeficiency syndrome. I would suggest to rename the article accordingly. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion taken. Thank you for the source. It would however be good to see a larger variety of them (and not all about the same study). Wakari07 (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor changed the name of the article (not me). Acknowledging that (afaics) the contents remained the same. Wakari07 (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy

Please share your thoughts if you dispute the factual accuracy of the article here. Thanks. Wakari07 (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My main question is on the name itself. AIDS 2.0 is a neologism that is not widely used in scholarly medical articles.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That question is already answered in the above paragraph: the name is random anyway, so it doesn't matter at this point. Wakari07 (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on how to fill the disambiguation links? They are intentional: for me, context (genetic/environmental, civilian/military, material/energetic, frequency/amplitude, temporal/causal, intentional/non-intentional) issues are not clear yet - i thought providing the disambiguation links for now is still better than no context at all. Wakari07 (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why is this a military stub?

tepi (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason either so I removed it. Biosthmors (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because its origin and usage are supposedly unknown. To be clearer: because of its possible usages. Links with this and this are possible. Wakari07 (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anything is "possible", but where is your WP:MEDRS? Biosthmors (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One can use non-MEDRS in a society and culture section, for example, but we'd still need WP:RS to verify this sort of speculation is not just some fringe theory. Biosthmors (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we need clear logic and adamant thinking. Wakari07 (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're at the wrong website. This is Wikipedia. We need things to be verified before we start using our editorial judgement. Biosthmors (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm not a professional scientist, i cannot discuss more than the two publicly available newspaper sources. They, and the blurb, describe the best public knowledge available on August 23. We can evolve this (small) body, not bulldoze it. Wakari07 (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We'd be lots better off using the NEJM study than newspaper articles. In my opinion, bulldoze the newspaper stuff and start over with real sources (that have a chance of being WP:MEDRS compliant). Biosthmors (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is we have only the NEJM and the organised press coverage as 'real sources'. Wakari07 (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So who decides this has nothing to do with military stuff? I protest and want the military stub back. Wakari07 (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which article says this syndrome is a form of unconventional warfare? I have seen none, so that means your idea just amounts to original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any factor (genetic or environmental or otherwise) used on this level can/must have strategic and tactical biowarfare consequences. Do you see how mustard gas started in 1822 AD? What if educated masses were conscious of this type of warfare earlier? Wakari07 (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:OR!. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The worldwide development of this story over the last week makes me sick. Everybody talks about a disease, still nobody about fundamental health. This is a significant context being removed in an organised way. Point taken. Wakari07 (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crap

This article is clearly crap, but my changes were reverted. Why? Biosthmors (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody else answer this if needed? Wakari07 (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You made the revert, so you are supposed discuss it. Biosthmors (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the core text stands as commonly developed in August 23rd's current events. That's one of the few things that channel thought it knew for sure, besides that it exists. So please don't destroy the fruit of daylong, well-referenced work here on a whim. We need fundamental disambiguation, it's good that you started the discussion. Wakari07 (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by disambiguation. I think an article should exist on the disease. Wikipedia is meant to be edited by anyone, and our medical articles are to follow WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS. That's why I made the changes I did. Biosthmors (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently we agree that we talk about the same disease. But is it sound to base us on only one study that clearly identifies the disease? I don't say it's a US or a Russian creation at all. I only suggest thematic correspondence to help create context (which is what enables to disambiguate in peace afterwards). Wakari07 (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First diagnose

In a first version of the article, it was mentioned from concordant press sources that diagnoses were made since 2004. Is there an agreeable way to restore this information? Wakari07 (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I removed that was simply because the grammar was awkward. If you can find a good place for it, feel free to re-add it. Linkminer 22:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wakari07 (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think putting it in the middle of the sentence like that is also awkward. As far as I can tell, the 2004 date is when they started realizing that it is a distinct illness. It has probably existed for longer than that, and it has only now had its first paper published. With this first paper comes some common terminology, a preliminary idea of what might cause it, etc. Linkminer 22:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there maybe an other way to describe the evolution of the identification between 2004 and 2012? Wakari07 (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added something that I think is adequate. My re-reading of some of the articles seems to suggest to me that they are actually pretty sure that it appeared in 2004. Linkminer (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't state definitely that cases "started appearing", rather something like "started being diagnosed" to show that it can have existed before we were able/driven to notice it. Wakari07 (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genotype

Originally, the deduction was that the variable genetic factor (Asia) could only refer precisely to a genotype. Making it only 'descent' changes the contents imo. Am I wrong? Wakari07 (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They seem like pretty much the same thing to me. Somebody of Asian descent would have an "Asian genotype". I just thought that "descent" flowed better. Linkminer 22:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about "descent" to compromise usability and context? Wakari07 (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

descent is probably a better link. Linkminer 23:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I keep the proposal of genotype. Wakari07 (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primary or not immunodeficiency

How primary would this new type of immune disease be? Wakari07 (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indented line

An "elevated" or a "more frequent" IFN-γ production in patients?

Suggest rewording "an elevated number of" in a more precise concept, including frequency of the production of the antibodies, not just their level. Wakari07 (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linkminer answered here: "the study actually talks about concentration" and change-edited to "An elevated concentration (...) was detected in most patients". Wakari07 (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concept cloud

(immunodeficiency, primary immunodeficiency), environment, terra, life, metabolism, genotype, genetic, (homo sapiens sapiens, civilian, (intentional, non-intentional)), (factor (material, energetic) (frequency, amplitude) (temporal, causal, synchronous)), ((causation, dissemination, (vector, string)), ...