text:
Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 3

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between May 25, 2004 and 20 May, 2005

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Article Focus is AIDS
As there are excellent articles in HIV and HIV testing and HAART this information does not need to be duplicated in the AIDS article.

There is no reason to retain the now discredied Ho theories, especially since the treatment guidelines now reject the "Hit hard hit early" approach - and defer HAART if viral load is below 1000,000 and CD4 is above 350.

After ten tears, it seems safe to add the chemokines research.

Sci guy 02:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Polio vaccine theory
I found a bit of inconsistency in the article. "History" section says : "A common theory ... held that HIV came from Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV), a virus virually identical to HIV, that causes AIDS-like symptoms in primates, and that this virus was transmitted to human populations in Africa during the course of controversial polio vaccine experiments on African villagers (this theory has since been disproven)"

"Current medical understanding of AIDS" says : "HIV is closely related to viruses causing AIDS-like diseases in many primates, and is generally thought to have been transferred from animals to humans at some time during the early 20th century, though some evidence suggests it may have been transferred earlier in several isolated cases."

It goes on to suggest that this theory is still valid. So which is correct ? Does the "animal to human" theory still stand ? Jay 12:29, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's the polio vaccine theory which has been disproved. Adam 14:34, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

...but the confusion may stem from the fact that, and I'm a bit fuzzy on this part, it was chimpanzee livers (? kidneys? just cells?) that were used to culture the vaccine. Exploding Boy 15:05, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * Kidneys - though chimps weren't used at all, according to the vaccine makers. The most recent proponent of the vaccine theory was Edward Hooper in The River - Hooper's comments and reviews from 1999-2000 are here and the more recent evidence against it is discussed here and here. But aside from questions about the mode of transmission, the basic animal-to-human theory is universally accepted - the genetic evidence is not in question (even, as far as I know, among people like Duesberg who attach no importance to HIV). --Hob 17:28, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I've rewritten the line in the article. 11:14, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

AIDS or Aids?
I've not seen it written all in capitals for quite a while (at least here in Britain), but all references here are all in caps (and I just noticed Stormie changed the reference from mixed case to all caps in another page, which is what made me think of it). Do we have a standard on this; do we care? To me, it seems like a British English / American English issue, where both are acceptable and neither should be changed to the other, edit-war stylee. Opinions? — OwenBlacker 15:24, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

So far as I know the Aids form is only used by some of the British press (such as the Economist) who have a long-standing policy of rendering all acronyms like that. Adam 23:12, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I normally use the caps one. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:14, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)

m2cw: I am certainly not a use of American English, but to me AIDS remains AIDS, not Aids. Erich 23:33, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * One hopes that the downcasing mania proceeds no further or we shall be reading in the "nejm" about "hiv which causes aids" (or perhaps worse, "an hiv test"). Usage rather than logic dictates the use of capitals for abbreviations other than those standing for proper names, but noun forms (like AIDS) are usually uppercase, while adverbial forms (rpm, mpg) are usually lowercase. Long acronyms (NAFTA) tend to become lowercase (Nafta) as they are used more frequently, but I don't think AIDS is likely to do so because the use of capitalization makes clear that one is using the acronym rather than the everyday verb or noun "aids". -- Nunh-huh 23:48, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's not that all acronyms get lowercased (or Nunh-huh's worries of "downcasing mania"), it's that acronyms that are read as words (Nafta, Nato, Aids, Unesco) get rendered with an initial capital; ones that cannot (HIV, UN, EU, USA, NEJM) get rendered in all-caps. There's no danger of confusion with the dictionary word aids, as there is always an initial capital. Excessive use of capitals tends to be considered A Bad Thing(tm) — not least becaus ethey're more difficult to read. I'm not suggesting that we should standardise on mixed-case use, just that we shouldn't enforce standardisation on the all-caps form. — OwenBlacker 08:52, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well that may all be very logical but the fact is that everybody in the world except some British newspapers uses the AIDS form, and so does Wikipedia, so this article should conform to that. Adam 09:03, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Other than Unesco, I've never seen any of the other examples rendered in anything but all capitals. Certainly never AIDS or HIV.  I don't like it at all.  Exploding Boy 09:02, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * Definitely never HIV, but I've seen Aids (and Nato, Nafta and Unesco, for that matter) rendered mixed-case most of the time. Still, I seem to be the only person who prefers it, so I'll shut up about it now... :o) — OwenBlacker 04:20, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

GRID or GRIDS?
I was about 95% positive that the initial acronym for AIDS was "GRIDS", for "Gay-Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome"... am I wrong on this? Arcuras 26 June 2004

 * I've never seen GRID with Syndrome on the end, as it were. Google gives 12,600 matches for GRIDS and HIV; 78,600 matches for GRID and HIV, if that's of any help (HIV in the search term to try to remove false positives). Presumably some people have used the longer form, but the shorter form seems dominant. — OwenBlacker 04:20, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

The expression was GRID, it was only in currency for a year or so. I've never seen the GRIDS form. Adam 06:27, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, turns out I was wrong on that... just goes to show what a public education gets you. =P Arcuras

Third world
I would add a third world section in the article, including the problem of therapy and prevention in these countries without farmacological resources and international pharmacology help (List_of_pharmaceutical_companies).

Smallpox vs. Black death
I was interested in Bletch's change from Black death to Smallpox in the article on AIDS. He claims "Smallpox was WAYYY more deadly than the Black Death". I can see this point of view, and I agree that the introduction of smallpox was probably far more influential in terms of long-term geopolitics, but I don't think the facts back up the specific claim.

 * 1) Although the Smallpox entry doesn't specify numbers (only percentages), the pandemic entry mentions Smallpox as a "local epidemic of extraordinary virulence", and the numbers in that paragraph add up to something like 2½ to 3 million, total.  According to its entry, Black death killed 25 million.
 * 2) The sentence he modified is "These numbers have led some experts to call AIDS the deadliest pandemic in human history since (something)".  Even if Smallpox was more deadly, this could still be untrue.  Which experts have called it the deadliest pandemic since Smallpox?

I didn't want to just revert without justification, so there are the reasons that I think the statement should stand at Black death. - Plutor 13:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OPV theory
Raul654 and Adam Carr claim that there is a scientific consensus against the OPV theory. I claim that there is no scientific consensus on OPV, because at least two notable scientists support (or have supported) this theory (W D Hamilton and Omar Bagasra). I know this because I have actually bothered to research the issue (and write the article about it). As usual, it seems like some people are reverting my changes out of a personal vendetta. If this bullying continues I will seek mediation or other further action. --style 07:26, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
 * The scientific basis of your statement is flat out, totally, completely, 100% wrong. Consensus is a positive - IE, theories that have failed to be disproven numerous times are said to be accepted as true and have 'scientific consensus'. In science, there is no such thing as "consensus against an idea" because by-default they are not accepted as true. Your statement is utterly ridiculous. →Raul654 08:10, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * Your post doesn't even make any sense. It's nonsense and hyperbole. It's quite possible for a theory to be "failed to be disproven" multiple times, like OPV, yet not be accepted as scientific consensus because it has not yet been definitely proven. Science is not black and white. --style 08:36, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

 * There's so many things wrong with that statement, I don't know where to begin. First, in science, NOTHING is ever "definitely proven". Only someone who knows nothing about science would ever make such a statement. As I already said above, scientific theories cannot be "proven", only disproven. "Correct" theories are theories that have withstood numerous and repeated attempts at falsification over a long period of time (think decades); however, no reputable scientist would ever say that they are "definitely proven" (just look at Newton's laws for a classic example).
 * Furthermore, saying that OPV theory has failed to be disproven is flat out wrong. 10 seconds of googling turned up the following choice quotes:
 * ''The final nail is in the coffin for the now largely refuted theory that the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) crossed into humans as a result of contamination of oral polio vaccine (OPV), according to a new study. In the April 22 Nature, Michael Worobey and colleagues report that the chimpanzees claimed to be the source of simian immunodeficiency virus (SIVcpz) that crossed over actually contain a SIVcpz unrelated to HIV-1... Scientifically, this paper spells the end of the OPV theory,” said Edward Holmes, from the University of Oxford, who was not involved in the study." --http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040421/02
 * HIV is widely believed to have appeared when the closely related simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) jumped from a chimpanzee to a human, probably in West Africa in the early twentieth century. Exactly how the first human was infected is not known, but one theory that incited particularly vigorous debate has now been laid to rest. The theory claimed that HIV was inadvertently introduced during tests of a new oral polio vaccine (OPV), which was allegedly prepared using chimpanzee kidney cells and was administered to over a million people in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1958. -- http://www.nature.com/nature/fow/010426.html
 * When Nature magazine says a theory "laid to rest", it's dead. To say afterwards that such a theory is not supported by the scientific establishment is disingenius at best. It would be more accurate to say it's been proven false. →Raul654 08:56, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * Typical. You don't know jack about the subject at hand, so you resort to thinly-veiled personal attacks and irrelevant rants about semantics.

