Talk:Rabies
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rabies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | Rabies was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 6, 2006, and July 6, 2007. | ||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Rabies.
|
Tragedy in Germany: six transplants have rabies
Terrible tragedy looms in Germany: more recent news say all six transplants have rabies now. Added to the article. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4271453.stm
Mentioned in FoxTrot
This article was mentioned in a FoxTrot comic strip (the image) about Wikipedia today (May 7 2005), though it obviously didn't get the same attention that Warthog did as a result [1]. Just thought I'd mention it. --Phoenix-forgotten 17:52, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
Milwaukee Protocol needs nuance
The wiki article implies the Milwaukee Protocol is a viable treatment for rabies, but this is increasingly controversial. There is some evidence it may not actually be helpful.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.14.22283490v1.full
https://www.wired.com/2012/07/ff-rabies/
https://pandorareport.org/2014/05/01/no-rabies-treatment-after-all-failure-of-the-milwaukee-protocol/ Jamescobalt (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's discredited, and somehow misinformation from poor sources had crept back into the article. Have fixed. This has been discussed at some length here before.[2] Bon courage (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- The current section on the Milwaukee Protocol is blatantly incorrect. While I do agree it's a controversial medical protocol, it's flat out not true that there was only a single survivor. [3] This review from 2020 reports 11 survivors and notes that all of them were under 18. Within the US, there are three known survivors. The original in 2004, a 17 year old girl in 2010, and the third was in 2011 [4]. The current section is just false. Not only that, the CDC still lists Milwaukee Protocol as one of two options for management of rabies [5]. I feel like we can't be out here saying it's discredited and not mentioning that the CDC still suggests it. 162.248.150.100 (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- The CDC does not "list it as an option" on that page. As I recall our cited review goes into some detail on why any cases of survival cannot confidently be ascribed to the Protocol, and indeed the Brazilian review you link says "The effectiveness of the Milwaukee Protocol and the lethality of rabies cannot be quantitatively estimated due to difficulties in obtaining information about the cases in which it was used". It might be worth going into a little bit of detail about this in the article. Bon courage (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- This article : https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/712839_7?form=fpf too mentions several cases of survival after implementation of the Milwaukee protocol. Even assuming that "cases of survival cannot confidently be ascribed to the protocol", as you state, it doesn't mean that the Milwaukee protocol can confidently be rejected as the cause, either. Especially given that in its absence, there's no survival at all. In any case, the categorical assertion that "there has been no further case of survival" is incorrect, as, at worst, cases of survival are dubious, so I'm deleting this sentence from the article. 78.240.252.185 (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- The sentence has returned, obsolete or not. --2A02:908:898:9780:B130:E3F0:69CB:834 (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think the sentence should be removed, or at the very least, rephrased. It says, "While this treatment has been tried multiple times since, there have been no further cases of survival." As currently worded, it implies that only one person who has undergone the Milwaukee protocol has ever survived, and all other instances ended in death. From what I've been able to find, this is objectively false. There is at least one other case where a person has been put through the protocol and survived. [1][2]
- That's not to say that additional clarification isn't warranted or that the general gist that the article is attempting to convey is necessarily wrong. To quote this [3] article, in Advances in Virus Research:
- "The main component of the protocol is therapeutic coma, which was correctly predicted to lack efficacy in the accompanying editorial with the case report (Jackson, 2005)... The protocol lacks a firm scientific rationale (Zeiler & Jackson, 2016) and at least 53 failures have now been documented... plus an additional six cases... (Willoughby & Epstein, 2019). Claimed successes of the Milwaukee protocol include patients who have died and who likely did not have rabies, and others who received rabies vaccine prior to the onset of illness similar to many patients who survived without the protocol... There have been 10 successes reported from India with critical care since 2015, but without other components of the protocol. Hence, critical care is probably the only effective component of the protocol and has been previously recommended for aggressive therapy of rabies patients (Jackson et al., 2003)." TalkingMarlin (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- As I said above, as I recall our cited review goes into some detail on why any cases of survival cannot confidently be ascribed to the Protocol, and indeed the Brazilian review linked above says "The effectiveness of the Milwaukee Protocol and the lethality of rabies cannot be quantitatively estimated due to difficulties in obtaining information about the cases in which it was used". The Jackson chapters says "critical care is probably the only effective component of the protocol" (i.e. not the protocol). The last thing we want is hopium from newspapers, too. Bon courage (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying here. However, as phrased, what you've detailed is not exactly what the article says. I'm proposing that this sentence is removed or reworded:
- "While this treatment has been tried multiple times since, there have been no further cases of survival."
