Talk:Ebola virus disease

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Ebola virus disease was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Africa (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Viruses (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Note icon
This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High traffic

On 30 May 2010, Ebola virus disease was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)


Possible treatment[edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC) --T4taylor (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC) I think the above link is dead!

This is not the place for it, but a patient should try 2 or 3 BHT capsules per day. BHT kills viruses. (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)BG

Proposal to Edit Epidemiology Section[edit]

I've rearranged the table in this section to include separate columns for cases and deaths. Here was the original format:

Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreaks
Year Virus Geographic location Human deaths/cases (case-fatality rate)

It is odd to have cases/deaths next to the CFR which is clearly calculated as deaths in the numerator and cases in the denominator. Is this way of writing conventional, or useful for some type of research, or just kinda random formatting preferences? If so, keeping it as it was makes sense.

Things I didn't change but want to: Is anyone aware of ways to keep a footer fixed at the bottom of the table for totals? Putting totals in the last line just allows it to float around when you re-sort the table, but I don't see any option for footers in the insert table function. Also, would adding this to the article violate 'no original research' standards? It's not much of a leap to do this, but I suppose you could apply all sorts of statistical techniques to the data provided and at some point that analysis becomes more interpretation than fact.

Here is roughly what I'd like to see included:

Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreaks
Year Virus Geographic location Cases Human deaths CFR (case-fatality rate)
Totals All All 1633 2448 66%

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC) 

Proposal to add "See Also" and "Further Reading" sections[edit]

Monorbeta (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC) General info about Ebola Virus I want to add a "See Also" section and a "Further Reading" section to this article. I made a list of some possible article links.

I would like input as to why you think these sections should or should not be added, which article links should be added to or removed from the list, and what order they should be in.

To make discussion easier, I put one bold CAPITAL letter by each article link. If you support the proposal, start your post with "YES"; if you oppose, "NO". To say what order you think they should be in, say "ORDER: A B C O F R ..." . If there is an article link you believe doesn't need to be or shouldn't be on the list, then put "REJECT: H (because), N (because), ..." . If you only want to suggest a few links for me to definitely keep (and don't want to do anything else,) then put "KEEP: B C F G " "KEEP:" is (optional because). If you have an article link you think should be added, then put "ADD: _______ (because)". If you aren't sure if an article link should be REJECTed or KEEPed, put "MAYBE: (optional because)".

A good example of a response supporting the section additions is: "YES. I think it would be very helpful to have a bunch of related and pertinent ebola links all grouped together. REJECT: D or E (don't need both), L or M (don't need both), W (too broad/general), N (too insignificant). ADD: Richard Preston (he wrote the bestselling nonfiction book on ebola called The Hot Zone). KEEP: BCFGOQRUXYZ. O (if anyone would cause an ebola plague, it'd be them). MAYBE: H (could be seen as either important or unnecessary), K (sad but not ebola-important), S (important but not ebola-important). ORDER: A B C G F D I H ... "

--See Also--

--Further Reading --

Thanks. Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for a Further Reading section, as you detailed. In terms of See Alsos, yes, the article shoud have a See Also section. Avoid incuding anything that is already linked in the article (e.g., virus). Definitely include the List of outbreaks. Beyond that, simply trim the list to the top 10 or less items, by importance/relevance, that haven't already been mentioned in the article. Softlavender (talk)

I got Ebola semi-protected![edit]

Ebola (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Semi-protected Long-term, reoccurring, incidents of vandalism by anonymous users. Excluding my two constructive revisions, only 8 of the last 50 revisions (Sept15-Nov3) were constructive -- meaning they added information to the article. So 42 of the last 50 revisions were edits/changes that were later reverted or were people making revisions to revert the aforementioned. I changed the view to the most recent 500, and from 10-27-09 through 11-27-09, there were 16 reversions that identified anonymous revisions as the reason, which definitely makes this problem long-term. Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 3:11 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months. After 3 months the page will be automatically unprotected. Courcelles 3:15 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Typo in the image[edit]

...of File:Ebola_Pathenogensis_path.svg – "Infected Monocyte" is misspelled as "Monotcyte". Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

History of 1976 Zaire/Sudan outbreak[edit]

I'd like to have a complete history of the 1976 Zaire/Sudan outbreaks, and their containment and so forth, somewhere on Wikipedia. There's nothing on it in this article beside mention of their existence -- I assume that's because this article presumes to be strictly about the medical facts on Ebola.

In my mind, the historical outbreaks in Zaire and Sudan in 1976/1977 are important enough to have complete information in Wikipedia -- possibly in a separate article on them. The subject was frequently in the news in those years. Also, the film And the Band Plays On makes a significant reference to how those outbreaks were managed and controlled, versus how the outbreak of AIDS in the U.S. and elsewhere was managed, so it would be interesting to be able to verify the historical facts on the management and containment of the Ebola outbreaks. Softlavender (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ebola hemorrhagic fever v.Ebola virus disease[edit]

The more correct name and more widely used name is Ebola hemorrhagic fever (EHF). This is what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention[1] and the World Health Organization[2] call it. So does the United States Army Medical Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick, Bethesda, Maryland (USAMRIID)[3] 7mike5000 (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Naming used in article[edit]

The intro section makes unfortunate use of proposed revisions to the naming and classification scheme ( I added in the more customary names and abbreviations. (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Photograph caption contradicts article[edit]

The caption on the photograph at the top of the page says the patient died due to internal bleeding and haemorrage. The article says even with haemorraging patients die due to other causes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

New possible treatments with imatinib (Gleevec) & nilotinib (Tasigna)[edit]

Hi gang, I don't have time to add this myself, but would be useful to add; there's new data that two drugs used in Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML) may, at least in tissue culture in a lab, be effective in treating Ebola virus infected cells. I believe the experiment was in a kidney cell culture (human? other?), and the drugs suppressed virus release from infected cells. The drugs are tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and were developed to block the action of the tyrosine kinase activity of the BCR-ABL fusion protein which is the result of the 9:22 chromosomal translocation in Philadelphia-chromosome-positive CML. Apparently the virus also uses a protein or enzyme with tyrosine kinase activity, and so these drugs may also be effective in acute Ebola infection. Because the two drugs are already FDA-approved for use in patients with CML, they may be immediately used "off-label" by physicians to treat Ebola, without additional formalities, so as soon as a new Ebola outbreak occurs in some remote jungle somewheres (or somebody gets infected because of some lab accident), somebody's probably going to try the drugs in infected humans (especially as no other good treatments are yet available). However, because usually natural infections are in some remote jungle, this may not happen too soon. The reference is in the New York Times today (3/20/2012), and there's also this: "Novartis Cancer Drugs Fight Deadly Ebola Virus in Lab, Researchers Find", By Simeon Bennett - Feb 29, 2012 11:00 AM PT , Bloomberg news, < > (found by googling < Gleevec Ebola >). It would probably be good to find the original published peer-reviewed scientific paper (assuming there is one) as well. Hope somebody can add this to the Ebola article. Thanks. Lanephil (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Use of 15 back to back citations in the Signs and Symptoms section[edit]

There are currently 15 citations at the end of the Signs and Symptoms section. Are there no secondary or tertiary summaries of available knowledge that would be more appropriate? If not, this citation overkill should be cut down to maybe 3 to 5 refs that cover all of the information in those two paragraphs. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I came to the talk page with exactly that questions, only to find it had already been asked! Surely there is no need for a WP:REFBOMB like this? There must be one or two reliable sources which would cover, between them, the information in this paragraph. Pesky (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion it's very good to have a lot of citations. Stop complaining about it-- (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


Does this article actually state how long it takes from initial infection to symptoms then death? Can't see it any where. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Old page history and relevant talk page content[edit]

Some old page history that used to be at the title "Ebola virus disease" can now be found at Talk:Ebola virus disease/Old history. Graham87 11:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There's also some relevant old talk page content at Talk:Ebola haemorrhagic fever, but it doesn't make sense to move or history merge it here because of the mess of moves/merges/redirects. Graham87 11:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


At the very end, there is a statement "However, this potential treatment is considered controversial" Then it cites a source that does not have anything to do with controversy in that method. The method described (seven of eight patients having received blood transfusions from convalescent individuals survived) is only a one-time study in which there *might* have been a link between the two, as there is not conclusive evidence, but there's no "controversy" mentioned anywhere. (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You should have checked the full text. See [4]: "but the success is controversial". Ruslik_Zero 19:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Intro wording is confusing[edit]

the wording in the intro "[...] is the human disease that may be caused by any of four of the five known ebola viruses." is confusing and can be interpreted in a number of ways. does it mean that only if you are infected simultaniously with any 4 of the 5 listed viruses then you're considered to have ebola? what if you have only 3? or are they saying that one is not human transmissable? then it can't be "any of four". I dont know enough about ebola or what the intro is trying to say in order to correct it so I'm just making a note of it here.-- (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Only four Ebola viruses can infect humans. The fifth virus (Reston ebolavirus) apparently does not cause disease in humans. Ruslik_Zero 19:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

News worthy?[edit]

Lozion (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Hi, I'm admittedly a newbie but as a resident of Côte d'Ivoire, I'm witnessing the authorities of countries neighbouring Guinea issuing various warnings and ordering the closing of border points between Guinea and Senegal, also flights are cancelled out of Conakry to Mauritania and so forth. I think this is "In the News" worthy or at least needs to be updated. I can provide links if needed. Txs.Lozion (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Please I dont have the skills but can a editor or contributor update this page. This is getting serious: Txs. Lozion (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014 outbreaks in Guinea, Liberia and Canada[edit]

I have removed the claims about the March 2014 Conakry, Guinea outbreaks (again) and the associated Liberian and Canadian outbreaks. See "After two people died from a haemorrhagic fever in Conakry, samples were sent to the Pasteur Institute in neighbouring Senegal for testing. WHO spokesman Collins Boakye-Agyemang told the BBC these had shown that the victims had not been infected with Ebola. It is not known what killed them."Waugh Bacon (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The 2014 outbreaks sub section now re-direct to a new article: (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I have revised the number of cases for the Guinea and Sierra Leone outbreak shown in the table. The source cited, Fox News (reliable?) mentions 78 deaths from 122 cases of suspected Ebola since January, up from 70. Of these, there were 22 laboratory confirmed cases. The World Health organization states, 'As of 28 March 2014 (there are), 103 suspected and confirmed cases, including 66 deaths, (CFR 64%)'. As I wrote on 29 March 'Further testing of 37 samples (from 103 victims) have since tested positive in 15 cases with confirmation that the strain of ebolavirus identified is similar to the Zaire ebolavirus'. In other words only 40% of tested samples have proved to have come from Ebola infected individuals. See my edit on the the above date for links to the WHO data. Can I suggest that we refrain from putting figures on this outbreak until it has run its course, or alternatively prefix any figures with the word suspected?
Waugh Bacon (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


This is a disease in Africa, a killer disease to be precise. Why is it that these diseases are only found in Africa? is it because we are Africans,what are the steps forware in fighting against Ebola.This is a situation wherein the whole contenent is at risk, As africans how ca we prevent ourselves from such diseases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

An "emerging disease" has to emerge someplace. As a counter-example, Hanta virus is a "new" disease which did not originate in Africa. For Ebola, it "just happens" that the virus has lived or has evolved in Africa. I'm going to guess that as a equatorial area, Africa has a very diverse biosphere with numerous species, complex interactions between species, and large areas of wilderness -- which simply means there are probably numerous undiscovered species, some of which, unfortunately, are viruses. The article explains where the virus normally resides, and how it is thought to spread to people. Feldercarb (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

NPC1 inhibitor[edit]

Currently the article only says "a small molecule" can inhibit EBV binding to NPC1, as well as saying that NPC1 seems to be critical for EBV entry into the cell. There's no further identification in the article, although anyone who's genuinely interested can view the Nature paper. It's a benzylpiperazine adamantane diamide. Should the article contain any more information on its structure?

The article could clarify the scientific importance of the discovery being discussed. The small molecule is interesting because it's an adamantane, but it doesn't appear to be a drug candidate. However, a critical step in the infection process was identified. Also, the NPC1 research indicates that some people are more susceptible to EBV infection than others. Readers shouldn't misconstrue the research to think that it's a cure on the horizon. But they should know this is an important step in understanding how EBV spreads and to whom.

SMILES notation for the lead compound: O=C(CC13CC2CC(C1)CC(C2)C3)NCC(=O)N5CCN(Cc4ccccc4)CC5

Roches (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

the reason that only men are present in the lede's statistics?[edit]

copy and paste from lede:

"Once infection occurs, the disease may be spread from one person to :another. Men who survive may be able to transmit the disease sexually :for nearly two month"

I would also question whether this material should be included in the lede by virtue of being overly specific, and instead should be in the body of the article. As is, I'll remove it if female statistics are not presented or someone can supply me with a medical journal cite suggestion women cannot sexually transmit it -- good luck with that. Whatzinaname (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Later in the text a WHO fact sheet is cited. This says that the virus may persist in semen for several weeks. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
If you could find info for women we could add it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
IP appears to be trying to edit war the change into place. I am unsure why as the current ref does not support the change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Some people object, with justice, to the use of man when human is meant. This could be a case of overreaction (as in this instance what is meant is clearly men, not humans). Lavateraguy (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Yup it would be nice if people would read the sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Treatment of Ebola with Nano silver solution alone and or mixed with some anti viral strain of antibody. I have read that Nano silver solution may be an answer. Suggestion contact a company that has experimented with Nano Silver. Drug companies will be i[edit]

Sugest search internet with major silver company who has tested nano silver and are convinced it will break almost an viral infection. Yhere knowledge is posted on internet somwwhere as I did read it. Will try to find and I amsure it can be found easily.

No copy write or claim just possible helpful info hopefully, No expertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

capitalization? and compound words?[edit]

Why is it capitalized throughout? Once it is written ebolavirus, it loses the capital, so shouldn't it usually be lower case, like cancer or diabetes?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe because the name is derived from the Ebola, a river in Africa? Denisarona (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the article for Newcastle disease (for example), the name (derived from a place name) is capitalized throughout as "Newcastle disease virus". I am more concerned about the compound words: why ebolavirus as opposed to ebola virus? Several other dubious compounds exist.Feldercarb (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe here's the answer, looking at the CDC website, they use:

  • Ebola virus -- english common name of the virus, capital "E"
  • Ebola hemorrhagic fever (Ebola HF) -- name of the disease, capital "E". Note the "h" is hemorrhagic is not capitalized when spelled out, but is capitalized when abbreviated.
  • Ebolavirus - is the scientific genus name, probably should be italicized. When used by itself (talking about the genus) the word is capitalized. When used in the "two part" name ((Zaire ebolavirus) it is not capitalized.

Feldercarb (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I am very much against either ebolavirus or Ebola hemerrohagic fever. Think target readers. Make it easy on them not hard just for the sake of the scientific community. By all means have a cross link page that lands on this one, however, it is in my book Ebola virus. Pbmaise (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


While a person with Ebola flew to Nigeria, this does not mean that Nigeria is part of the ongoing outbreak. It was one case. Others thoughts? Have adjusted the lead here [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The WHO Ebola outbreak response update (link to the right) July 28 & [6] 31st July comment on the single case simple as problematic, but do not call it an out-break, no. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
On the other hand [7] refers to it as an outbreak in Nigeria. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Mortality Rate[edit]

Near the beginning, the article states "The disease has a high mortality rate: often between 50% and 90% of those who are infected with the virus." . Later on in the article there is a table that lists figures of infected vs. deaths. The table currently indicates 47.2 % survival rate. This figure is between 50 and 90% mentioned earlier, but the percentage range is too large -- why not just use the actuals based on the data in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There are two references provided which we are using. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a general confusion between mortality rate and case fatality rate. I have a suspicion that this confusion might be reflected in the article, including the references given.-- (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Reddening of the eyes[edit]

Several sources point to either bleeding or reddening of the eyes. Is this subconjunctival hemorrhage[ing] or some other type of red eye (medicine). Haven't found any sources, maybe just link to red eye?-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Gandy's edits[edit]

I have been doing some updates on wording using VE in hopes that the glitches have been fixed. Seems there are still problems... I'll watch for further probs or be sure to check my edits. Gandydancer (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

So VE added the " and " all by itself? I find these extra characters annoying. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I sure didn't add "and". Looking back I see that my VE edit added quote marks around many of the sources, CDC and WHO for instance. I was using my old computer which, for a lack of a better way to put it, "jumps" from time to time. At one point I unexpectedly got a message, "Do you want to continue with VE" or something like that and I checked "yes", not thinking much of it at the time. I'm guessing that that's when it happened...for lack of a better idea. Gandydancer (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Rename the title of the article[edit]

The CDC uses name "Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever (EHF)" to identify the disease, not "Ebola virus disease" which sounds awkward and does not properly identify it as a type of hemorrhagic fever. Foxhoundz (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

We use ICD 10 naming. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
WHO says: "Ebola virus disease (formerly known as Ebola haemorrhagic fever)...". I did some copy edits of this and the current article and changed EHF to EVD whenever I came across it. Medical articles are hard enough to comprehend without that added confusion. Gandydancer (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
There are also several other sources, including the U.S. National Library of Medicine that continue to identify it as EHF. Foxhoundz (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Yup and the use still uses pounds and miles. Would be exceedingly nice if they finally joined the rest of the world. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And why shouldn't they continue to use pounds and miles? The Americans have made incredible strides in advancing the medical frontier and every other frontier in the world, and they've been doing it using miles and pounds. They will likely come up with the vaccine against Ebola, so I'd say they're doing just fine with their weights and measures. Well done, them. As for the title, it's best to keep it at Ebola virus disease. It is more commonly referred to as that, especially in the media, and the average reader will likely use it as the search term. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This "they've been doing it using miles and pounds" is not true. While these may generally be used they are not within the American research community were kilograms and grams are used as are millimeters. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


Any information on whether or not this disease has been weaponized, or if any outbreaks were deliberately done? Any research on the virus that indicates that it has been refined, mutated, etc... in a laboratory?Jonny Quick (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

What have you read that suggests that possibility? Gandydancer (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
It's briefly discussed in Biohazard by Ken Alibek. They had difficulty working with Ebola and primarily focused on Marburg.Donners (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Alibek mentions a genetic chimera of Ebola and Smallpox made at Biopreparat in an interview with the Monterey Insitute for International Studies. This was specifically done for weapons use. loupgarous (talk) 02:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

First recognised and described by experts from the Institude of Tropical Medicine Antwerp under leadership of the famous Belgian virologist Peter Piot. cfr: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The virus was first "recognized" (instead of the virus "emerged") in 1976[edit]

Regarding the sentence: "Ebola virus first emerged in 1976 in outbreaks of Ebola hemorrhagic fever in Zaire[118] and Sudan.[119]..."

It didn't first 'emerge'; it was first 'recognized' at that time.

Big difference. To a laypeson (which is almost all of Wikipedia's audience), they might likely infer the virus' genesis was at that time. Of course, any decent biologist will know that the virus likely has existed for at least tens of thousands of years, and perhaps tens of millions or more.

Point is, it didn't "emerge" at that time; it was merely first officially "recognized" at that time. I ask that we consider changing that one word (it doesn't matter what we change it to as long as the implication is that it was probably there all along ... we just didn't realize it existed prior to that time).

Yes check.svg Done SW3 5DL (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Having said that, all known isolates of EBOV appear to have evolved from the 1976 outbreak in Zaire, which is extraordinary given its rate of genetic drift. The data indicate that it was only introduced to human and animal populations around 1976. There is discussion of this in Filoviruses by Jens Kuhn at page 154. Donners (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Help with a revert that needs to be done[edit]

This edit: (cur | prev) 21:51, 4 August 2014‎ (talk)‎ . . (87,095 bytes) (+218)‎ . . (CE.) (undo) needs to be undone. It was a CE that did little to improve the article. I'd do it if I knew how to revert now that several other new edits have been made...but I don't. Thanks Gandydancer (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to this edit ? prokaryotes (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Yup made the article worse. Have undone it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Doc. I think I know how to do and I've done it before, but this is such a high profile article right now that I did not want it to be screwed up for even a few minutes. Gandydancer (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Popular press and the ZMapp serum[edit]

This is supported entirely by popular press sources. Wondering what others thoughts are? "In August of 2014 an experimental treatment based on plants was used for the first time in two humans. The treatment drug was referred to as ZMapp, an antibody response related therapy. The initially response appears positive. ZMapp was produced by MAPP Biopharmaceutical Inc. using a three-mouse monoclonal antibody, manufactured in genetically modified tobacco plants (of the genus Nicotiana).(ref)"Experimental drug likely saved Ebola patients". (/ref)(ref)"Local Biotech Increasing Production of ‘ZMapp’ Ebola Drug". (/ref) In the three-mouse drug production process, mice were exposed to three different fragments of the virus strain and antibodies were harvested to create the medicine.(ref)"Experimental drug likely saved Ebola patients". CNN. August 4, 2014. (/ref)(ref)"Mystery Ebola virus serum manufactured by San Diego firm". Los Angeles Times. August 4, 2014. (/ref) In 2013, these antibodies, were effective when given within a day of exposure primates other than humans.(ref)"Combating Ebola Virus with Antibodies – An interview with Dr. Larry Zeitlin". Frontiers of Biology. January 13, 2014. (/ref)" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

While admittedly, the ZMapp story is still very much an "unfinished story", it seems to me to be a bit overly dogmatic to censor it out of the main article altogether, simply because its most recent apparently successful use did not follow the normal regimen of drug testing procedures. I have reinserted some of the ZMapp information into the main article, with the brief caveat that it s use in Africa did not follow such normal drug testing procedures. News of the most recent apparently successful uses of the drug on the two American missionaries is widely available throughout the world. For Wikipedia to bury it's head in the sand and to refuse in the main article, to even admit that such a ZMapp story ever took place, seems to me to be unnecessarily extreme. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
It is a "news story" Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a new source. Have left it but summarized it further. Additional issue is the ref you used does not support the text in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Two studies involving this approach are from 2011 and 2012, and if you look up the studies authors on PNAS you might have more science.prokaryotes (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Developing Vaccines[edit]

The Ebola virus contains 7 genes in its genome. The current vaccine that is being developed by Okairos in Bethesda, Md., includes two of those seven genes. While many other vaccines are being developed across the country and world, this vaccine seems to be in the lead, expecting results by early 2015. This vaccine was created using a chimp adenovirus non-replicating viral vector which expresses a protein that induces the body to make an immune response. In animal studies, the vaccine has been shown to protect rhesus monkeys for up to ten months, much longer protection than previous Ebola vaccines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabelprado (talkcontribs) 16:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Isabelprado (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Isabel [1]

Transmission through the air[edit]

According to this article of the BBC, the virus can be transmitted through the air. Due to the fact that I have not yet the ability (not enough edits) to alter the semi-protected article, can someone amend it please? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by KwstasM (talkcontribs) 10:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

This does not make sense, and should be clarified. What does "they" refer to ? Neither "outbreaks" nor "visuses" seems appropriate (viruses are a lot smaller than 1um). Seems that whoever wrote it did not work out beforehand what it was he or she wanted to say ....

"Airborne transmission has not been documented during previous EVD outbreaks.[2] They are, however, infectious as breathable 0.8–1.2 micrometre laboratory generated droplets;"

I would guess that the second sentence should read "Ebola infections have been transmitted by airborn, and therefore breathable... etc ". But there is no way of editing the text. g4oep — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


The Antibodies section of the article contains that they transfused antibodies to patients in 1999, however the original publication that is given as citation tells a completely different date in the very first sentence of its abstract. "Between 6 and 22 June 1995, 8 patients in Kikwit, Democratic Republic of the Congo, who met the case definition used in Kikwit for Ebola (EBO) hemorrhagic fever, were transfused with blood donated by 5 convalescent patients." Sure, the article was published in 1999, but you shouldn't give scientific articles as citations if you don't even read the first sentence of their abstract. In this case it's not that much of a deal, but things like this just make the content seem unreliable. Regards: --Kohlins (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. The citations need attention and the article needs updating. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Communicability of EVD[edit]

In the second paragraph of "Ebola virus disease", the article sites a "household study" on the communicability of EVD:

"In a household study, secondary transmission took place only if direct physical contact occurred. No transmission was reported without this direct contact. Airborne transmission has not been documented during previous EVD outbreaks.[2]"

The citation links to a World Health Organization page with one bullet point stating that transmission without direct contact hasn't been documented an that airborne transmission "..has not been documented during previous EVD outbreaks".[2]

However in November of 2012, Scientific Reports, a research outlet from the publishers of Nature, published a paper about Ebola transmission from pigs to non-human primates. It included reason to believe that Ebola can travel by air and not only by close contact or body fluid exchange.[3]

  1. ^ Chappell, B. New Ebola Vaccine Is Tested In Humans, After Success In Monkeys. NPR. 2014 Sep 7.
  2. ^ "West Africa - Ebola virus disease". World Health Organization. Retrieved 8/6/2014. 
  3. ^ Hana, Weingartl (11/15/2014). "Transmission of Ebola virus from pigs to non-human primates". Scientific Reports. doi:10.1038/srep00811. Retrieved 8/6/2014. 

≈≈≈≈ Tyler

You'll also note that the study failed to achieve transmission between primates in those circumstances, which is likely of more relevance to human transmission.

From that report: "pigs can generate infectious short range large aerosol droplets more efficiently then other species" "We have also never observed transmission of EBOV from infected to naive macaques, including in an experiment employing the same cage setting as in the current study, where three NHPs intramuscularly inoculated with EBOV did not transmit the virus to one naive NHP for 28 days, the duration of the protocol. During another study, three EBOV infected NHPs cohabiting with 10 naive NHPs in adjacent cage systems did not transmit the virus to naive animals for 28 days (unpublished data)." Donners (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Couple of things. 1) the previous text was copied and pasted so I reworded it 2) we need to use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

We should mention the newest (as of today) CDC guidelines for staff treating Ebola patients which assume that "Aerosol Generating Procedures" are also risky: "Avoid AGPs for Ebola HF patients. If performing AGPs, use a combination of measures to reduce exposures from aerosol-generating procedures when performed on Ebola HF patients..." Zezen (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes would be good in the prevention section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2014[edit]

Spread through the air has not been documented in the natural environment.[2] However limited laboratory testing shows likely spread through droplets between pigs and monkeys. The same testing shows that pigs could be a carrier of Ebola.

RIS citation from publishers web site TY - JOUR AU - Weingartl, Hana M. AU - Embury-Hyatt, Carissa AU - Nfon, Charles AU - Leung, Anders AU - Smith, Greg AU - Kobinger, Gary TI - Transmission of Ebola virus from pigs to non-human primates JA - Sci. Rep. PY - 2012/11/15/online VL - 2 PB - Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved UR - M3 - 10.1038/srep00811 N1 - 10.1038/srep00811 L3 - ER - Lrpingel (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the request? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what he's asking. But I know there are sources that show there is a higher incidence of Ebola in humans working on pig farms. It's believed the original source is fruit bats, the bats bite the pigs/monkeys, the humans handle the pigs, etc. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Acalycine(talk/contribs) 06:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


The article describes the disease in an unsatisfactory way. It seems to take some days until a patient shows symptoms, this is well explained. But then the disease seems to lead to two possible outcomes: either 1) the patient will die, or 2) he will survive. The article does not describe this appropriately. How do cases 1) and 2) typically look like? In case 1), how long does it usually take for the patient to die after having shown first symptoms? How do the symptoms worsen until death? In case 2), how long does recovery usually take? How do symptoms improve and when? This pretty basic information, describing the basic development of the disease, is lacking from the article. --rtc (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I would also be interested in how much immunity survivors attain, or if they still suffer certain lasting effects after fighting off the virus. (I was wondering whether some of the international financial aid could flow into employing survivors as nurses etc.) — Providus (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Added some info that I could find. --rtc (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Nzara location where the virus first discover is not part of Sudan any more after South Sudan ceded[edit]

I want to clarify that after South Sudan ceded, Nzara (where the virus as first identified) is not part of Sudan any more. [1], please make the correction, regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

yes that is the correct name of the region so correction should be made.Docsim (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


This edit made it complicated [8]. IMO was better before. This detail is in the body and lower in the lead already. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, we need to use simple language in the lede. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
User:FT2 we need to keep the lead simple. Happy to discuss changes but your changes are too complicated and should be dealt with in the body of the text.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Doc. Gandydancer (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

SImple is fine. Wrong information isn't. This is saying EVD is a disease resulting from one specific virus, EBOV. That's incorrect information. It's a disease resulting from several virii within a genus. I don't think saying it's caused by 4 out of 5 virii in a genus is very difficult at all in any sense, moreso when it's correcting incorrect information. If you're targeting users who need "hemorrhaging (bleed)" simplified, then you're in the wrong wiki. Even simple English wiki uses the term "hemorrhagic" in the lede. Dumbing down beyond a reasonable point, and making it incorrect in the process, would be an issue. The intent is good, but this wouldn't be okay. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement for the need to change the article to read "At this point, some people begin to hemorrhage (bleed) internally and externally". The present wording has bothered me all along. Gandydancer (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've had time to do some reading and I now believe that simple is important but not at the expense of accuracy. Why could we not just (simply) say EVD is caused by four of five viruses classified in the genus Ebolavirus? Gandydancer (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
We have changed it to caused by ebolavirus rather than Ebola virus as I agree the previous version was not correct and thus would like to thank User:FT2 for this improvement.
Hemorrhage and bleeding are the same thing. Our goal in medical articles is not to try to teach people medical terminology but to get information across. Guidelines state the lead should be in simple English here on main English Wikipedia. Would be happy with adding a further sentence like "this bleeding can occur inside or outside the body" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually bleeding and hemorrhage are not at all the same thing. Hemorrhage suggests uncontrolled or uncontrollable bleeding and that's what we want to convey. Besides, it is my belief that most people understand the term "hemorrhage (bleed)" with ease. "Bleeding problems", to me, makes the article sound like it was written by a person with little to no medical knowledge. Gandydancer (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Gandydancer, if you were right, then you would have to start modifying the article on bleeding/hemorrhage first, which seems to equate bleeding to hemorrhage.--Gciriani (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. Seems to me we are wrong at that article. A bloody finger, and very little blood at that, is not a hemorrhage. This site [9] is better. Gandydancer (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

So what does the source we ARE ACTUALLY using as a ref say? This is followed by vomiting, diarrhoea, rash, impaired kidney and liver function, and in some cases, both internal and external bleeding. Why do we not use the same wording? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

useful article on how drugs are "approved" for use in ebola and similar diseases[edit]

this taught me a lot. perhaps it will be useful in discussions of treatments being used (short story it is utterly unethical to do clinical trials of drugs for things like Ebola and so the FDA lets you use them with only animal data and a phase I trial to get some idea about dose and safety in humans. there will not be data on how safe and effective they are for a long, long time. animal studies on drugs are therefore VERY relevant) Jytdog (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph - Lede[edit]

I see that more than one editor reverted changes I made to the opening paragraph of the Ebola_virus_disease, causing two inconsistencies. The reference name=CDC2014Out needs to be left at the end of the first paragraph, because the other reference doesn't mention the typical incubation period (8-10 days), only the range (2-21 days). Also, the references I have read do not say that the bleeding starts after other symptoms have stared; but several reversion to my correction start with At this point..., which implies that the other symptoms happen first, then the bleeding may or may not start. If this is indeed the case, it needs to be supported by a relevant citation or other source.--Gciriani (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay restored the two days to 3 weeks bit to address the first part. The wider range is the more important one as this gives information on isolation
With respect to writing in simple English we should try to keep sentences from getting too long. Have changed At this point.. to Around this time
Ref says "This is followed by vomiting, diarrhoea, rash, impaired kidney and liver function, and in some cases, both internal and external bleeding." [10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Jmh649 or Doc James, I respectfully disagree with your changes. (1) This is a lede, therefore typical incubation period is better than reporting the whole range. (2) the expression around this time or anything that refers to time is still unsupported. Rather than paraphrase, quote the CDC sentence from the reference.--Gciriani (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay we can have a RfC for wider input regarding if we should have the usual range or the full range. IMO we should use the full range as this is what isolation is based upon. It is not based on the usual range. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Introduction generally[edit]

The intro was a very strange style, especially for a medical article on a disease, with omitted key information and unreasonable "dumbing down". When English wiki is omits more and is more - unreasonably - simplified than Simple English wiki, something's wrong. An intent to make it accessible shouldn't require this cost. Without much difference in language level or length, it's easy to address these in a more usual way. Two edits:

  • The disease is not just caused by EBOV, and no amount of "keep it simple" allows for this clear misinformation when even the limits of an introduction allow us to be accurate.
  • An article that describes Ebola's haemorrhagic symptoms as "victims begin to have bleeding problems" is almost insultingly weak to the reader. Again this isn't Simple wiki, we can name it for what it is, "haemorrhagic".
  • The mortality rate/seriousness is worth stating in the first para, fits in well there (It's also important enough to get "top spot")
  • The third paragraph can usefully have 2 points moved to the first paragraph: mortality rate percentages and non-specificity of treatment. Both are short. This leaves the first paragraph cogently covering the course of the disease (virus, symptoms, prognosis, treatment, all short) and the last paragraph covering purely epidemiology, which then reads cleaner.

FT2 (Talk | email) 21:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

FT2, wouldn't it be more correct to state the typical incubation time of 8-10 days as stated in the more recent reference from CDC, August 1]? (this is already referenced elsewhere in the article)--Gciriani (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I hadn't checked that, if it's incorrect then yes, of course let's fix it. I would also like to see some other information made clearer, such as recommended precautions, difficulties faced with health education in Ebola (eg from WHO), if we can. Last I am a bit concerned that Marburg virus emphasizes exact causes of death that aren't haemorrhagic per se. Ebola is said to be very similar but we imply the main cause of death is organ failure, presumably due to bleeding/blood loss. can we tune the article to be a little more correct/exact on cause of death, if haemorrhaging itself isn't the direct cause? FT2 (Talk | email) 21:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's better for the lead to stick to the flow of the whole article as a precise and concise summary of each section. However, I saw that the mortality rates were mentioned in the History part (but not sure why they appear in the Prognosis part as well), so why not put that info. to the last paragraph which can be about epidemiology & history? My logic is like this (not just confined to the lead): general intro. (of course this is for the lead only) --> cause & transmission --> symptoms & signs --> pathophysiology --> diagnosis --> treatment/management --> prognosis --> prevention --> epidemiology --> history. This is supposed to be also the "flow" of getting and dealing with a disease, isn't it? Biomedicinal (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

For the main article where there is space, I think that works, but for the intro... many readers are lay readers who skim to get an overview, or find long writings hard to plough through. So for various reasons, they often only read its intro and frequently even then, only the first paragraph. So for the intro it's often worth slightly reordering to allow for brevity and tight coverage of core material, and that when the intro covers primary and secondary material in some way, the primary material is all mentioned at least in the first para. In that context, the material that's useful for a lay reader is not a medical textbook layout. It's closer to "talk about the topic itself first" (the disease itself, its progression and impact, and brief touches of any other really crucial points), then in paragraphs 2-4 cover the broader material such as natural reservoir, transmission, precautions, history, epidemiology, social impact, etc.
A reader after a quick summary (little English, unfamiliar with encyclopedias, or casual curiosity from a news mention) who wants to read just a paragraph or a brief overview, is likely to want to know about the disease itself - the core material - if they aren't going to read it all. One with more interest will read the entire intro, covering these other areas in summary. A reader with deeper interest will read into the actual article. So it can help readers if we order the intro very slightly differently from the full content, so we present the core material on the actual disease and its course without fragmenting, for the benefit of quick skimmers or readers for whom it's unfamiliar or hard work. It's a bit like putting oneself in a reader's shoes - and not just an educated literate engrossed reader who will read it all.
Put another way, while a clinician might feel this is a logical order, an average reader (unlike any editor) will probably feel it's odd to discuss all about the disease - its cause, its symptoms - then stop, discuss prevention and fruit bats and other stuff, before mentioning in the very last paragraph, what happens to those who get the symptoms discussed in the first paragraph. FT2 (Talk | email) 05:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay we have a bunch of discussion. Lets try to separate them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
My impression is that FT2 had made very good points, and improved the lead paragraph by a great deal. A couple of his arguments especially impressed me: "dumbing down" and "insultingly weak to the reader". I have the impression that the changes by Doc James are almost a reversion and disregard those points.--Gciriani (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
This is really being discussed in the Should we use terms more complicated than our sources? Does simplification matter? subsection below, but generally I'm thinking quite the opposite here. Doc's changes respect the audience better because they respect the wide variety of education and language fluency our audience reading this article has. Also this article is on the translation list for export to other language Wikipedias and the translations are done faster and better when the language isn't more complicated than necessary. Zad68 18:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I have discussed each point one by one below. A number of the suggestions I have agreed with and they are in the current text.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Should we say it is caused by Ebola virus or ebolavirus?[edit]

I think we all agree the latter is better. Do we need to say it is just 4 out of the 5 in the first sentence? No I think that is too much detail. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

But it isn't. That's factually incorrect. The outbreak is caused by one specific virus, not by a genus. Point blank misinformation, and probably hairraisingly wrong to anyone checking Wikipedia for (in)accuracy on this outbreak. Equally to write it is caused by "Ebola virus" will imply there is only one such virus, also wrong. (Give or take some taxonomic leeway, using the genus is somewhat like writing "Mammal caused the Bay of Pigs.") FT2 (Talk | email) 18:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah so you are saying "Ebola virus disease" is not caused by "ebolavirus"? This article is not about one specific outbreak. All five do cause ebola virus infections. It is just that only 4 of the 5 cause disease in humans. Thus it is not at all like writing "Mammal caused the Bay of Pigs." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Information to ensure we don't misrepresent: (a) An outbreak (ie any one specific instance) is caused by one specific member of ebolavirus. (b) Only some members of ebolavirus can cause outbreaks.
We can clarify in the body, but that's in no way a license to mislead or simplify to the point of actually confusing/misinforming, in the introduction. Many articles have had considerable and very careful wording in the intro for exactly this kind of concern, and this one should too. How about "outbreaks are caused by certain ebolaviruses" or "outbreaks can be caused by four kinds of ebolavirus"? Avoiding confounds is important here. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
And which ebolavirus does not cause outbreaks of EVD is some animals? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The lead now (again) states that Ebola is caused by the Ebola virus. I thought that we all agreed that ebolavirus was better. For instance, there have been around 6 outbreaks of the disease caused by the Sudan species. I'm going to change it back. Gandydancer (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It was likely lost in the shuffling around of text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Should we have the whole or the most common range in the lead?[edit]

I think the whole range should go in the first paragraph as this is important for isolation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the typical range only, and not the whole incubation range, should go in the first paragraph; the argument by Doc James is not valid, because the lead paragraph is not read for isolation guidelines, but it is read to have a general idea of the disease. Those who are interested in the details read the rest of the article.--Gciriani (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
"About" is a good word here. But consider our readers. "About X days" will be taken to mean "after X+1 days there's no risk" by a lot of them. Be very careful... FT2 (Talk | email) 18:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
"Up to X days" is also viable. While it implies no lower limit, that's less of a problem for exactly that reason: no lower limit is implied. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Should the lead match the same order as the body of the text?[edit]

  • Support following the same order as the article. The ordering of the article is listed here WP:MEDMOS and this is the order we use in nearly all disease related articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Also support keeping the order in the lead the same as in the article, for logical flow and to keep it in line with MEDMOS certainly but beyond that I do not get the complaint in the argument for putting the treatment before the discussion on how you get it. The flow of: What it is, how you get it/avoid getting it, and then what the treatment is if you do it, makes perfect sense to me. Jumping from what it is to how to treat it and then going back to how you get it/avoid getting it breaks that logical flow. Zad68 14:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I imagine it from the viewpoint of someone with a non-academic interest in the disease. I suspect for most readers, the human impact and course of the disease is of primary or even sole interest (agent, transmission, symptoms, treatment, prognosis). After that come the secondary/academic interest points (Where does the virus live when not in humans? What is the history/epidemiology of the disease?). FT2 (Talk | email) 08:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I am not completely opposed to changing the ordering of sections. This however should be based on consensus at WP:MEDMOS and applied to all 9000 or so disease related articles. Some consistency is important IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Should we mention mortality in the first paragraph?[edit]

We had a long discussion about mortality statistics and what the general populous wants to know. This has been studied and the conclusion was that people do not want to know mortality first thing. User:Johnbod has the data. Maybe we can present it in general terms in the first paragraph and than in more detail in the 4th paragraph? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Should we use terms more complicated than our sources? Does simplification matter?[edit]

There appears to be some who wish to use the term hemorrhage rather than bleeding? Our source which is the World Health Organization uses the term bleeding [13]. Bleeding is more general than hemorrhage but they more or less mean the same thing. IMO we are not here to teach people medical terminology. Thus I support using simple language as much as possible. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a very serious concern for me, leads in general, and for this article in particular because of current events and the global effect, the lead needs to use accessible words and writing style. Technical terms should be avoided if there are more common terms, and especially if the sources we're using like from the WHO don't use them, that seems obvious. We should use the communication models of the WHO and Cochrane's plain-language summaries. Here, more technical stuff can go into the body if necessary, after the more simple presentation. Zad68 14:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The previous wording: It is a hemorrhagic fever, meaning that victims may bleed inside the body or externally was an excellent compromise, and I'm quite surprised that it has not been accepted as such. Gandydancer (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Victom is a term we should not use per WP:MEDMOS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd rather see this explanation in the body than the lead. Zad68 15:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Zad Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that in this context the expression bleeding problems is a weasel expression. What about the more medically used bleeding complication? And instead of repeating the word bleeding almost next to each other in two consecutive sentences, what about merging the two as in: "Around this time, people infected begin to bleed either within the body or externally."--Gciriani (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Weasel word for what? Happy with "Around this time, people infected begin to bleed either within the body or externally." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
If you don't understand what I meant with weasel expression, you can consult Wikipedia.--Gciriani (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

(unindent) Then pick a different word from "victim" per MEDMOS and change that one word, if needed. This is a bit of a red herring in that it's an issue that doesn't (and can't) impact on or validate the alarmingly weak original wording of the sentence. "A hemorrhagic fever (meaning people may bleed inside and outside)" is a fine balance. If anything skip the parentheses comment; anyone can find what the word means by clicking the link or reading the article. Calling a hemorrhagic fever "may have bleeding problems" suggests one may be writing for the wrong wiki... or might be intending to edit gingivitis. Simple English is elsewhere... and even that Wiki would blanche at this (Simple English wiki has used almost identical wording along with the complicated word "hemorrhagic" in its introduction for 9 years, since August 2005 without complaint or change). Sorry, but the original wording was plainly, at a wrong level. We should call it what it is, even in the intro.

As for the other red herring of "terms more complicated than sources".... that's not the case obviously. There is no validity to a claim that normal sources of a level and quality typically used for an article on a disease, don't commonly call "hemorrhaging" "hemorrhaging", or that any wording discussed is "more complicated" than the majority of viral disease article sources we use. (Hint: article sources are predominantly WHO, Virology journal, CDC, etc. Probably not.) FT2 (Talk | email) 09:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The term hemorrhage redirect to our article on bleeding and has done so since 2006. The terms are more or less the same. One may imply slightly greater severity with bleeding being the broader term and thus in this context the more correct term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
We no longer say "bleeding problem" and instead simply say "bleed". Not sure if this addresses the concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The term victim and patient[edit]

These has been introduced a number of times. Per the WP:MEDMOS these terms are not recommended. We should use the term "person with" instead as it keeps our articles more person centric rather than clinical. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Probably my doing, wasn't aware of this before. Thanks! FT2 (Talk | email) 09:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Doc James, I'm not sure where you found out that we need to keep the article person centric. At least I couldn't find it in the manual of style you mentioned. Specifically, Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Careful_language reads: Avoid saying that people "suffer" from or are "victims" of a chronic illness or symptom, which may imply helplessness. Since this is a disease with very high mortality, helplessness is already implied, and I don't see the basis for a person-centric approach.--Gciriani (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
It is a more encyclopedic style to avoid emotional or value-laden terms like suffer and victim. The affected individuals and their caregivers are the ones who will be making the determination about those concepts, not Wikipedia. Zad68 14:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Who the disease occurs in[edit]

The disease per the WHO ref can occur in humans, other primates and pigs per "As RESTV outbreaks in pigs and monkeys have preceded human infections, the establishment of an active animal health surveillance system to detect new cases is essential in providing early warning for veterinary and human public health authorities." But this is only the RESTV infection. Thus probably enough to just mention humans and other primates in the first sentence. Should we remove pigs / discussion of RESTV from the lead all together? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"Prevention includes decreasing the spread of disease from infected monkeys and pigs to humans" This line is in the third paragraph of the article. Several human outbreaks have been linked to consumption of monkey meat, but I am struggling to think of any linked to pigs. This line implies that there have been a few. If that is not the case, perhaps it should be reconsidered. Donners (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree User:Donners we need to look at this. It is from this source [14] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I have not researched this but I do know that Africans eat very little pork. In general, they keep chickens and goats and to a lesser extent cattle, but for religious reasons little pork is eaten. Gandydancer (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Applies to Muslims but not necessarily Africans as a whole. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Since RESTV doesn't cause the disease, I agree too, it's irrelevant here and shouldn't need mentioning (so long as we don't imply all ebolaviruses cause EVD). Pigs become relevant for some areas of discussion in the body, the intro is fairly optional. If they need mentioning then at most one word or so when covering animals known to harbor the disease: "the disease can be caught from some kinds of animals" and at most a parenthesis comment "including bats, pigs and monkeys".

More to the point, are we discussing the disease in other species here, except in the context of transmission to humans? If so we'll have to complicate it a lot (transmission to/from other primates? Symptoms in other primates/pigs?). I think we should follow other articles on zoonotic diseases, and simply say "EVD is a human disease that can be caught from animals and other people by contact with their body fluids". Then discuss other species pretty much as we are now, as vectors to humans. This article isn't really covering EVD in other species for any other reason than their status as reservoirs and vectors, so be direct and say so. Then we don't have any issue. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

RESTV does cause disease it just does not appear to cause disease in human. WHO is careful to make clear that this conclusion is tentative per "More studies of RESTV are needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn about the pathogenicity and virulence of this virus in humans." [15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Have changed the wording to Prevention includes decreasing the spread of disease from other infected animals to humans User:FT2 and User:Donners does that address the concern? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. That's an entirely appropriate way to express it. Donners (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

2014 primary source[edit]

This edit seems to have added a primary source to Ebola virus disease#Medications. Should be keep the source or try find a better source? QuackGuru (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes not a great source. We should find something better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
It's true that a better source would be desirable, but I don't think that warrants removing the information about Amiodarone entirely, seeing that we are talking about the Research section of the article and most other refs in that section are also to recent primary sources. AxelBoldt (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, I have added the sentence about Amiodarone back in. I made clear that it's supported by just one recent study. AxelBoldt (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Should we keep the compromise or should we delete the 2014 study? The text is now clear it is only a study. QuackGuru (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The new Ebola virus[edit]

The new Ebola virus seems to have pandemic potential, but a slow moving one. I'm a little nervous because I went to the site and discussion forum at and that's what they're talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


Disclaimer: I am currently living in Ghana and keeping abreast with the news on the spread of Ebola in the West African subregion. It's misleading to show bushmeat from a country which has no recorded cases of Ebola. The bushmeat in the picture is the 'grasscutter' - the greater cane rat, which, to date has not been the cause of any known cases (as there are none) in Ghana. Please remove and show a more relevant picture! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoa4eva (talkcontribs) 12:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Do we have a better image? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Typo in article.[edit]

The "Signs and symptoms" section currently says: "Ebola usually begin suddenly with AM influenza-like stage". This should probably be "Ebola usually begin suddenly with AN influenza-like stage".

This has been corrected. Pbmaise (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

How to sanitize surfaces that have been exposed to this pathogen[edit]

I'd like to discuss this recent addition:

Ebola virus can be killed by detergents / soap and alkaline substances dissolving fat, heating to 60 degrees Celsius for 60 minutes, boiling for 5 minutes and UV -light and not only various other types of disinfectants or gamma radiation etc. [16]

The site has several other suggestions that may be helpful - though on the other hand I have no idea if any of this should be included. It could go under a small new section... Gandydancer (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The Ebola Virus Disease is already in my country(Nigeria,West Africa) but i haven't gotten any news of someone dying from Ebola. The vaccines arrived just 3 days ego here.And the government has ordered that everyone should wear gloves and wash their hands properly and no receiving the Eucharist directly from the priest. Instead it from your palm and i just pray that all this would be over.--Allbyme (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Ebola virus disease
Would go in the section on prevention Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Panicky article[edit]

I think the article should mention some viewpoints emphasizing that the Ebola virus disease is epidemiologically quite harmless. For example see and "our fears often bear little relation to reality" --rtc (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

We mention "Spreading through the air has not been documented in the natural environment" Would want better sources than the guardian and huffington post. If I remember correctly WHO and CDC state that this risk of spread in the developing world is very low. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The fact that spreading though the air doesn't occur is only one of the major points, others being that people are becoming infectious not before first symptoms and the short time until death and thus short infectious period. The guardian and huffington post articles put the numbers of ebola deaths into context of some epidemics that are a lot more serious, like HIV, influenza etc, where the number of deaths easily goes into the six figures, every year. The article needs to be less supportive of the prevailing hysteria, which truly bears little relation to reality. --rtc (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
We already mention that people are not infectious before symptoms appear. We state "The potential for widespread EVD infections is considered low as the disease is only spread by direct contact with the secretions from someone who is showing signs of infection." based on a CDC source.
A couple of thousand is low numbers. We have never supported the hysteria of the popular press. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the fact itself is mentioned somewhere in there, but it's not put at all into the context of epidemology, what it means for how the disease spreads. The same thing is true about the number of deaths. Nowhere does the article really say that, empidemologically, it's a pretty harmless disease. Plus the same issue about the mortality rate. Up to 90% seems high, but compared to the much more problematic and more common (in terms of cases in developed countries, where we essentially had zero Ebola cases so far) rabies, where you have a very hard time finding anyone at all who ever survived it, people have a pretty good chance to survive it, and that in countries with really bad, even nonexistent health systems. --rtc (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I haven't seen where our disease articles compare the mortality rate to that of other diseases and then discuss the comparisons. Nor should they. Gandydancer (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Gandy. We do not usually do this in other articles. If lots of reliable sources did so we may consider it. The popular press is not reliable though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Wood ash[edit]

User:TorstenMandal continues to try to add information about wood ash without any refs supporting its use for the prevention of ebola.[17] To state that wood ash should be used we need a statement from the CDC, WHO or other high quality source IMO. We are not here to publish primary research or peoples extrapolations. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes high quality refs needed for such content. Zad68 22:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
That edit is about as WP:SYN-ful as it gets. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I would not say that it is about as SYN as it gets at all. For those without access to detergents it works quite well. That said, I agree that we need the WHO to recommend it before it can go into the article. Gandydancer (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

TorstenMandal: I have documented everything with reliable scientific and official sources except that wood ash has not been particularly recommended for Ebola prevention (which I never have indicated). WHO recommendations for use of handwashing with ash in emergencies without soap ( ). Lipid solvents is also effective against the Ebola virus according to an official source(, and in a separate sentence I added ash is highly alkaline and alkalis dissolves lipids. Journal references to 2% wood ash destroyed a very similar type of virus sometimes used as a model for Ebola research was also deleted. The effect of ash for using ash for handwashing is not specific to one bacteria because it both kill and removes germs as effective as soap in all published experimental studies I found. Again and again it is DocJames blocking this vital information to reach people, while the number of victims continues to grow exponentially, clinics are overwhelmed, and the virus spread before suspected cases are treated professionally.

It is better. Now you need to paraphrase rather than copy and paste from the sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. The reference on the WHO website is only relevant to personal hygiene, as a soap substitute. It certainly does not refer to a context of highly infectious disease, and I can find no web page containing the words "ash" & "ebola" - except for this WP page. It's not appropriate for this topic to speculate on a possible substitute for soap. Robertpedley (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Robert agree completely. We are not to publish primary research here and making an association that others do not is not supposed to occur. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

User:TorstenMandal - I can see that you have added "ash" back into the article, with two references. I understand that you think it's important, but please bear in mind your responsibility. Neither of the institutes you cite has performed original research on the ebola virus; they don't cite their sources. It's quite conceivable that the authors looked as this WP page as a source.

No institute which has performed primary research, has even suggested using ash. Therefore - although it is possible that you are right - it is more likely that you are wrong. I hope that no-one will be fooled by your edits to think that they can safely care for an ebola victim and subsequently wash their hands with ash.

I agree with Doc James & GandyDancer about this. WHO and CDC are the guys who do the research, and have the PhD's and professors and resources to decide what is safe and what isn't. Robertpedley (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Torsten Mandal: It is not correct that I did not add references. I added two references specifically about ebola and ash - one from a university and one from a government ministry. My references to e.g. WHO are deleted because they are for emergencies in general and not ONLY about ebola. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TorstenMandal (talkcontribs) 11:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I have looked a little into this and found this reference that I agree with. This is a peer reviewed article. The review was prepared by Professor Sally Bloomfield and Professor KJ Nath. The report was peer reviewed by Dr Stephen Luby (International Centre for Diarrhoeal Diseases Research, Bangladesh) Epidemiological and microbiological data show that, in low income communities, as elsewhere, handwashing is particularly important in reducing the burden of infectious and parasitic diseases. These data also suggest that the efficacy of the handwashing process itself has a significant impact on the risk of disease transmission. A key factor is the extent to which pathogens are detached from the skin surface, by rubbing with appropriate materials prior to rinsing. In low income communities in developing countries, soil, mud or ash are still frequently used as an alternative to soap. Therefore, it is an established fact that low income communities are washing their hands in this manner. However, I do not think an Ebola article should go into tall the possible ways to wash your hands. There is a Wiki page that describes handwashing at I suggest adding a paragraph to that page on the use of mud ash etc. to wash your hands. BTW I happen to wash my hands frequently with sawdust. It is excellent to get sticky stuff off the hands. Pbmaise (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and modified the hand washing page and now cite the above reference. Further I have added a cross link from this page onto that page. That hand washing page now reads

Mud, soil, saw dust, and wood ashes[edit]

The effectiveness of hand washing increases if the hands are first rubbed in clean mud, soil, saw dust, or wood ashes. These materials help to physically dislodge dirt and liquids already on the hands. This technique is particular useful in areas with limited water supplies, and when liquids on the hands do not easily dissolve into water. [1]

Pbmaise (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Discuss heading "Behavioral changes"[edit]

While I am more than ready to be proven wrong, I think that "Behavioral changes" is a poor heading for infection control issues. I think that simply "Infection control" would be much better. I moved the sterilization information to the Transmission section and will not feel at all insulted if it's moved back though it is, to my way of thinking, a very standard transmission issue. Gandydancer (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

BTW, a separate issue, the WHO does not mention detergents while the Canadian source does - I was not sure about what to do about that and left it out since I assume that while detergents do a good job of removing many pathogens, they do not remove them all. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This does fit best under prevention thus moved back. Happy with infection control. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
It is now properly placed now that the heading change I suggested is in place. Gandydancer (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Human-to-human transmission[edit]

The CDC briefing states that "Individuals who are not symptomatic are not contagious." However, this is simply wrong. Symptoms facilitate easier transmission, but according to the WHO "People are infectious as long as their blood and secretions contain the virus" ( ). --Gralgrathor (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

So I guess does this mean that the blood / secretions only contain the virus when symptoms start.
Have you written to the CDC to ask them to clarify? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
In a recovered male, (not symptomatic) semen is potentially contagious Robertpedley (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2014[edit]

Fix grammar in first sentence of Medications section - should read:

As of Aug 14, 2014, the FDA has approved no medications or vaccines to treat or prevent Ebola, and advises people to watch out for fraudulent products.

Dokhterpurdyla (talk) 07:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Cannolis (talk) 07:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes or semi-protection?[edit]

Which would the regular editors around here find more preferable? Keilana|Parlez ici 15:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Pending changes. Ideally, the page would have no protection. But if there is vandalism, pending changes allows IPs to still edit. The only difference being that their edits won't be seen until a named account editor reviews it. Not all IPs are vandals and many have made positive contributions here. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Semi protection Pending changes is slow and clunky. IPs can comment here on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Actually, I don't think this should even be a question. There's no evidence of excessive vandalism requiring page protection, and certainly nothing requiring the page to be semi-protected until November. I just looked back at all the IP edits and there is definitely no reason for this page to be semi-protected until November. The page was just protected from August 4 to August 19. I didn't see any vandalism requiring a two week pp back then. And now, just two days after that pp expired, the page is protected again until November, yet there was only one instance of minor vandalism! And also, I may have missed it, but I didn't see a request for page protection at the pp noticeboard either for the page protection on August 4th or the one that's on now. The IP's have been contributing in a positive way. There's no excessive vandalism here. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, there has been a tremendous amount of vandalism, but also a ridiculous amount of un-constructive edits that need to be reverted. With what was one day 500,000 page views (in a single day!) it is not viable to waste time monitoring the article non-stop in order to keep it at an acceptable level - without spammy or advertising content, or just free from plain misinformation. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 05:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Examples. Aug 19 [18], [19] Aug 20 [20], [21], [22] Aug 21 [23] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Semi protection The article is followed enough that requests are filled very quickly. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 05:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


Can someone change "capitol Monrovia" for "capital Monrovia."

Yes check.svg Done -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 05:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
That was my error and I so appreciate when an anon goes to the trouble and takes the time to offer suggestions for needed small (or even large) adjustments to articles. Considering the millions of people that read our articles, how few people take part in helping to improve them - it is something that I never will understand. Gandydancer (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


I would say this is not ready for the lead yet.

We have this source which says "not ebola"

We have this source that says "yes ebola"

It is a different strain.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's too early to include in the article, however this is interesting:
Numbi said that one of the two cases that tested positive was for the Sudanese strain of the disease, while the other was a mixture between the Sudanese and the Zaire strain -- the most lethal variety. Gandydancer (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
That was most likely a limitation of the available testing rather than any meaningful result. It is probably a single strain. In fact, there is not much difference between the Zaire strain and the Sudan strain. The laboratory in Kinshasa has not the same security as the laboratory in Franceville, so we could not do the sequencing. It will be done at Franceville and then we can determine the strain. Donners (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wording in lead[edit]

I was really glad to see an editor change the "bleed within the body" to "bleed internally", so that it read, "Around this time, affected people may begin to bleed both internally and externally.[" It really bothers me when I see wording that, to me, has dumbed the article down to the level of young children. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me that since people are so familiar with the phrase "internal bleeding" that they might wonder if to "bleed within the body" wasn't something different than the more familiar phrase, "internal bleeding". I bring this up not because I'm sure that I am right, but because I want to know if this is just my impression and most others see it differently. Gandydancer (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"Internally" versus "within the body" are both the same. We should be writing the leads of our articles for people who speak English as a second language. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
You don't need to talk down to me - I am aware that they mean the same thing. I was not aware that medical article leads are supposed to be written for a reader with English as his/her second language. Where do I find information with this suggestion. Gandydancer (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
We are supposed to try to write in plain English per WP:MEDMOS whenever possible. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Clarification needed[edit]

I think the following wording has the potential to be clearer: "The virus has been shown to travel without contact from pigs to nonhuman primates, although the same study failed to achieve transmission in that manner between primates." It is not immediately clear which "manner" the sentence is referring to, and "nonhuman primates" could be changed to just "primates", while adding a short clarification that this is not about humans.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2014[edit] (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Potential application of melatonin in the Ebola disease[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

We need peer reviewed pubmed indexed secondary sources per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect information regarding treatment (anticoagulant)[edit]

"administration of anticoagulants early in infection to prevent or control disseminated intravascular coagulation,"

Trust me, if you give anticoagulants to a person with DIC you will kill them. The idea is to give platelets, FFP e.t.c to encourage clotting. DIC is a problem where the blood DOESNT clot because youve used all your clotting factors. I cant change the page but perhaps someone else here can? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szico VII (talkcontribs) 17:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

DIC is complicated. This ref supports our current content [24] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


The section on "infection control" contains a mix of material which relates to a) healthcare setting, and b) measures to limit spread in the community ("Containment").

I'd like to introduce a new section on Containment, move some material down, expand the new section with material form these 2 sources

- and then link to the containment section from 2014_West_Africa_Ebola_virus_outbreak#Complications_in_containment_efforts

I'm on holiday at the moment, struggling to do edits using an android tablet. Would anyone else like to have a go? Robertpedley (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The WHO source is good. This one is a little lacking though [25]
We already link to the 2014 outbreak and do not need to link again IMO Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2014[edit]

Please insert FILOVIR website among external links, as it is an internationally recognized resource for all researchers in filovirology and Ebola-related topics. URL link is the following Lucazinzula (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

We have very few external links here with our efforts mostly revolving around writing content on Wikipedia. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"Society and culture": Ken Alibek and weaponized ebolavirus[edit]

First, since this section is currently solely about biological warfare, "Society and Culture" seems like a very odd section title.

Dr. Ken Alibek (b. Kanatjan Alibekov), former deputy director of the Soviet/Russian biological warfare research, development and manufacturing organization Biopreparat has stated his strong belief that not only has the Russian biological warfare research community succeeded in weaponizing Ebolavirus, but that they have also succeeded in creating a viral chimera of smallpox and Ebolavirus which has the relative stability and transmissibility of smallpox with the pathogenicity in humans of Ebola - a recombinant virus called "Ebolapox." [2][3]

  1. ^ "IFH – Use of ash and mud for handwashing". World Press. 2009-02-11. Retrieved 2014-09-09. 
  2. ^ Zubray, Geoffrey (2013). Agents of Bioterrorism: Pathogens and Their Weaponization. New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press. pp. 73–74. ISBN 9780231518130. 
  3. ^ Alibek, Kenneth, Tucker, Jonathan B. (interviewer) (1999). "Biological Weapons in the Former Soviet Union: An Interview With Dr. Kenneth Alibek". The Nonproliferation Review/Spring-Summer 1999. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies. p. 8. Retrieved 20 August 2014. 

I'm worried about presenting Alibek as a reliable source, especially given the significance of these claims. This LA times article raises some general questions about him. For example, and on "ebolapox" in particular:

Dr. Philip K. Russell, a retired Army major general and physician who joined the Bush administration from 2001 to 2004 to confront the perceived threat of smallpox, said he was convinced that Alibek had solid firsthand information about the former Soviet Union's production of anthrax. But regarding other threats, such as genetically engineered smallpox, Russell said he "began to think that Ken was more fanciful than precise in some of his recollections." "He would claim that certain things had been done, and then when you came right down to it, he didn't have direct knowledge of it -- he'd heard it from somebody. For example, the issue of putting Ebola genes into smallpox virus. That was viewed, at least in many of our minds, as somewhat fanciful. And probably not true."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Warm Worm (talkcontribs) 01:46, 8 September 2014

I think this is a really good point. There are two sources here, the Zubray 2013 book and the primary source that is the 1999 interview with Alibek. Of the two, Zubray 2013 is very strong as a recently-published academic book written by a university professor (emeritus) from an Ivy league university he is still associated with, and with a Ph.D. in the relevant field. The Alibek interview is weak as an older primary source. So I have edited the paragraph, taken out Alibek, and toned down the breathless language considerably. Thanks for this comment! Zad68 13:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2014[edit]

The symptoms limits a person's ability to spread the disease as they are often to sick to by traveling. Change to: The symptoms limits a person's ability to spread the disease as they are often too sick to travel. (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done and thanks Cannolis (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Overhaul on animals and Dog issue[edit]

A complete overhaul of the animal aspects of ebola is needed. Early on there is this strange reference to 30,000 animals tested and this has no relevance compared to all the animals tested positive recently in gorilla and dog population. This paragraph needs to go: Recovered carcasses from gorillas contain multiple Ebola virus strains, which suggest multiple introductions of the virus. Bodies decompose quickly and carcasses are not infectious after three to four days. Contact between gorilla groups is rare, suggesting transmission among gorilla groups is unlikely, and that outbreaks result from transmission between viral reservoir and animal populations.[135] It comes from an abstract found at: I don't have access to read the actual article. Do you?

The more important points here are that zootonic transfer has occurred and that the CDC says eating bushmeat..and YES we must address fact that Liberia is a big consumer of dogs. Dogs are not considered bushmeat and studies show high level of ebola in dogs. Pbmaise (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I worked on that section and AFAIK the information is correct. I don't see a 30,000 figure and even if they are eating dogs in Liberia I am not aware of a study that connects it to this outbreak or any other. Gandydancer (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Gandy dancer ... There are no absolute proofs in many things done in Africa. However, patient 0 was a 2 y o boy. He didn't get Ebola from washing bodies and preparing bushmeat or kissing fruit bats. Reason and logic dictates it was far more like a dog. Dogs become infected and that must mean a period of time the virus is active. I was told the direct references, and sourced material was deleted about dogs licking humans as a vector were deleted since a paper from the CDC is primary.

Many Ebola researches are dead. Is it dangerous to be a dog in Africa if we allow the CDC papers to be digested so the public inderstands? Certainly. But dogs where dog meat is consumed and termed "bush meat" are already in danger. People are in danger too. Would I allow a dog in my house if I was living in Liberia. No. Not unless aleady seropositive. Pbmaise (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I needed to read quite a few studies when I wrote that section and I think I know which one you are talking about. It is a lone study from a few years ago that suggested that dogs have been overlooked as a source of infection - it especially suggested that source when the infected person was not known to have any contact with a bat or bush meat. But since it is a lone study and no one picked up on it, it must be assumed that other researchers found fault with it...or whatever. My own problem with it was that considering that a sizable number of dogs carry the virus, one would expect Ebola to be more common. But we don't put that sort of single study in this article as it is just one of many studies - some of which may have come to an opposite conclusion.Gandydancer (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

International response and impacts on Africa[edit]

These are two sections currently missing. Please take some time to comb press to update the 2014 outbreak section.Pbmaise (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I plan to broaden the 2014 section today. Gandydancer (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
This page is about the disease, not the outbreak. Belongs here - Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa / 2014_West_Africa_Ebola_outbreak (name keeps changing!!) Robertpedley (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Poor communication on my part - by "broaden" I meant make it more broad rather than a blow-by-blow account. Gandydancer (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

History section[edit]

The History section seems incomplete and out of place to me. It starts with a short paragraph on the 1976 outbreak, which is covered in more detail in the Epidemiology section. The rest of the section is about the 1989 outbreak. As it stands now, I think it would make more sense to combine these two sections. If we're going to have a History section, it should be more of a narrative timeline than what we currently have. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that section is a leftover from the "old" article - the article as it was before this 2014 outbreak that has resulted in so many improvements. I agree that it does need work. Gandydancer (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 West Africa outbreak[edit]

This section has become bloated and contains a lot of information that needs to be more general and broad rather than information about, for instance, the riot in Monrovia. Hopefully by this evening I'll get it done, but my garden needs pretty drastic attention as well and with fall in the air, it won't wait. Please feel free to offer feedback. Gandydancer (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I highly recommend a whole new page for the 2014 Outbreak. This section will grow too huge for the overall Ebola page. I don't know how to do this. Please name page Ebola virus 2014 outbreak Pbmaise (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

We have a page and it is here 2014 West Africa Ebola virus outbreak. Agree further content from that section here can be moved their. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I shortened and rearranged this section. Ruslik_Zero 12:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I could see a whole lot of duplication between the 2 pages. There's a link in the header of this article - would it help to move it closer to the top? Robertpedley (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Typically we put the header at the top of the appropriate section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Good job Ruslik. I am glad to have it off my to-do list. Thanks for leaving the growing financial crisis info. Gandydancer (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The Ministry of Health (MOH) wishes to clarify that there are no suspect cases of Ebola in Singapore at present. MOH will continue to closely monitor the situation, and continually assess and calibrate its measures.

You may have heard of the recent news report of a suspected Ebola case entering Singapore. You might have even panicked if you know exactly how deadly Ebola is.

However, you will be relieved to know that it was just a false alarm. Here’s what happened, based on news reports.

According to a report in The Straits Times, a Nigerian woman in her 50s was identified as a suspected Ebola case by doctors in Gleneagles hospital on Thursday (August 14th) morning. She had flown into Singapore recently and arrived at the hospital’s emergency department with fever.

The woman was immediately isolated and transferred to Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH) by ambulance. Since then, however, reports reveal that this was a false Ebola alarm and the woman has been discharged.

According to the Straits Times report, Professor Philip Choo, TTSH’s chief executive officer, said, “We saw a patient with a history from Nigeria,” but her detailed history revealed “no contact with any suspect or confirmed patients.”

While we can all breathe a collective sigh of relief knowing that this was just a false alarm, it still is good to know some facts about this disease and understand what precautionary measures the Singapore government has in place, should an Ebola outbreak occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elite Whitesands Force (talkcontribs) 06:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Article Does Not Acurately State the Risk of Ebola Virus Transmission from Bodily Fluids and Fomites[edit]

The Ebola virus clears from different bodily fluids at different rates and is present in infected persons after they no longer show symptoms. It is inaccurate to state that people are only contagious when they show symptoms. Further, it is important to note the different rates at which the Ebola virus clears from different bodily fluids. It is only through accurate information that people can properly prevent transmission, and therefore, these wikipedia articles must meet a higher standard. In infected persons, the Ebola virus is shed in a wide variety of bodily fluids and has been detected in specimens including saliva, stool, semen, breast milk, tears, and a skin swab. In one very small study, the last Ebola positive specimen of saliva occurred 8 days after disease onset while breast milk remained positive 15 days after onset and semen remained positive 40 days after disease onset even though the virus was already cleared from the blood. In another outbreak, the Ebola virus was detected in the semen of patients who had recovered three months after disease onset. Patients who recover from the virus should be warned to avoid breastfeeding and abstain from sex (or at the bare minimum use condoms and properly dispose of condoms) for at least 3 months after recovery. It was also suggested to avoid contact with the mucous membranes of the eye of a recovered patient for 3 months as well.

See the following article in The Journal of Infectious Diseases: [1]

Estellefox (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the wording the CDC uses. People are not infectious until symptoms have developed. Have you asked them to correct their website yet? The ref you provide is a primary source. We typically use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

WHO has said that blood transfusions from survivors are likely the most effective method of tackling the outbreak[edit]

There is no approved cure for Ebola and in the short term the WHO has said that blood transfusions from survivors are likely to be the most effective method of tackling the outbreak. Work is currently under way to establish a registry of survivors complete with their blood types in order to begin the process of extracting their plasma for use to treat future victims.

Ocdnctx (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes added something about this to the section under research. We are currently using a WHO source which is much better than the independent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
There's quite a bit of skepticism about it, though. Lab studies have suggested it is ineffective. Donners (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is simply a research priority. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)