 * Well done for discovering how to copy and paste text from web sites after "10 seconds of googling". I could do the same and post the conclusive rebuttal from Hooper's site but I don't see the point. If you want to argue about the acceptance of the theory like an educated adult, rather than just foaming at the mouth and hurling links at me, then post your reasons and evidence why you think the theory is disproven and/or unsupported and I will eagerly listen. But if your conception of science is that theories are disproven if a particular journal says so, you are beyond help.  --style 12:13, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

We can do without silly personal abuse and hyperbole in discussing this article. The article notes that the OPV theory exists, and that is all it needs to do. The Nature article is ample evidence that the theory is not widely accepted but we don't need to go into that in the article. Adam 13:45, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I think a citation and/or quote would probably be in order. →Raul654 17:33, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Oral Transmission
The paragraph on oral transmission began with

 * "There have been claims that a small number of people have been infected with HIV from performing oral sex on an infected on an infected partner, but these claims are disputed in the scientific community and have yet to be proven conclusively."

That seems biased to me. There are many researchers who are convinced that HIV has been transmitted throgh oral sex. My understanding is that the documented cases of oral transmission are controversial only because they haven't been able to completely rule out the influence of mouth sores and unhealthy gums. (Personally, I think that's splitting hairs--oral transmission is oral transmission isn't it?) Uranographer 07:36, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I haven't kept up with the literature on this in recent years, but the last time I looked there was no undisputed case of oral transmission of HIV, and only a handful of even possible cases. Against that must be set the fact that it would be almost impossible to prove that oral transmission was the sole and undisputable cause of any case of HIV infection, because there are very few people who have oral sex as their only possible source of infection. I don't think there are "many" researchers who are "convinced" about oral transmission. I think most specialists accept that it is possible, but few believe it is at all common. The statement quoted is true as far as it goes, but it probably needs amplification. Adam 08:04, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, last time I did a literature search there was evidence for oral transmission that was compelling enough to get the cases published. I'm not saying they are entirely undisputed (although, if we want to split hairs I'm not sure there is much of anything in all of medical science that is universally undisputed) nor am I claiming I've done any kind of survey of AIDS researchers.  But all the sources I've looked into (save for that Spanish study) seem to think there is enough of a risk that they suggest using protection for oral sex.  For more info, check out the references at the end of the CDD's oral sex fact sheet (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/oralsexqa.htm). Uranographer 04:19, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Concidering the fact that it is possible to contract HIV through the eyes (boyfriend's seminal fluid gets into the individual's eyes through bad timing etc and is absorbed through the blood vessels in the eyeball and passed into the blood stream), it should be possible to contract HIV through oral sex, whether through gum sores, small wounds, or any other form of entering the blood stream.. The argument isn't whether it's probable, the argument is whether it's possible, and thus it deserves it's place in the article.
 * Besides which, there will never be a consensus on anything in regards to HIV, especially when some 'scientists' still claim it's some sort of "gay plague". Arcuras 14:49, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * That's interesting, I had never even thought about the eye thing. Do you know of any documented cases?  I don't think there is much doubt about the possibility of oral transmission; it's a matter of how realistic the risk is, e.g., is it more like the chance of being hit by a meteor, or by a car.

 * Sadly, only an episode of CSI. Negative guy slashed throat of Pos girl, got the blood in his eyes, and the hiv infected blood got in through the blood vessels. That was their explanation, at least. I asked a biology prof about it later and she said that, theoretically, it would be possible... but the chances are (of course) rather slim of it actually happening. Still, something to give one pause before being on the recieving end of a 'facial'. Arcuras 16:03, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Condoms recommended for ALL sexual activity ?!
"The use of latex condoms is recommended for all penetrative sexual activity."

If this would be true, humankind would die out rather quickly... I think this sentence should be either taken out (the following sentences state clearly enough that using condoms is advisable to avoid infection) or reformulated to a less absolute statement. Marcika 00:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * No, it's certainly an accurate statement, though it could better be qualified to "The use of latex condoms is recommended for all penetrative sexual activity, where the risk of HIV transmission is a concern.", perhaps. — OwenBlacker 10:30, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

 * Perhaps " . . . for all penetrative sexual activity which might pose the risk of STD transmission"? Exploding Boy 17:03, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Exactly: sexual AIDS risk is exclusive for all sexual activity outside a stable and mutually loyal relationship. As soon as a couple has tested against HIV-risks from relations from before they became a couple and remains loyal, Imedical literature shows zero risk (drug related risks, blood transfussions in countries with unsafe stock etc. being another area; i was speaking here about sexual transmission). --Rudi Dierick 16:39, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * It's not our job to make recommandations - Wikipedia does not give medical advice. Take it out. →Raul654 18:39, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * This is a grossly partisan statement; moreover, it appears against the legislationin many democraries. Laws instgruct you never to engage in negligence that might cause danger to human life. As AIDS is still lethal, I really cannot understand why suddenly on this specific lethal disaise, one should apply censorship on those objective conditions that protect against this risk? --Rudi Dierick 16:39, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quite. But it's not we who are making the recommendation, but the medical community. Surely this deserves a place in an article about an STD, in particular one that already contains similar information. Exploding Boy 20:46, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, the way that is phrased, it does sound like we are the ones making the recommendation. If you really think it belongs there, I suggest quoting and attributing it to a reputable medical source on the matter. →Raul654 21:18, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Good and appropriate suggestion. --Rudi Dierick 16:39, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Your revision is ok, but has removed the specific information about HIV transmission. Exploding Boy 22:40, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * I couldn't find a quote/cite specific to HIV. If someone has something better in mind, I'm open to it. →Raul654 22:45, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

In the meantime, I'm restoring the previous version which mentions HIV specifically. Exploding Boy 22:53, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * Much better. Exploding Boy 23:18, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * Condoms don't protect people from contracting Aids; their purpose is birth control. I think I heard that if you use a condom and have sex with someone whith AIDS, you still have a 1 in 6 chance of getting the virus.

 * You heard wrong. See this CDC fact sheet, or for more details the NIH report.  Both theoretical and empirical (actually monitoring people over time) studies have shown that condom usage reduces the risk of getting AIDS by a lot; the report quotes an approximate risk reduction of 85%.  That equates to a risk about 1/6th that of not using a condom, which may have been what you heard.  --Robert Merkel 02:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Allele HIV Immunity?
Recent edit by anon added: "It is known that about one per cent of the White European population carries two genetic alleles that confer total immunity to HIV. Possession of one allele causes HIV to cause a less serious form of disease in that individual. This seems to indicate that in Europe thousands of years ago there was a virus or other pathogen that mimicked the entry method of HIV into human cells. This is another example of what is known as convergent evolution as HIV and this ancient pathogen could not have been closely related."

Never heard of this before, and the anon didn't provide a citation, unfortunitly. Anyone have any information to back this up? Arcuras 02:14, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Not having any responce, and being unable to find any information on the subject myself, I've removed the quoted piece until someone can provide some evidence to back it up. Arcuras 21:56, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

It was pretty well established (back in the 80's, I think) that about 1% of people did not get infected with HIV despite repeated exposure to the virus. All of these "immune" people had the described pair of mutated genes. However, researchers also discovered that a few HIV-infected people did have the mutated pair, so the so-called "immunity" is not complete. As for the rest of that statement, I think that old Eurpoean virus theory is entirely hypothetical. Check out for an expository article. Uranographer 09:51, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah... I just came across this article on the 'net: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/highlights/011025_ccr5.shtml and I was going to ask about it here, but I see the issue has already been brought up. Is this worthy of a mention in our article? func (talk) 01:14, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

At least one article I've read correlates the increased HIV-resistance to the areas where the bubonic plague struck the hardest. For example, it is apparently more common in Norway than Sweden, which is believed by some to be due to Norway being harder affected by the bubonic plague. Anonymous  01:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

gross negligence causing risks for human life?
The sentences "Currently the most common ways to contract HIV are via unprotected sexual activity" appears scientifically incorrect (or at least confusing). It is not unprotected sexual activity that is dangerous, but more specifically 'unprotected sexual activity outside a stable and mutually loyal relationship'.

As far as I know, teher is no single medical evidence that (leaving aside the other types of transmission as infected heroin needles, unsafe blood, etc.) sexual activity within a stable and mutually loyal relationship has ever resulted in an HIV infection. In case anybody has authoritative evidence on the contrary, please feel free to provide it. Many thanks in advance,  --Rudi Dierick 16:44, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The fact that the relationship is "stable and mutually loyal" (I presume you mean monogamous) provides no protection from HIV transmission now does it? Exploding Boy 18:52, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

 * Equally, condomless sex is considered "safer sex" if both partners are definitely monogamous and definitely seronegative. I think the statement in the article ("via unprotected sexual activity") is perfectly accurate and, to be honest, "unprotected sexual activity outside a stable and mutually loyal relationship" is misleading and inaccurate. — OwenBlacker 19:12, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

 * EB and Owen are both right on the money. →Raul654 20:11, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

 * Well folks, read from a different perspective then what I did, you're right. Protecting ones sexual life by having relations only within a monogamous relation with a seronegative partner is indeed also an answer to 'unprotected sex'. I justed wanted, one way or another, to add the information that condoms alone are not the best possible way to achieve safe sex. No scientist ever has pretended that just the use of condoms eliminates all risks (already because it is impossible that everybody uses condoms all the time when ncessary, and also exactly as they should be used. How should we formulate that, and the added information that a definitely monogamous relation with a seronegative partner is indeed also a very strong factor of protection? I made a try; everybody who can formulate it better, is free to irmprove it. --Rudi Dierick 14:32, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the AIDS article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience. Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add to this page. — LinkBot 10:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Major gap in the coverage
This article is severely lacking a historical context for AIDs. Important things it doesn't even mention: Gaetan Dugas, GRID, Robert Gallo, the CDC, 'etc. →Raul654 08:49, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Man-Made Virus?
See THE STRECKER MEMORANDUM (Google/Yahoo Search)

Recommended piece of news

 * DermaVir, a novel treatment for HIV/AIDS, complements and improves present drug therapies

Probably you can find more extensive sources as well. – I wonder if it would be worth including into the article.