- As currently worded, this sentence would be interpreted as, "No one who has undergone the Milwaukee protocol since then has survived", rather than, "No cases of rabies survival can be confidently attributed to the Milwaukee protocol". There's an important distinction here. The former is false, whereas the latter appears (to me) to be true. There appear to be survivors who have been treated with the protocol, even if the protocol is not what led to their survival. TalkingMarlin (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- As I said above, as I recall our cited review goes into some detail on why any cases of survival cannot confidently be ascribed to the Protocol, and indeed the Brazilian review linked above says "The effectiveness of the Milwaukee Protocol and the lethality of rabies cannot be quantitatively estimated due to difficulties in obtaining information about the cases in which it was used". The Jackson chapters says "critical care is probably the only effective component of the protocol" (i.e. not the protocol). The last thing we want is hopium from newspapers, too. Bon courage (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- The sentence has returned, obsolete or not. --2A02:908:898:9780:B130:E3F0:69CB:834 (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- This article : https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/712839_7?form=fpf too mentions several cases of survival after implementation of the Milwaukee protocol. Even assuming that "cases of survival cannot confidently be ascribed to the protocol", as you state, it doesn't mean that the Milwaukee protocol can confidently be rejected as the cause, either. Especially given that in its absence, there's no survival at all. In any case, the categorical assertion that "there has been no further case of survival" is incorrect, as, at worst, cases of survival are dubious, so I'm deleting this sentence from the article. 78.240.252.185 (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- The CDC does not "list it as an option" on that page. As I recall our cited review goes into some detail on why any cases of survival cannot confidently be ascribed to the Protocol, and indeed the Brazilian review you link says "The effectiveness of the Milwaukee Protocol and the lethality of rabies cannot be quantitatively estimated due to difficulties in obtaining information about the cases in which it was used". It might be worth going into a little bit of detail about this in the article. Bon courage (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- The current section on the Milwaukee Protocol is blatantly incorrect. While I do agree it's a controversial medical protocol, it's flat out not true that there was only a single survivor. [3] This review from 2020 reports 11 survivors and notes that all of them were under 18. Within the US, there are three known survivors. The original in 2004, a 17 year old girl in 2010, and the third was in 2011 [4]. The current section is just false. Not only that, the CDC still lists Milwaukee Protocol as one of two options for management of rabies [5]. I feel like we can't be out here saying it's discredited and not mentioning that the CDC still suggests it. 162.248.150.100 (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
"She, however, already had antibodies against rabies when she initially arrived at hospital."
In my opinion, this sentence implies that a possible reason that Jeanna Giese survived is that she had pre-existing antibodies to rabies before her infection. However, I believe that this is a misreading of the source. The review linked states that Jeanna had neutralizing antibodies against rabies upon presentation at the hospital, but the review also states that the presence of neutralizing antibodies against rabies in a patient with no previous rabies vaccinations is diagnostic for rabies infection. The source also lists known survivors of rabies and whether they received any pre-exposure or post-exposure vaccinations, and Jeanna is listed as receiving no vaccination either before or after her infection. I believe that this sentence is misleading and should be removed. Sappholococcus (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well it's what the source says about Giese, so Wikipedia is right to mirror it. We could add (per the same source) that's it's unknown why she had a fairly good outcome. Bon courage (talk) 05:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- The source says she had antibodies against rabies when she arrived at the hospital, but (from my reading of the source) she had antibodies because she had an active rabies infection. The antibodies were proof that she was infected with rabies and would be present in almost anyone with an active rabies infection, not only Giese or people with an unusually good outcome. I think the way the sentence is phrased implies that the antibodies she had when presenting at the hospital were or could be protective, which I think is a misreading of the source (obviously antibodies have the potential to be protective, but they weren't unique to Giese or even unusual; people who die of rabies also have rabies antibodies by the time they have rabies symptoms). Sappholococcus (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, the source cited says "One possibility, mentioned by the authors, is that she may have been infected by an attenuated variant of bat rabies virus, perhaps one never yet isolated, and that the specific therapeutic agents she received may have played an insignificant or only a minor role in the outcome." So maybe the best solution is simply to remove the sentence. Bon courage (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- The source says she had antibodies against rabies when she arrived at the hospital, but (from my reading of the source) she had antibodies because she had an active rabies infection. The antibodies were proof that she was infected with rabies and would be present in almost anyone with an active rabies infection, not only Giese or people with an unusually good outcome. I think the way the sentence is phrased implies that the antibodies she had when presenting at the hospital were or could be protective, which I think is a misreading of the source (obviously antibodies have the potential to be protective, but they weren't unique to Giese or even unusual; people who die of rabies also have rabies antibodies by the time they have rabies symptoms). Sappholococcus (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Protection