--Adam78 01:08, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oral transmission?
The referenced "studies" in the oral transmission section should either be referenced or removed. As far as I know, there are no documented cases of oral HIV transmission, despite a theoretical risk.
 * Even if there are no documented cases, it is still worth talking about. OTOH, if the studies are not reputable, they should come out. →Raul654 01:16, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

History of hiv/aids
Is there an article on the history of hiv/aids? By this I mean the first cases that were diagnosed, what people thought was happening, naming of the virus etc. Jackliddle 01:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Politically charged paragraph
The present wording: "Despite widely publicised fears about the possible "casual transmission" of HIV and AIDS, the risk of infection is virtually eliminated by following simple precautions, such as abstaining from sexual activity outside a definitely monogamous relation with a seronegative partner, and avoiding blood transfusions with unsafe blood." is wrong, inaccurate, bigoted and clearly holds a hidden agenda.

 * 1) Safe sex does not only refer to sex with condoms, but has a larger meaning that includes activities like non-penetrative sex. It is about as likely to cause AIDS as accidentally sharing blood from such mundane accidents as a paper cut or a broken glass. True, those are extremely unlikely, but they are possible. The exact same thing can be said of safe sex.
 * 2) The present wording implicitly focuses of casual sex as immoral. The discussions on this Talk page reject the addition of the term "safe sex" in this paragraph under the pretext of different interpretations of what the term means. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Protected sex is mentioned only two paragraphs later in a different context.
 * 3) No one chooses to be transfused contaminated blood. Being injected HIV is not something someone "avoids". In that regard, the present wording is extremely offensive. Without that remark, though, the paragraph no longer makes sense; it would be saying that one can only catch AIDS by being negligent or promiscuous, thus making people who got AIDS from transfusion one of those. The contributor seems to have added helpful advice on avoiding contaminated blood transfusions to cover up for this fluke.
 * 4) The choice of the word "abstaining" is politically charged. The words "not having", or "avoiding" seem to have been rejected on purpose.
 * 5) Even the title of the this Talk page's discussion "Gross negligence causing risk for human life?" is a poor rhetorical device meant to implicitly and immediately label those who oppose it as begin accomplices to murder. This is not encyclopaedic language, even for the Talk pages. It is about as manipulative as referring to "having an abortion" as "killing unborn babies".

The text must at least say "as abstaining from unprotected sexual activity outside a definitely monogamous..." The people following this advice have their risk of contamination as "virtually eliminated" as those who follow the original statement's advice. And it will carry less of the huge political charge.

I did not change the text myself because I don't want to start an editing war that will cause the page to be protected, but who is in with me on this?

Eje211 22:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Evidence-based medicine (moved from article text)
(I cut the following anonymous text from the Treatments and vaccines section. Comments about editing the article belongs on the Talk page, not in the article. Or, better yet, instead of making a vague suggestion like this (I say vague because "evidence-based medicine" is an extremely general principle, meaning basically "relying on research")... just try writing such a section, and see what you and others think is worth saying about it. Be bold!  ←Hob 19:10, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC))

 * The Relationship Between "Evidence-Based Medicine" and HIV and AIDS Diagnosis and Treament:

 * I am suggesting an additional section here to explore the relationship between the practise of "Evidence-Based Medicine" juxtaposed to the methods of screening, diagnosing, and treatment relating to the HIV and AIDS issues.

POV notice
It's disappointing to see a neutral article go downhill and get taken over like this. The new lead section is particularly bad ("AIDS is defined as beginning when..."). The lead section doesn't even bother to mention one important point: AIDS is a disease. I don't pretend that I'm an expert on this subject, but it appears that sci guy is trying to downplay the importance of HAART, spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about its side effects, and downplay the overwhelming evidence for a connection between HIV and AIDS. A huge amount of information has been removed; the rewritten paragraphs are awkwardly written ("There is good evidence that if..."). I can't think of a good explanation for the removal of the entire "prevention" section. Please explain your edits, sci guy. Rhobite 23:35, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

 * I began the article with the current definition of AIDS, and cited the reference and included an external link. Since 1993 two thirds of AIDS cases in the United States are based on CD4 cell count below 200. These people are healthy, and have no opportunistic infections. I have reported that the WHO and CDC have progreesively changed treatment recommedations to defer HAART in people without symptoms and CD4 above 200. I have cited the reference and provided external links. The reasons for this change by WHO and CDC are clear. Drug toxicity has proved to be higher than expected and progression to AIDS in untreated controls was slowed than expected. Sci guy 01:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * The prevention section wasn't removed, but it was edited down. Sci guy, please tell us why you believe that we should not tell people that abstaining from sex or using condoms can reduce the chance of contracting HIV/AIDS? Rhobite 23:38, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

 * I am happy to add "that abstaining from sex with a person infected with HIV or using condoms can reduce the chance of contracting HIV/AIDS". Should a NPOV approach include that fact that all longitudinal studies have failed to find any transmission of HIV between couples having regular unprotected sex - and that sales of condoms have not increased? Should a NPOV note the position of the Catholic Church "If people really want to prevent AIDS, they must be convinced to change their sexual behaviour, which is the principal cause of the infection's spread. Until a real effort is made in this regard, no true prevention will be achieved. " Sci guy 02:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Given that he hasn't responded satisfactorily to further requests for information either here or on AIDS in Africa, I'm going to be bold and simply revert the article. --Robert Merkel 00:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * No reason to argue with you Sci guy. You gutted this article, rewrote the lead section but neglected to say that AIDS is a disease, and removed important prevention information. Rhobite 03:07, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Treatment guidelines
First came "hit hard, hit early", then came a more conservative approach with a starting point somewhere between 350 and 500 CD4+ T cells/mm3. The latest guidelines use 200 to 350 cells/mm3 as the range to consider offering antiretroviral therapy (HAART) to asymptomatic patients. Sci guy 02:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Defining AIDS
The CDC 1993 definition has expanded AIDS from a small group of people with rare opportunisitc infections to all people with a CD4 cell count below 200. This has trippled the number of cases in the US - but these extra cases are not progressing in the same way as pre 1993 AIDS.

Using the global figures means we need to include the Bangui definition because this is the basis for the majority of global AIDS. Sci guy 09:24, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Opportunistic Infections
The idea of opportunitistic infections is probably outdated. It was originally based on the idea that PCP and KS were markers of immune deficiency (because they were previously seen mainly in patients on immuno suppressive therapy). Now that PCP and KS have been better studied, it is realised that these diseases are the result of recent infection. The organisms causing PCP and KS are 'not common in healthy people originally thought.

AIDS defining medical conditons may be more accurate. What do CDC, WHO and UNAIDS currently use?

"Bangui definition"
I've been doing some poking around on the "Bangui definition" raised by Sci Guy. It doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in UNAIDS's publications, or indeed any indication that AIDS cases described in their work is related to anything other than HIV infection and the consequent failure of the immune system.

Where the Bangui definition *is* raised constantly is in stuff by groups like ACT UP San Francisco. That doesn't mean it's wrong. What it does mean is it's coming from the AIDS reappraisal crowd, who are well outside the overwhelming majority of medical opinion on issues relating to AIDS.

If anybody can find a rebuttal from mainstream AIDS research on this topic, it might be handy for NPOV purposes. --Robert Merkel 11:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * The "Bangui definition" was developed by CDC and WHO in 1985, so it is part of the scientific consesus. It remains the basis for diagnosis where antibodies tests are not available - which is most of the world. The AIDS reappraisal group has consistently objected to the continued use of the "Bangui definition" because many of the people diagnoses with AIDS by this definiiton test are not infected with HIV. All this information was in the references, tha tyou deleted. Sci guy 14:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * That may be true. But what I'm trying to establish is that the Bangui definition remains the process by which the estimates of AIDS prevalence are made.  Now.  Not in 1985.  Not in 1995.  Now.  If you can show me evidence (point me with some precision to one or two references, preferably in the peer-reviewed literature or from one of the big government AIDS organizations) that suggest that current AIDS statistics contain a bunch of people without HIV, then I might be convinced you have something of more than historical interest.  --Robert Merkel 22:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Explanatory note about UNAIDS/WHO estimates
The UNAIDS/WHO estimates are based on the most recent available data on the spread of HIV in countries around the world. They are provisional. UNAIDS and WHO, together with experts from national AIDS programmes and research institutions, regularly review and update the estimates as improved knowledge about the epidemic becomes available, while also drawing on advances made in the methods for deriving estimates. Because of these and future advances, the current estimates cannot be compared directly with estimates from previous years, nor with those that may be published subsequently. source Sci guy 01:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * In countries with generalized epidemics, estimates of HIV prevalence have primarily been based on blood samples left over from syphilis tests of pregnant women in antenatal clinics (or sentinel surveillance). Until very recently, these have provided the best available estimates of HIV prevalence in the population.
 * Surveillance systems often select clinics located in urban or peri-urban areas, both for ease of access and because those clinics serve a larger number of pregnant women and can yield sufficient sample sizes during data collection. Often this leads to few data being available from pregnant women in rural areas. This bias can be corrected, but it introduces a further layer of uncertainty (the extent of the differences between HIV prevalence levels in urban and in rural areas).
 * There is no gold standard for HIV surveillance. All HIV estimates need to be assessed critically source Sci guy 01:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

External link (Wangari Maathai opinion)
I've just replaced this link:  It had been removed by Hadal, but without explanation. The opinion expressed is held by many people around the world, and the person expressing it here – Wangari Maathai – is prominent and well respected. One can reject the theory while accepting that the link has a place here. Any other opinions? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It's a little disappointing that Carl Henderson has simply deleted the link without discussing it here. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I looked in the Discussion page before making my deletion. However, I looked in the wrong place (under the "Man-Made Disease" heading) saw no discussion, and removed it. More on my reasons for removing it below. Carl Henderson 00:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Interesting; does no-one involved in editing this page have the simple good manners to discuss their reverts on the Talk page? Now UtherSRG has deleted it.  I've put it back until someone follows Wikiquette and explains what's wrong with adding a link to a news item that reports a speech by a Nobel laureate on the topic of the article.  Saying 'we don't agree with what she says' isn't good enough — it wouldn't even be good enough if we were talking about the content of the article (does NPoV ring any bells around here?), but especially not in the external links section.  I don't agree with her either, but that's not the point. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * For me, links shouldn't jusst be added willy-nilly just because the link's subject is somewhat related to the article. If we're going to supply a link like this, there should be some text in the article related to the link. The link in question taks about a controversial HIV origin theory. This theory isn't mentioned in the origins section of the article. Furthermore, just because a Nobel laureate has said something, doesn't mean that their laureate standing means anything if they are talking off the topic of their field of study. In this case, Maathai is an ecologist, not a microbial biologist or a virologist. Still further, the blog the link directs to is written by the person who initially added the link to the article (see User talk:Hadal, and Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. I'm removing the link again. - UtherSRG 21:56, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough (though the fact that she's well-respected and influential makes her comments newsworthy, and worthy of mention here) — but that raises the question: why isn't there anything about this in the article? Again, as I said above, it's an indisputable fact that many people have claimed that AIDS is a laboratory-produced disease, and many more believe it. It would seem to be a curious gap in the article that this isn't even mentioned. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * "Newsworthy" really shouldn't enter into it. This is an encyclopedia; not a news site. My understanding is that Wikipedia should deal in verifiable facts. Where experts are quoted, they should be experts in a field related to the subject. While Wangari Muta Maathai is Nobel Peace Prize winner, her scientific training and expertise is in biology (specifically veterinary medicine), and not fields related the origins and treatments of AIDS, such as Immunology, Virology, or Epidemiology.

 * It is true that many people besides Wangari Muta Maathai have made the claim that AIDS is a man-made disease. So what? That doesn't make the claim correct, or even reasonable. Many people have claimed that AIDS is a judgement from God upon sinners. Both assertions have equal scientific support--none. NPOV doesn't mean abandoning critical thinking, and highlighting all ideas on a subject. Carl Henderson 00:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It is a verifiable fact that many people have believed AIDS to be a divine punishment; it is a verifiable fact that many people have thought AIDS to be an artificially created disease. Both beliefs are and have been widespread and influential among certain communities.  I find the former nauseating and the latter unconvincing, but that's irrelevant; these facts belong in the encyclop&selig;dia.  Take a look both at Wikipedia policy and at other articles to which similar considerations apply. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I took a look at two other Wikipedia articles where particularly persistant fringe groups make contrarian claims: Evolution and the Holocaust. In both articles, the fringe claims are briefly discussed in the body of the article, and dismissed as being without scientific or historical foundation. In the AIDS article we are discussing the same thing is done under the "Alternative Theories" section. However, in both the Evolution and Holocaust, there is no external like to a Creationist or Holocaust Denial site. Removing the Wangari Maathai link under the AIDS article brings it in line with how such issues are treated elsewhere in Wikipedia. Carl Henderson 21:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, if only those were the only two; take a look at Human and Atheism, for example. However, neither of the two 'alternative' (read 'kooky' if you like) theories are mentioned in the 'Alternative theories' section, nor in the AIDS reappraisal article to which it links — that is, the same thing isn't being done there. My point stands: as it's a verifiable fact that many people believe either that AIDS is divine punishment or that it was created by scientists, the article ought to deal with that. I'm perectly happy to see it mentioned briefly and dismissed, just not ignored completely. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Uther and Carl have already explained why the link was removed; one might also note that User:Wingover has done nothing but spam his conspiracy theory blog, and that the news story contained within the link in question was a verbatim copy of a News24.com article. (I'll go out on a limb and say Wingover probably doesn't have permission to duplicate the article.) As already stated, the link is only tangentially related; Wangari's comments are already documented at AIDS conspiracy theories. As for why Wangari's "theory" is not mentioned at AIDS reappraisal, one reason is that Wangari is not claiming something other than HIV causes AIDS, but rather that HIV is a synthetic bioweapon. (In other words, she's arguing the conceptual origin rather than the cause.) While these connspiracy theories (which have no scientific basis) could be summarized in the main AIDS article, care would need to be taken not to present any as being more than extreme fringe views. Linking to a random blog of tinfoil hattery is, IMO, not the best way to present these "alternative" POVs. I think the two topics are best kept separate. -- Hadal 07:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I stopped talking about the link some time ago; none of my arguments above is concenred with it. I think that at elast a sentence each on the above-mentioned views, with a link to relvant articles, is needed.  At the moment, for example, the only link to AIDS conspiracy theories is a small one in the 'related articles' box.  Incidentally, Wangari's view is different from tinfoil-hattery in so far as it's believed by huge numbers of people outside the West (and a few in the West). Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I know you're done with discussing the link itself, but because you mentioned me by name as having removed it without comment (with the later implication of lacking manners[!]), I thought I should make a statement for the record—belated as it was—rather than say nothing. I'm sorry if I've overstated these points in doing so. On the subject of tinfoil hattery, I'm not aware of any threshold of popularity beyond which a baseless and paranoid hypothesis becomes something different. To clarify, I meant the word "tinfoil hat(tery)" in its common (online) sense as a byword for paranoia (also in the popular culture sense), which is a requisite part of a conspiracy theory. Anyway, if you know the who/what/when/where/why of AIDS conspiracy theories and think these views need greater representation, by all means include them. (A less diplomatic person might boil this down to "so fix it!", but I mean no derision by it.) Personally I wouldn't feel comfortable enough with the material to make your proposed changes. Happy editing, -- Hadal 12:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I sympathise with your feelings; the trouble is that if someone who held the theories in question were to add the material, we'd doubtless be in for horrible edit war. I'll try to think of a way of mentioning them while not giving them undue prominence, or implying any support. (By the way, it was the people who removed the link without comment after I'd posted my remarks here whom I thought guilty of poor Wikiquette, so you're in the clear...). Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 13:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I suggest that someone write an "AIDS Conspiracy Theories" article, and link to that article from within the body of the main AIDS article. Such an article would be the appropriate place for links to sites such as the one we are debating. Carl Henderson 06:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But there is such an article (see above); that's not the issue (as I thought that my comment made clear). Additionally, it's hard to see why the notion that AIDS is a punishment from god should be called a conspiracy (I can think of a lot of other words for it, but 'conspiracy' isn't one of them). Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that external links to blogs are to be avoided. Also there is no need to include every sensational newspaper headline about AIDS. But is the real issue here whether there is a place in this article for the voice of African women? AIDS has now been redefined from a disease of 25 affluent, promiscous, drug using, American men to a disease of 25 million Africans with limited access to western medicine, food or clean water. The estimate of 25 million is based entirely on blood tests on pregnant African women. I think we are misisng the point. Wangari Muta Maathai has questioned the idea that HIV came for monkeys. This is actually an unreferenced statement in the article - but my recollection is that this idea is based on evidence from frozen remains of one dead laboratory animal. We cannot dispute the claim by Wangari Muta Maathai that HIV is manufactured in laboraties, because this manufactured HIV is the basis for all antibody tests. Also as HIV has never been isolated from a patient (or a monkey) she is perfectly correct in stating the scientific facts, which are well within her area of expertise for which she was awarded the Nobel prize. Sci guy 15:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

rumors
i have heard rumors of a possible cure, a vacccine based on the patients DNA and the ciruses DNA, works on a one to one basis only, but i was wondering if anyone can confirm this or disproove it... whichecver.

the other riumor for a cure is based on monkey DNA. can anyone confirm or disproove this as well?

Gabrielsimon 07:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Liver Failure as Leading US Cause of Death?
From paragraph 2, under "AIDS epidemic": "In the United States, the most common cause of death for people with AIDS is liver failure caused by antiretroviral drugs" This sounds highly suspicious to me. Does anyone know of any scientific study that backs up this claim? Carl Henderson 17:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I've been unable to find any confirmation for the "liver failure as leading US cause of AIDS deaths" claim. I'm deleting it. Carl Henderson 18:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 3


text:
Rosenhan

The following people are named Rosenhan:

Also:
 * David Rosenhan, a psychologist
 * Beata Rosenhane, feminist
 * Schering Rosenhane, a former Governor of Stockholm
 * Sophia Rosenhane, collector
 * Rosenhan experiment, a noted experiment conducted by David Rosenhan

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Rosenhan


text:
Boston police strike

The Boston police strike occurred on September 9, 1919, when Boston police officers went on strike seeking recognition for their trade union and improvements in wages and working conditions. Police Commissioner Edwin Upton Curtis denied that police officers had any right to form a union, much less one affiliated with a larger organization like the American Federation of Labor (AFL), which some attribute to concerns that unionized police would not protect the interest of city officials and business leaders. Attempts at reconciliation between the Commissioner and the police officers, particularly on the part of Boston's Mayor Andrew James Peters, failed.

During the strike, Boston experienced several nights of lawlessness. Several thousand members of the Massachusetts State Guard, supported by volunteers, restored order by force. Press reaction both locally and nationally described the strike as Bolshevik-inspired and directed at the destruction of civil society. The strikers were called "deserters" and "agents of Lenin." Samuel Gompers of the AFL recognized that the strike was damaging the cause of labor in the public mind and advised the strikers to return to work. Commissioner Curtis refused to re-hire the striking policemen. He was supported by Massachusetts Governor Calvin Coolidge, whose rebuke of Gompers earned him a national reputation.

Nine civilians were killed in several days of civil unrest and the threat of a general strike. Eight of the nine were fatally shot by members of the State Guard. The police strike ended on September 13, when Commissioner Curtis announced the replacement of all striking workers with 1,500 new officers, given higher wages. The strike proved a setback for labor unions. The AFL discontinued its attempts to organize police officers for another two decades. Coolidge went on to win election as the Republican nominee for vice president of the United States in the 1920 presidential election and became President in 1923 upon President Warren Harding's death.

Background
In 1895, the Massachusetts legislature transferred control of the Boston police department from Boston's mayor to the governor of Massachusetts, whom it authorized to appoint a five-person board of commissioners to manage the department. In 1906, the legislature abolished that board and gave the governor the authority to name a single commissioner to a term of five years, subject to removal by the governor. The mayor and the city continued to have responsibility for the department's expenses and the physical working conditions of its employees, but the commissioner controlled department operations and the hiring, training, and discipline of the police officers.

In 1918, the salary for patrolmen was set at $1,400 a year ($0 in 2024). Police officers had to buy their own uniforms and equipment which cost over $200. New recruits received $730 during their first year, which increased annually to $821.25 and $1000, and to $1,400 after six years. In the years following World War I, inflation dramatically eroded the value of a police officer's salary. From 1913 to May 1919, the cost of living rose by 76%, while police wages rose just 18%. Discontent and restiveness among the Boston police force grew as they compared their wages and found they were earning less than an unskilled steelworker, half as much as a carpenter or mechanic and 50 cents a day less than a streetcar conductor. Boston city laborers were earning a third more on an hourly basis.

Police officers had an extensive list of grievances. They worked ten-hour shifts and typically recorded weekly totals between 75 and 90 hours. They were not paid for time spent on court appearances. They also objected to being required to perform such tasks as "delivering unpaid tax bills, surveying rooming houses, taking the census, or watching the polls at election" and checking the backgrounds of prospective jurors as well as serving as "errand boys" for their officers. They complained about having to share beds and the lack of sanitation, baths, and toilets at many of the 19 station houses where they were required to live, most of which dated to before the Civil War. The Court Street station had four toilets for 135 men, and one bathtub.

Boston's police officers, acting with the sponsorship of the police department, had formed an association known as the Boston Social Club in 1906. In 1917, a committee of police officers representing the Social Club met with Commissioner Stephen O'Meara to ask about a raise. He was sympathetic, but advised them to wait for a better time. They pressed the issue in the summer of 1918 and, near the end of the year, Mayor Andrew Peters offered salary increases that would affect about one-fourth of the officers. O'Meara died in December 1918, and Governor Samuel McCall appointed Edwin Upton Curtis, former Mayor of Boston, as Commissioner of the Boston Police Department.

After another meeting where representatives of the Social Club repeated their salary demands, Peters said: "while the word 'strike' was not mentioned, the whole situation is far more serious than I realized." He also made it clear to the rank and file that they were not entitled to form their own union. Curtis did not share his predecessor's or the mayor's sympathy for the police, but in February 1918 he offered a wage compromise that the police rejected. In May, Governor Coolidge announced raises, which were also rejected. When the Social Club's representatives tried to raise grievances with him, Curtis set up his own grievance committee to handle management-employee disputes, based on the election of representatives from each precinct house by secret ballot, and it met just once.

A few months later, in June 1919, the American Federation of Labor (AFL), responding to repeated requests from local police organizations, began accepting police organizations into their membership. By September, it had granted charters to police unions in 37 cities, including Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Miami, and St. Paul, though not without protests from some city officials, who opposed the unionization of police, firefighters, and teachers.

The Boston police organized under an AFL charter in order to gain support from other unions in their negotiations and any strike that might ensue. On August 9, 1919, the Boston Social Club requested a charter from the AFL. On August 11, Curtis issued a General Order forbidding police officers to join any "organization, club or body outside the department", making an exception only for patriotic organizations such as the newly-formed American Legion. His administration argued that such a rule was based on the conflict of interest between police officers' duties and union membership:

"It is or should be apparent to any thinking person that the police department of this or any other city cannot fulfill its duty to the entire public if its members are subject to the direction of an organization existing outside the department.... If troubles and disturbances arise where the interests of this organization and the interests of other elements and classes in the community conflict, the situation immediately arises which always arises when a man attempts to serve two masters, – he must fail either in his duty as a policeman, or in his obligation to the organization that controls him."

Some attribute the concern from Commissioner Curtis, which was shared by the chamber of commerce, to the fear that unionized police would align with workers and not continue to protect the interest of capitalists. On August 15, the police received their AFL charter. On August 17, the Central Labor Union of Boston welcomed the police union and denounced Curtis for his assertions that the police had no right to unionize. Curtis refused to meet with the eight members of the police union's committee. He suspended them and 11 others who held various union offices and scheduled trials to determine if they had violated his General Order. At this point, Curtis was a hero to business interests. Late in August, the New Hampshire Association of Manufacturers called him "the Ole Hanson of the east," equating the events they anticipated in Boston with the earlier Seattle General Strike.

Mayor Peters sought to play an intermediary role by appointing a Citizen's Committee to review the dispute about union representation. He chose a well-known local reformer as its chair, James J. Storrow, whose group recommended that Curtis and the police agree to a police union without AFL ties and without the right to strike. Curtis would recognize the police union, which would agree to remain "independent and unaffiliated" and no action would be taken against the 19 men Curtis had suspended. Four of Boston's five newspapers backed the compromise, with only the Boston Transcript holding to a consistent anti-union position. The Boston Chamber of Commerce backed it as well.

Curtis, with the backing of Massachusetts Governor Calvin Coolidge, rejected the Storrow Commission's proposal. He proceeded with department trials of the 19 and on September 8 found them guilty of union activity. Rather than dismiss them from the police force, he extended their suspensions. He later explained that he was giving them an opportunity to reconsider their actions and avoid discharges, which would have been irrevocable. The police union members responded that same day by voting 1134 to 2 in favor of a strike and scheduled it to start at evening roll call the next day. Their stated grounds omitted wages and working conditions. They said the strike's rationale was to protest the Commissioner's denial of their right to ally themselves with the AFL.

In anticipation of the strike, all of Boston's newspapers called it "Bolshevistic", pleaded with the police to reconsider and predicted dire consequences. One also warned the police that their eventual defeat was guaranteed, that they would lose because "behind Boston in this skirmish with Bolshevism stands Massachusetts, and behind Massachusetts stands America."

Strike

On September 9, Boston Police Department officers went on strike at 5:45 p.m. Of the force's 1,544 officers and men, 1,117 (72%) failed to report for work. Coolidge assigned 100 members of the state's Metropolitan Park Police Department to replace the striking officers, but 58 of them refused to participate and were suspended from their jobs. Despite assurances from Commissioner Curtis to Mayor Peters and Governor Coolidge, Boston had little police protection for the night of September 9. Volunteer replacements were still being organized and due to report the next morning. Many of the strikebreakers were students at Harvard University.

Over the night of September 9–10, the city witnessed an outbreak of hooliganism and looting. Some was rowdy behavior that scared respectable citizens, such as youths throwing rocks at streetcars and overturning the carts of street vendors. More overtly criminal activity included the smashing of store windows and looting their displays or setting off false fire alarms. Such activity was restricted to certain parts of the city and, according to the New York Times, "throughout the greater part of the city the usual peace and quiet prevailed."

In the morning the mayor asked the governor to furnish a force of State Guards; Coolidge promptly agreed and eventually provided almost 5,000 men under the command of Brig. Gen. Samuel D. Parker. Commissioner Curtis later praised the State Guards' performance in his Annual Report: "The whole community is now aware of the effectiveness with which the Massachusetts State Guard worked when it came into the city. I cannot add anything to the universal chorus of commendation that has greeted their work." The morning papers following the first night's violence were full of loud complaints and derogatory terms for the police: "deserters", "agents of Lenin."

Violence peaked the next evening, the night of September 10–11. Businesses were better prepared. Some had boarded up and others stayed open all night with armed guards visible to discourage thieves taking advantage of the strike. Gamblers played dice in open view, and women had their handbags snatched. But the Guard's inexperience at handling crowds resulted in dangerous attempts to assert control. Gunfire in South Boston left two dead and others wounded. One person died in a riot at Scollay Square, a center of amusement halls and theaters. Whether the crowds were threatening property or making trouble because they were in sympathy with the strikers is unknown.

The death total ultimately reached nine. In the "cavalry charge" of State Guard troops in Scollay Square on the 10th, Robert Lallie was shot and killed; Miss Margaret Walsh was wounded and died the next day. Henry Groat (or Grote), age 20, was killed near the Armory near Jamaica Plain for refusing to abandon a game of craps. On the 11th a striking policeman, a nine-year veteran named Richard D. Reemts, disarmed two strikebreaking policemen at Columbus Avenue and Buckingham Street. Reemts then was fatally shot by an auto parts dealer. Passerby Arthur E. (or E.B.) McGill was shot to death in Howard Street. Three other men, Raymond L. Barnen (reported elsewhere as Bayers or Barros), Robert Sheehan, and Anthony Carr, were also killed on the 11th. The final fatal casualty may have been 25-year-old Gustave Geist on the 13th. All but Reemts were shot by members of the state militia.

City life continued relatively normally, especially during daytime hours. Schools remained open. Later claims against the city for losses incurred during the two nights of disorder ran to $35,000, of which the city paid $34,000. Those figures represent a non-partisan calculation of the costs of the strike to the Boston business community.

When Governor Coolidge called the strikers "deserters," a mass meeting of the Boston Police Union responded:

"When we were honorably discharged from the United States army, we were hailed as heroes and saviors of our country. We returned to our duties on the police force of Boston.

Now, though only a few months have passed, we are denounced as deserters, as traitors to our city and violators of our oath of office.

The first men to raise the cry were those who have always been opposed to giving to labor a living wage. It was taken up by the newspapers, who cared little for the real facts. You finally added your word of condemnation....

Among us are men who have gone against spitting machine guns single-handed, and captured them, volunteering for the job. Among us are men who have ridden with dispatches through shell fire so dense that four men fell and only the fifth got through.

Not one man of us ever disgraced the flag or his service. It is bitter to come home and be called deserters and traitors. We are the same men who were on the French front.

Some of us fought in the Spanish war of 1898. Won't you tell the people of Massachusetts in which war you served?"

On the evening of September 11, the Central Labor Union met to consider calling a general strike in support of the striking police. Earlier it had expressed enthusiasm for a general strike, more likely as an expression of solidarity than a declaration of serious intent. It collected the votes of its constituent unions and on September 12 announced it was delaying a decision. Their statement explained their reasoning: "We are not to act in a manner that will give the prejudiced press and autocratic employers a chance to criticize us."

On September 11, Matthew Woll, an AFL vice-president, said his organization discouraged strikes by government employees but defended their right to organize: "all wage earners have the right to associate with one another and collectively to improve their condition". He blamed the strike on government managers who failed to recognize that right and put the Boston situation in the context of the broader union movement: "On the question of industrial democracy [i.e., unionization], we find still that group of employers, Bourbonic in character, who believe democracy means for them to ruin or rule industrially. They cannot conceive that the workers have any right in the management of industry. ... The time has passed when any man can say he is the ruler of the people in his employment."

AFL President Samuel Gompers, just returned from Europe, quickly assessed the situation and the strength of public sentiment. On September 12, he urged the strikers to return to work, asking the city to agree to suspend judgment on whether to recognize the police union. In a telegram to Mayor Peters he cited the model of Washington, D.C., which had, at the suggestion of President Wilson, suspended its regulation forbidding police officers to join a union affiliated with the AFL until a conference scheduled for October 6. The police accepted Gompers' recommendation immediately. Coolidge replied with a statement of support for Curtis' hard line. Gompers telegraphed Coolidge again, this time blaming Curtis for the crisis. Coolidge dismissed the Commissioner's behavior as irrelevant, because no provocation could justify the police walkout. His terse summation created his reputation on the national scene: "There is no right to strike against the public safety, anywhere, anytime." Coolidge said he would continue to "defend the sovereignty of Massachusetts".

By the weekend, the presence of the State Guards had become a curiosity. Larger than usual crowds strolled in the center of the city. Thousands attended a band concert on the Boston Common. "The shootings of the last few days for interference with guardsmen", said the New York Times, "seem to have had a marked effect".

Coolidge said he originally hoped to reinstate the officers, stating in a telegram to a labor convention, "I earnestly hope that circumstances may arise which will cause the police officers to be reinstated". Over the objections of Mayor Peters, Commissioner Curtis announced on September 13 that he planned to recruit a new force. He fired roughly 1,100 and hired 1,574 replacement police officers from a pool of unemployed World War I veterans. Members of the United Garment Workers refused to sew uniforms for the new hires, who had to report for work in civilian clothing.

The new officers hired in the wake of the strike received higher salaries and more vacation days than the strikers had. They enjoyed a starting salary of $1,400 along with a pension plan, and the department covered the cost of their uniforms and equipment. The population of Boston raised $472,000 to help pay for the State Guards until new police officers could be recruited.

The State Guard was relieved from duty on December 21, 1919 after the Boston Police Department had recruited enough new members to begin policing the city again.

Reaction
In an editorial on the first morning of the strike, the New York Times supported the police commissioner and said that the strikers were "[i]nspired unconsciously by anti-social ideals, or acting by 'suggestion' of their London and Liverpool brethren", which had recently seen similar strikes. It said:

"A policeman has no more right to belong to a union than a soldier or a sailor. He must be ready to obey orders, the orders of his superiors, not those of any outside body. One of his duties is the maintenance of order in the case of strike violence. In such a case, if he is faithful to his union, he may have to be unfaithful to the public, which pays him to protect it. The situation is false and impossible.... It is the privilege of Boston policemen to resign if they are not satisfied with the conditions of their employment.... but it is intolerable that a city ... should be deserted by men who misunderstand their position and function as policemen, and who take their orders from outside.... [I]t is an imported, revolutionary idea that may spread to various cities. There should be plain and stern law against it. It is practically an analogue of military desertion... [I]t ought to be punished suitably and repressed."

It later called the strike "this Boston essay in Bolshevism" and lamented the attempt of Mayor Peters and the Storrow Commission "to submit to compromise an issue that could not be compromised". Newspaper accounts exaggerated the level of crime and violence that accompanied the strike, resulting in a national furor that shaped the political response. A Philadelphia paper viewed the Boston violence in the same light as other labor unrest and numerous race riots in 1919: "Bolshevism in the United States is no longer a specter. Boston in chaos reveals its sinister substance."

President Woodrow Wilson, speaking from Montana, branded the walkout "a crime against civilization" that left the city "at the mercy of an army of thugs." He said that "the obligation of a policeman is as sacred and direct as the obligation of a soldier. He is a public servant, not a private employee, and the whole honor of the community is in his hands. He has no right to prefer any private advantage to the public safety." Elihu Root, a former Secretary of War and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, told a Carnegie Hall audience on September 17 that the strike was an attack on constitutional government because it represented "the passing of power to enforce laws, the power to punish crime, the power to maintain order from the whole people of the United States" to the 3% of the population represented by the AFL.

A report from Washington was headlined: "Senators Think Effort to Sovietize the Government Is Started". Senator Henry Cabot Lodge saw in the strike the dangers of the national labor movement: "If the American Federation of Labor succeeds in getting hold of the police in Boston it will go all over the country, and we shall be in measurable distance of Soviet government by labor unions." The Ohio State Journal opposed any sympathetic treatment of the strikers: "When a policeman strikes, he should be debarred not only from resuming his office, but from citizenship as well. He has committed the unpardonable sin; he has forfeited all his rights."

Aftermath
In the police commissioner's Annual Report for 1919, Curtis presented his view of the strike. He argued that he had not needed the requested State Guards for the strike's first night because the city remained quiet and he trusted reports that many policemen would not join. By the end of the year the strikers had formed a new organization called the Association of Former Police of the City of Boston.

The strike gave momentum to Coolidge's political career, and a nationwide reputation for decisive action that was not in keeping with his tendency toward deliberation. In 1918, he had narrowly been elected governor. In 1919 he won 62% of the votes when running against an opponent who favored reinstating the strikers. He failed to carry Boston by just 5,000 votes, an impressive showing for a Republican in a strongly Democratic city. The Boston Transcript reported:

"Massachusetts is hailed today from Maine to California as the winner of a shining triumph for straight Americanism. The voting booths of the old Bay State were a battleground for the nation. The ancient faith was under fire. Law and order formed the line of cleavage. The Governor was the Commander-in-chief, the people of the commonwealth were the invincible army, the issue was America, and in the triumph of that issue all America triumphs."

Coolidge himself later said, "No doubt it was the police strike in Boston that brought me into national prominence." In a post-election congratulatory telegram President Wilson wrote: "I congratulate you upon your election as a victory for law and order. When that is the issue, all Americans must stand together." His role in the strike, however limited, became a prominent feature of his resume as he sought higher office. According to one obituary, "the Boston police strike of 1919 ... brought him national prominence and the nomination for the Vice Presidency" in 1920. When he succeeded to the presidency in 1923 upon the death of Warren Harding, the New York Times headlined its biography: "Coolidge Firmness Won Recognition; His Suppression of the Boston Police Strike Made Him a National Figure". Coolidge's political rivals interpreted his role differently. In 1925, U.S. Senator Robert La Follette of Wisconsin said that Coolidge's failure to intervene in that year's coal strike mirrored his 1919 actions when he "persistently refused to act upon the requests of the Mayor of Boston for assistance until riot and bloodshed had aroused the entire State. Then when order had been restored by the efforts of Mayor Peters and the Storrow committee Coolidge sent in the militia and claimed full credit for restoring 'law and order'."

The strike heightened public fear of labor unrest and the possible radicalism that lay behind it. It contributed to the public anxiety of the period known as the Red Scare of 1919–1920. The failure of this and other strikes in the years following World War I contributed to declining union membership in subsequent years. The American Federation of Labor responded to political pressure experienced during the strike and revoked the charters it had granted to police unions. That ended police unionism in the U.S. for two decades, as police would not try to unionize until World War II.

In 1930, a history of the Boston Transcript, the most resolutely anti-union of Boston's newspapers in 1919, perpetuated its original account of urban chaos during the strike's first nights. It described large crowds, including a number of sailors from docked naval ships, that took to the streets, smashing windows, committing robbery and stoning bystanders and cars. It said that the northern, southern, and western areas of the city were all taken over by armed gangs.

Legislation passed by the Massachusetts legislature in 1933 made it easier for police officers who had been off the force for more than a year to apply for reinstatement. It was expected that this would lead to an effort by the former strikers to be rehired, but several subsequent appeals for reinstatement were denied. In 1937, Massachusetts Governor Charles F. Hurley, after meeting with some of the 1919 strikers, backed the decision of Police Commissioner Joseph Timilty not to reinstate them.

The Boston Police Patrolmen's Association was formed in 1965 following the enactment of a state statute allowing state and municipal workers to organize for the sake of collective bargaining.

No police officers in the U.S. went out on strike again until July 1974, when some Baltimore police, estimated at 15% to 50% of the force, refused to report for work for several days as a demonstration of support for other striking municipal unions.

In popular culture

 * The Dropkick Murphys album Rock Against Bush Volume 2 includes the song "We Got the Power" about the Boston police strike.
 * Dennis Lehane's novel The Given Day is partly set during the Boston police strike.
 * Issue number 7 of Alan Moore's comic book series Providence is set on the backdrop of the Boston police strike.

title: Boston police strike


text:
Talk:Crossed module

there ought to be a homotopy theoretic example, but i have'nt figured it out yet. Bgohla 12:56, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Just for the record, there is one now. --Toby Bartels 05:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The action of $G$ on $H$ should be acting as automorphsims of $H$.--刻意(Kèyì) 17:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crossed module. 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:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120723235509/http://www.bangor.ac.uk/r.brown/hdaweb2.htm to http://www.bangor.ac.uk/r.brown/hdaweb2.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Crossed module


text: File:Zero 7 - Simple Things - Album Cover (front).jpg


text: User talk:200.39.103.224

title: User talk:200.39.103.224


text:
Rosenzweig

Rosenzweig, or Rosensweig is a German surname meaning "rose twig or branch" and may refer to:

People

 * Alyssa Rosenzweig, software developer
 * Barney Rosenzweig (born 1937), an American television producer
 * Cynthia E. Rosenzweig, a NASA scientist and climatologist
 * Dan Rosensweig, former Chief Operating Officer of Yahoo!
 * Ferdinand von Rosenzweig, an Austrian military officer
 * Franz Rosenzweig (1887–1929), German-Jewish philosopher
 * Gabriel Rosenzweig Pichardo (1957-2024), Mexican diplomat
 * Gerson Rosenzweig (1861–1914), writer and poet
 * Harry Rosen (born 1931, originally Rosenzweig), founder of the Canadian men's wear store that bears his name
 * Jake Rosenzweig (born 1989), an American racing driver
 * Joseph "Joe 'The Greaser'" Rosenzweig, American racketeer in the early 1900s
 * Luc Rosenzweig (1943-2018), French journalist
 * Mark Rosenzweig (1922-2009), performed studies showing the brain continues developing anatomically into adulthood
 * Rabbi Michael Rosensweig (born 1955), rosh yeshiva at Yeshiva University
 * Michael Rosen, a British poet and children's storyteller
 * Michael Rosenzweig, American ecologist at the University of Arizona
 * Peggy Rosenzweig, an American politician
 * Philip Rosenzweig (1954–2001), vice president with Sun Microsystems who died on American Airlines Flight 11 on 9/11
 * Rachel Zoe Rosenzweig, an American fashion stylist
 * Robert Rosenzweig, president emeritus of the Association of American Universities
 * Ronald E. Rosensweig (born 1932), physicist, pioneer in the field of magnetic fluids
 * Roy Rosenzweig (1950–2007), American historian
 * Saul Rosenzweig (1907–2004), American psychologist and therapist
 * Viktor Rosenzweig (1914–1941), Croatian communist, poet and writer killed during World War II

Entertainment, fiction, awards

 * Buber-Rosenzweig-Medal, an annual prize for Christian-Jewish relations, named after Franz Rosenzweig
 * Chaim Rosenzweig, a fictional character in the Left Behind novels
 * The Sisters Rosensweig, a play by Wendy Wasserstein

title: Rosenzweig


text: User talk:170.145.102.22

title: User talk:170.145.102.22


text:
Christa Speck

Christa Speck (August 1, 1942 – March 22, 2013) was a German model and actress. She was chosen as Playboy magazine's Playmate of the Month for the September 1961 issue, and as the 1962 Playmate of the Year. Her original pictorial was photographed by Sam Wu.

Career and media appearances
Speck was working as a bank secretary at Bank of America when she was discovered by Playboy. She was chosen as Playboy magazine's Playmate of the Month for the September 1961 issue, and as the 1962 Playmate of the Year, the first foreign-born model to be so named. She worked as a Bunny in the company's Chicago nightclub, lived in the Playboy Mansion and was featured in all of the magazine's 60s pictorials about life at the Mansion: 1961's Playmate Holiday House Party, 1963's Playmate Pillow Fight and Bunnies and 1966's The Playboy Mansion. Speck was selected by Playboy editors and readers as one of their "ten favorite Playmates from the magazine’s first decade."

Her centerfold is seen in the 1978 film Animal House, which takes place in 1962. Speck is mentioned in the 2007 book Confessions of a Crabgrass Cowboy: From Lincoln Logs to Lava Lamps: Coming of Age in an Early American Suburb by William Schwarz. She is also mentioned briefly in the 2011 book The Bunny Years by fellow, former Bunny Kathryn Leigh Scott.

Personal life
Speck was born in Danzig, Germany (now Gdańsk, Poland).

She was later married to children's programming producer Marty Krofft. Speck and Krofft had three daughters.

Death
Speck died of natural causes at her home in Los Angeles, California, at the age of 70.

title: Christa Speck


text:
Abram Hoffer

Abram Hoffer (November 11, 1917 – May 27, 2009) was a Canadian biochemist, physician, and psychiatrist known for his "adrenochrome hypothesis" of schizoaffective disorders. According to Hoffer, megavitamin therapy and other nutritional interventions are potentially effective treatments for cancer and schizophrenia. Hoffer was also involved in studies of LSD as an experimental therapy for alcoholism and the discovery that high-dose niacin can be used to treat high cholesterol and other dyslipidemias. Hoffer's ideas about megavitamin therapy to treat mental illness are not accepted by the medical community.

Biography
Hoffer was born in the small Jewish settlement of Sonnenfeld in southern Saskatchewan, Canada, in 1917, the last of four children and the son of Israel Hoffer. Originally interested in agriculture, Hoffer earned both a bachelor's and a master's degree in agricultural chemistry from the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon. He then took up a scholarship for a year of post-graduate work with the University of Minnesota, followed by work developing assays for niacin levels at a wheat products laboratory in Winnipeg. Hoffer earned a PhD in biochemistry in 1944, part of which involved the study of vitamins (particularly B vitamins and their effect on the body) and with an interest in nutrition went on to study medicine at the University of Manitoba in 1945. After two years of clinical work at the University of Toronto, Hoffer earned his MD in 1949. Though originally intending to be a general practitioner, during his studies Hoffer developed an interest in psychiatry. He married Rose Miller in 1942, and his son Bill Hoffer was born in 1944 followed by two more children, John and Miriam, in 1947 and 1949.

Hoffer was hired by the Saskatchewan Department of Public Health in 1950 to establish a provincial research program in psychiatry, and joined the Regina Psychiatric Services Branch, Department of Public Health in 1951. He remained the Director of Psychiatric Research until entering private practice in 1967. Critical of psychiatry for its emphasis on psychosomatic psychoanalysis and for what he considered a lack of adequate definition and measurement, Hoffer felt that biochemistry and human physiology may be used instead. He hypothesised that people with schizophrenia may lack the ability to remove the hallucinogenic catecholamine metabolite adrenochrome from their brains. Hoffer thought niacin could be used as a methyl acceptor to prevent the conversion of noradrenaline into adrenaline and that Vitamin C could be used to prevent the oxidation of Adrenaline to Adrenochrome. Hoffer called his theory the "adrenochrome hypothesis".

In 1967, Hoffer resigned some of his academic and administrative positions, entered into private psychiatric practice in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and created the Journal of Schizophrenia (renamed the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine in 1986). Hoffer used the journal to publish articles on what he called "nutritional psychiatry", later orthomolecular psychiatry, claiming his ideas were consistently rejected by mainstream journals because they were unacceptable to the medical establishment. In 1976, Hoffer relocated to Victoria, British Columbia and continued with his private psychiatric practice until his retirement in 2005. In 1994, Hoffer founded the International Society for Orthomolecular Medicine, holding its inaugural in Vancouver in April of the same year. Hoffer continued to provide nutritional consultations and served as editor of the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. He was also President of the Orthomolecular Vitamin Information Centre in Victoria, BC.

Hoffer died at the age of 91 on May 27, 2009, in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. His remains were buried in the Jewish Cemetery of Victoria.

Research
Working in Saskatchewan with Humphry Osmond (who coined the term "psychedelic"), Hoffer and other scientists sought to find medicinal uses for hallucinogenic drugs. Part of the research involved Hoffer, Osmond and their wives consuming LSD in an effort to become better acquainted with, and better understand its effects, later joined by other experimenters and their wives. Their work began attracting notoriety within professional, provincial and federal and political circles, and they were courted by the emerging movement to restrict peyote as well as Native American groups that used the substance in religious ceremonies. Hoffer, Osmond and others treated alcoholics with LSD. Canadian scientists reported a fifty percent success rate in one study, although Hoffer speculated that it was more likely the psychedelic experience of LSD, rather than simulated delirium tremens, that convinced the alcoholics to stop drinking.

While working at the Regina General Hospital in the 1950s, Hoffer and James Stephen examined the effects of large doses of niacin on various diseases, including schizophrenia; Hoffer theorized that adrenalin, when oxidized to adrenochrome was an endogenous neurotoxin that could cause schizophrenia. At the same time, another Canadian working in Saskatoon, pathologist Rudolf Altschul, was exploring the use of high doses of niacin to lower cholesterol in rabbits and patients with degenerative vascular disease. The three combined their work, and in 1955 produced a paper entitled "Influence of nicotinic acid on serum cholesterol in man." The paper summarized their research showing high-dose niacin significantly lowered cholesterol in both high cholesterol patients as well as low cholesterol control subjects. The results were replicated by researchers at the Mayo Clinic and in Germany the following year. High-dose niacin has since become a treatment option for individuals with high blood cholesterol and related blood lipid abnormalities.

At such high doses niacin acts like a drug rather than a vitamin and may have side effects of intense flushing of the face and torso and, rarely, liver toxicity. Hoffer continued to promote niacin as a treatment for schizophrenia, though this approach was not accepted by mainstream medicine. Subsequent research suggested that Hoffer's adrenochrome theory had merit as people with schizophrenia have defects in the genes that produce glutathione S-transferase, which eliminates the byproducts of catecholamines from the brain. Though Hoffer and Osmond reported nicotinic acid could help with the treatment of schizophrenia, others reported that they could not replicate these results. Despite the apparent face validity of Hoffer's "transmethylation hypothesis" (in which it was thought that the production of catecholamines could sometimes go awry and produce a hallucinogenic neurotoxin), it was ultimately rejected for two reasons: the alleged neurotoxins were never identified and the cause of schizophrenia became attributed to dysfunctions in neurotransmitters.

Controversy
Hoffer's claims regarding schizophrenia and his theories of holistic orthomolecular medicine have been criticized by the mainstream of psychiatry. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association reported methodological flaws in Hoffer's work on niacin as a schizophrenia treatment and referred to follow-up studies that did not confirm any benefits of the treatment, prompting at least two responses.

Multiple additional studies in the United States, Canada, and Australia similarly failed to find benefits of megavitamin therapy to treat schizophrenia. The term "orthomolecular" was labeled a misnomer as early as 1973. Psychiatrist and critic of psychiatry Thomas Szasz, author of The Myth of Mental Illness (1961), believed Hoffer's view of schizophrenia as a physical disease treatable with vitamins and self-help therapy to be "pure quackery".

Publications

 * Chemical Basis of Clinical Psychiatry, with Humphry Osmond. Springfield, IL: Thomas, 1960..
 * Niacin Therapy in Psychiatry. Springfield, IL: Thomas, 1962..
 * How to Live With Schizophrenia. New Hyde Park, NY: University Books, 1966.
 * New Hope for Alcoholics. Hyde Park, NY: University Books, 1966.
 * The Hallucinogens, with Humphry Osmond and Thaddeus E. Weckowicz. Academic Press, 1967. ISBN 0123518504.
 * Hoffer-Osmond Diagnostic Test, with Humphry Osmond and Kelm H. Tuscaloosa, AL: Behavior Science Press, 1975.
 * Megavitamin Therapy: In Reply to the American Psychiatric Association Task Force Report on Megavitamins and Orthomolecular Psychiatry. Regina, Saskatchewan: Canadian Schizophrenia Foundation, 1976.
 * Nutrients to Age Without Senility, with Morton Walker and Roger J. Williams. Keats Pub, Inc., 1980. ISBN 0879832185.
 * Orthomolecular medicine for physicians. McGraw-Hill Trade, 1989. ISBN 0879833904.
 * How to Live with Schizophrenia. Carol Publishing Group, 1992. ISBN 9780806506654.
 * Hoffer's Laws of Natural Nutrition: A Guide to Eating Well for Pure Health. Quarry Press, 1996. ISBN 1550820958.
 * Vitamin B-3 and Schizophrenia: Discovery, Recovery, Controversy. Quarry Press, 1996. ISBN 1550820796.
 * Orthomolecular Treatment for Schizophrenia, McGraw-Hill Education, 1999. ISBN 9780879839109.
 * Dr. Hoffer's ABC of Natural Nutrition for Children: With Learning Disabilities, Behavioral Disorders, and Mental State Dysfunctions, Quarry Press, 1999. ISBN 1550821857.
 * Healing Cancer: Complementary Vitamin & Drug Treatments. CCNM Press, 2004. ISBN 1897025114.
 * User's Guide to Natural Therapies for Cancer Prevention & Control: Learn How Diet and Supplements Can Help Prevent and Treat Cancer. Basic Health Publications, Inc., 2004. ISBN 1591201365.
 * Naturopathic Nutrition, with Jonathan Prousky. Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine Press, 2006. ISBN 9781897025154.
 * Feel Better, Live Longer with Vitamin B-3: Nutrient Deficiency and Dependency, with Harold D. Foster. CCNM Press, 2007. ISBN 1897025246.
 * Orthomolecular Medicine For Everyone, with Andrew W. Saul. Laguna Beach, CA: Basic Health, 2008. ISBN 978-1591202264.
 * The Vitamin Cure for Alcoholism: Orthomolecular Treatment of Addictions. Basic Health Publications, Inc., 2009. ISBN 9781591202547.
 * Psychiatry Yesterday (1950) and Today (2007): From Despair to Hope with Orthomolecular Psychiatry. Trafford Publishing, 2009. ISBN 1425155839.
 * Hospitals and Health: Your Orthomolecular Guide to a Shorter, Safer Hospital Stay, with Andrew W. Saul and Steve Hickey. Basic Health Publications, Inc., 2010. ISBN 1591202604.
 * Healing Schizophrenia: Complementary Vitamin & Drug Treatments (Naturopathic Healing Series, Professional Edition). CCNM Press, 2011. ISBN 1897025394.
 * Niacin: The Real Story: Learn about the Wonderful Healing Properties of Niacin, with Andrew W. Saul and Harold D. Foster. Basic Health Publications, Inc., 2015. ISBN 1681627566.
 * Healing Children's Attention and Behavior Disorders: Complementary Nutritional & Psychological Treatments. CCNM Press, 2015. ISBN 1897025106.
 * Healing Children's Attention and Behavior Disorders: Complementary Nutritional & Psychological Treatments. CCNM Press, 2015. ISBN 1897025106.

title: Abram Hoffer