Why is this article semi-protected, exactly? 78.240.252.185 (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- There was some ongoing really stoooopid vandalism. Maybe the idiots have moved on. I've unprotected. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 03:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- The torrent of vandalism and unhelpful editing resumed after the protection was removed. The page has been re-protected. MaterialsPsych (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2024
![]() | It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Rabies. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |
Please add this article tag until the indicated video, discussed in the Talk section with this same hour's timestamp, is hidden from view. (If the legal matter raised for Commons to adjudicate in that Talk section is decided toward the end that the video is compliant, it can of course be returned. But as long as the video remains in view, and the legal matter raised has not been addressed, this template message should call attention to the issue.)
This Signs and symptoms may have been copied and pasted from another location, possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. (February 2024) |
24.14.18.35 (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- I believe this edit is the "legal matter" being raised here. There are three different concerns raised in that edit. The first two could be brought up on Wikimedia Commons (perhaps at the Commons help desk for lack of a more specific place to raise the concern about consent), while the third relates to Wikipedia sourcing guidelines so I believe this talk page would be the most appropriate place for that.
- I will comment on the first concern raised; I don't have much to say about the others: Creative Commons licenses allow providing attribution in "any reasonable manner"; this phrase is present in every version of the licenses. A great deal (probably the majority) of images and media used on Wikipedia are available under Creative Commons licenses, so I suspect this would have received much more attention if Wikipedia's attribution was not done in a "reasonable manner" as required by the licenses. I will also note that the version 4.0 licenses specifically say: "For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the [attribution] conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information."
- Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2024
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Since it appears that even Talk in this article is protected, I have to ask that the following edit be made to the recently submitted new Talk section, regarding potential legal and ethical issues involving the 46 sec video currently appearing (just submitted, in this timestamped hour).
Correction: The link written into that newly submitted Talk section on the legal-ethical issues, the square bracketed link to a source of license and copyright information in that new Talk section, should be the following specific link, and not the one to PLOSOne originally posted. It makes no great difference, but it is best to be correct about such things.
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/licenses-and-copyright 24.14.18.35 (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Just a note here; not responding to the request: This talk page is not in fact protected. You can check this at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rabies&action=info. I don't know what obstacle you ran into trying to edit your earlier request, but it was not page protection. --Trovatore (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Done I have edited the link as you requested. I will have a more substantial response to your original request shortly. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delisted good articles
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- B-Class virus articles
- Top-importance virus articles
- WikiProject Viruses articles
- B-Class Microbiology articles
- High-importance Microbiology articles
- WikiProject Microbiology articles
- B-Class Veterinary medicine articles
- High-importance Veterinary medicine articles
- WikiProject Veterinary medicine articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- High-importance medicine articles
- B-Class dermatology articles
- Unknown-importance dermatology articles
- Dermatology task force articles
- B-Class WikiProject Medicine Translation Task Force articles
- High-importance WikiProject Medicine Translation Task Force articles
- WikiProject Medicine Translation Task Force articles
- B-Class neurology articles
- Mid-importance neurology articles
- Neurology task force articles
- Medicine portal selected articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class neuroscience articles
- Mid-importance neuroscience articles
- B-Class Dogs articles
- Low-importance Dogs articles
- WikiProject Dogs articles
- B-Class Rodent articles
- Low-importance Rodent articles
- WikiProject Rodents articles
- Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests