Talk:Leprosy/Archive 1

"Biblical" leprosy

Apparently the author of this little blurb (below) didn't read the original article and likes to rant about nothing. The target article didn't say that biblical leprosy wasn't Hansen's disease, just that sometimes in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testement) the descriptions don't match exactly what happens in Hansen's and the Hebrew term "tzaraas" translated as leprosy may be describing more than one medical condition. What a heap of prattle about ancient Greeks, punishment from God, etc. Our education system has failed this person!

Is there really a difference between tzaraas and leprosy? To say that the cases of leprosy in the Bible bear no relevance to Hansen's disease sounds a little dodgy to me. Surely those reporting cases in biblical times believed it to be a punishment from God simply because of superstition and ignorance of the real cause of the disease? Of course they were going to say it was sent from God - they had no idea what a mycobacterium was. --Urbane legend 22:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The leprosy of the Bible could also be applied to inanimate objects such as houses. In addition it was not necessarily incurable as there was a procedure for declaring a person free from the disease. I have removed the word 'incurable'. --Captdoc 23:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It is really difficult to see why the cases of leprosy in the Bible are referred to as "misunderstandings." The father of modern medicine was an ancient Greek. People of antiquity were very adept at diagnosing disease and in most cases as well as we were. What they did lack in most circumstances was the ability to treat the disease with modern techniques. Furthermore unless there were special instances no Bible writer attributes disease as a punishment from God, time and circumstance were regarded as the causes. It would be more appropriate to mention that leprosy is noted in the Bible, and leave it at that. Personal views as to what the Bible writers had in mind are just that, personal views. Those issues should be devoted to some other page. Leprosy was not applied to inanimate objects as if the object/thing actually was infected as a human would be if infected. Rather it is noted that the mycobacterium (not that the ancient Jews knew of such things, but the divine author of the Bible did) could survive in houses if the house was left untreated. Much the same way that tetanus survives as a soil bacteria, much the same way that fungus grows on walls if damp is not removed or treated.

In the spirit of being bold, I've edited the section discussing tzaraas as something separate from leprosy. If anyone disagrees, let's discuss. --Urbane legend 15:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Yes, first I am not certain the ancient disease of leprosy is the same as the modern. Second, there is no explanation of why leper colonies still exist given that there is a cure for the disease. Is the disease curable only within a certain peroid of time?

Why do we have the discussion of an ancient and well-known disease linked here, to a page about a modern disease that may or may not be the same, and that most people haven't heard of? It is not as though "leper" is to most people a derogatory term, the fact being that most of us have never seen anyone afflicted with leprosy; so is there really some benefit to replacing the well-known term by an obscure, less descriptive one tied to a man's name? -Vivacissamamente

---

Much of this text is taken from http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/hansens_t.htm

This is a US Federal Govt. department website, with no apparent copyright notice, and therefore should be in the public domain. The Anome

How do you reach that conclusion, out of interest? Is there some statement somewhere that US federal government websites are public domain unless specified otherwise? - Khendon 16:06 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)

Under US Copyright Law the Federal government cannot directly copyright material. This is discussed in Wikipedia talk. -- User:Roadrunner

See 17 USC section 105 - "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government...." However, as with most general rules there are a multitude of exceptions.

bob

---

I did a once-over, a little more info and formatting. This page is badly US-centric at present (the medical information is valid worldwide, but more on incidence elsewhere in the world should be added).

Also, if we're redirecting leprosy here, some historical and cultural information should be added. Alternatively, that could go on a separate page, something like "History of leprosy", with cross-references between the two. Vicki Rosenzweig, Sunday, June 23, 2002

Yes, 'n' I think it's rather odd to call Hansen the "discoverer" of something that had been known since antiquity. Maybe the describer, or the discoverer of the infectious agent, or what have you? - Montréalais

Moreover, my understanding is that it is by no means certain that all of the skin conditions mentioned, say, in Leviticus were the result of catching Hansen's disease. IHCOYC

Indeed. All this talk of leprosy in the Bible obviously rests on a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek texts (into English). The two Bibles which i prefer are direct re-translations of the same texts, and do not use the term "leprosy", but "skin disease" (or "diseased skin"), or, at the most specific, "scabs" (and i checked everywhere Cruden's Concordance would point me to). Jerome Potts 05:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

---

To alleviate the vagueness about what else could have been included in tzaraas, I have added some differential diagnostic from medical mycology, my field of expertise. While on the one hand you could argue that the symptoms of favus and T. violaceum tinea capitis (and other T. violaceum tineas elsewhere on the skin) don't exactly match some biblical descriptions of leprosy, particularly not in the snowy white quality sometimes ascribed, on the other hand these fungal infections must have been very common and conspicuous, just as they were when scientific descriptive medicine entered these parts of the world, and they are not mentioned separately. They were contagious diseases and handling them as 'leprosy' must have been tempting in biblical times as it was in mediaeval and post-mediaeval Europe. Given that in Leviticus even tinaeid moth attacks on garments and indoor mould growth on house walls are labelled as leprosy/tzaraas, it seems impossible that severe fungal tinea and favus infections could be excluded from this category. I could extend the argument but perhaps this is sufficient for now, unless someone raises serious questions. Summerbell 20:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Added note: the article about tzaraath itself, though it mentions the scope of what might be included in this term, is clearly primarily a piece on Jewish theology/hermeneutics and is less appropriate than this article for mentioning diseases traditionally confused with leprosy and often referred to for many centuries by this term.

Requested move

Hansen's disease → Leprosy. The article begins "Hansen's disease, commonly known as leprosy..." Policy says use common name. Jonathunder 05:46, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

• I would add in support of this that most of "what links here" points to leprosy. And as others have noted in the discussion above, most references to the disease, not only in history but currently, call it leprosy. Jonathunder 05:54, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
• Support. Not only is it the most common name in lay publishing, but also in medical texts as well. I didn't even come across the term "Hansen's disease" until my second year of medical school, and it was presented as an older term to know in case someone mentioned it by that name. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. What links here is often a good guide. -- Solipsist 07:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Philip Baird Shearer 16:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

• We don't need to vote here. "What links here" shows that editors have already voted, by a ratio of more than 100 to 1. Tannin 11:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 12:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Asylums POV

We need to sort out the examples that are given, they currently present a slightly skewed picture. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I have added {{POV-section}} rather than {{POV}} becuase {{POV}} means the entire article; for which the sub-heading #Asylums is not. --Kilo-Lima 13:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The POV tag has been on that section since Nov 10. Does anybody else have an opinion about it? In my opinion, I think that just because it provides unpleasant information, that doesn't necessarily make it POV. Unless there's further discussion on the topic, I think it would be okay to remove the tag, though I'd recommend waiting one more month to allow other opportunities for more opinions. --Arcadian 17:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Arcadian; the POV tag is for information that is biased, but that section (I'm assuming that the disputed point is the Japan information) contains nothing that isn't full supported with evidence. At least three distinct news reports exist that corroborate this information, and unless someone can present a clear definition of the "slightly skewed picture," the POV should be removed. --AyAn4m1 17:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

modern incidence and treatment

i think that it would be a good idea to add this as a new subsection, maybe clean up the rest of the article a bit to make room. thialidomide has been proven to be an effective treatment, and of course the disease is readily curable today, and has become quite rare. i think that these points should be elaborated on a bit. also, another image might be a good idea. Joeyramoney 17:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thalidomide is never used for the treatment of leprosy but for the treatment of some acute reactional complications in leprosy. WHO does not recommend it use due to its association with birth defects, and because there are safer alternatives. Experience has shown that it is virtually impossible to develop and implement a fool-proof surveillance mechanism to combat misuse of thalidomide. Today, a large number of thalidomide babies continue to be born each year possibly reflecting regulatory insufficiency and widespread use under inadequate supervision. In Brazil, which has more than 1000 registered thalidomide victims, the last officially known case was born in 1995. See the WHO leprosy website for a download on this subject: http://www.who.int/lep/TAG/Thal.doc Farhat58 20:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

history

I read somewhere that leprosy disappeared from Europe after the Black Death (1348). A look at Google Scolar unearthed some theories about lepers being immune to plague, and plague survivors being immune to leprosy. Somebody has more information ? StefanoC 09:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Although i have not been able to find any evidence of lepers being immune to the plague, i have come across many articles concerning how the lepers were "blamed" for the plague. Apparently they were accused of poisoning wells and such. You can read a bit about the History of it at: http://www.newint.org/issue169/unclean.htm however, i'm not sure how historically accurate the site is. --Summer 14:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to recommend a remarkable 19th century book written by a woman who traveled to eastern Siberia to document the sad condition of lepers in that remote region at that time: _On Sledge and Horseback to Outcast Siberian Lepers_ by Kate Marsden [1]. The native tribes in that part of Russia ostracized known lepers and forced them to live in inaccessible places. Many of them suffered immensely from the lack ofadequate food & clothing. The author was an English woman who resolved to do her utmost to improve the lives of these people. This is the incredible story of her pre-railroad journey through a sparsely settled countryside near the arctic circle.

interesting studies in "the anthropology of disease" show that leprosy and plague did not provide cross-immunity, though there is a possibility that TB and Leprosy share some form of cross-immunity.

Vaccine

Can a more knowledgable person add some information on vaccinations for leprosy?--205.213.6.3 17:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Treatment of leprosy (section moved)

In view of the importance of the revival of this discussion, I have moved it to the bottom where more people might see it.

Following text removed as updated with new information and graphics on MDT treatment regimens:

Dapsone was used to treat leprosy from 1946, but because of low efficiency it was believed necessary to take dapsone for months if not years. Search for more effective medicines led to the discovery of clofazimine and rifampicin in the sixties. Of the two, rifampicin was the most widely adopted. The first study using rifampicin to treat leprosy was published in 1970. In 1982 Multi-Drug-Therapy (MDT) was introduced, based on studies published by Shantaram Yawalkar and colleagues. The treatment Yawalkar formulated was a combination of rifampicin and dapsone.

The WHO recommends multidrug regimens for all forms of leprosy. Treatment for lepromatous leprosy requires more intensive regimens and a greater duration than that for tuberculoid leprosy. For affected adults, the WHO advocates dapsone 100 mg once a day, clofazimine 50 mg once a day plus 300 mg once a month, and Rifampin 600 mg once a month for at least 2 years or until results of skin biopsies are negative (usually in about 5 years). For tuberculoid leprosy patients the WHO recommends dapsone 100 mg once a day and Rifampin 600 mg once a month for 6 months. Many authorities in India recommend that the duration be extended to 1 year.

Since 1995, the World Health Organization (WHO) has provided all endemic countries with free MDT, supplied through Ministries of Health. In December 2005, an agreement was signed between the WHO and the pharmaceutical company Novartis to extend this free provision until at least the end of 2010. There is no known resistance to MDT drugs.

--WHO Leprosy 12:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Capital L

Is there any good reason why a capital L is used for most cases of Leper and Leprosy in this article?

No, there isn't.

"Leprosy" and "Leper" are not proper nouns. I've removed the capital - can we keep an eye on this? Squeezeweasel 00:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Leprosy & Syphillis & Historical Article

Recent historical research has led some historians to believe that many cases thought to be leprosy in Antiquity and the Middle Ages may have, in fact, been syphillis (especially since the idea that syphillis originated in the New World and was brought to Europe by the Spanish crewmen of Columbus' expeditions).

Tertiary syphillis (the third and final stage if it's untreated) has many similar signs (i.e. evidence of diease or injury observed by a physician as opposed to symptoms which are reported by the patient) as does the most severe type of (lepromatous) leprosy.

Although I don't think there's any reason to doubt the article's neutrality, it's treatment of the history of the disease is spotty and desultory. I agree that an separate article on its history is called for--especially in light of the recent suspicions about it and syphillis.

Also, there's no mention of the leprosy treatment center in Lousiana, long considered one of the best.

There's no mention about leprosy in literature.

Stephen_R._Donaldson wrote two epic fantasy trilogies about a modern man with leprosy who is transported to alternate reality where his disease is cured. The books are called The Chronicles of Thomas Convenant, Unbeliever, and the The Second Chronicles of Thomas Convenant, Unbeliever. The books, esp the first triology, have been favorably compared with Tolkein and were phenomenally popular in the 80s.

The first part of the first book, Lord Foul's Bane has a long section about leprosy and the Covenant character's treatment.

PainMan 03:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

TT vs LT

There should be a distinction made between tuberculoid and lepromatous leprosy. They manifest themselves differently and have different immunological causes (Th1 vs Th2 response). Also different prognoses.

Origin of the word Leprosy in the English Language

Can anyone confirm the origin of the term "Leprosy" in the English Language. In Leprosy the author sites that the "term first appeared in the English language in the 1300s coming from Greek and Hebrew" [Oxford English Dictionary: Second Edition. 1989] but in the Oxford American Dictionary Software on Mac OS X, it is written that the English origin of the word Leprosy is from the mid 16th Century: "ORIGIN mid 16th cent.(superseding Middle English lepry): from leprous + -y 3 ."[Oxford American Dictionary] I apologise for not referencing properly.

I checked in my 6th Edition Oxford advanced learners dictionary to confirm the date, but it does not include dates.

Nicksoper 21:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The OED is notoriously unreliable when it comes to Middle English, in part because it takes no account of Anglo-Norman, and in part because its compilers simply weren't medievalists. I am. In this case, the OED is off by at least a century (the Ancrenne Wisse is possibly c. 1200). I've made the correction.

medievalkarl 27 December 2006

Leprosy featured in a film.

Leprosy was also featured in the film "Diarios de motocicleta (2004)" or "The Motorcycle Diaries (Eng)". In the film, Ernesto Guevara de la Serna and his friend Alberto Granado will visit and volunteer for 3 weeks in San Pablo Leper Colony in Peru.

See also the autobiography "Papillon" by Henri Charrière and film thereof featuring Dustin Hoffman and Steve McQueen where Papillon's escape from his interrment in the penal colony in French Guyana is assisted by men in a leper colony there. Godgirl 23:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Godgirl

Need grammar fix

"Although Leprosy is known to affect people for decades, Gerhard Armauer Hansen is widely recognized for his identification of the Mycobacterium leprae." - This sentence makes no sense. I'd fix it, but I'm not sure what the writer was trying to say. -- Writtenonsand 10:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've redrafted that paragraph after having read the article on Hansen, and it seems to make sense now. Please make any changes you think necessary! Squeezeweasel 23:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

leprosy and transposon

129.252.246.68 15:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)the transposon theory, is just that, a theory. It is far from proven...an article from 1932 talking about an ultravirus? and one author as proponent of the transposon theory does not make it accepted theory. Ockam razor still applies and one may not need more than M. leprae itself to explain pathogenesis.by concerned scientist

User JayFBee: I am no expert of this disease but the whole pathogenesis section seems odd to me. I have never heard of bacterial plasmids replicating in human cells.I have never heard of ultraviruses. It sounds like this article is in bad need of a revision.

This is not an accurate representation. As "concerned scientist" pointed out, this is just a theory, and one for which there is no evidence. I agree with some of the general comments on this article, regarding its overall lack of quality and sound science, and this transposon section is the most offensive example of its lack of accuracy. For a proper review of leprosy, I suggest the 2006 paper by Scollard, D.M, et al. "The Continuing Challenges of Leprosy" in Clinical Microbiology Reviews 19(2):338. This comprehensive review sites 456 references, and there is no mention of a transposon theory, presumably due to complete lack of experimental evidence. 19 Jan 07, by mesand

Jesus interacted with Lepers

Well, according to the bible he did, but the phrasing of this sentence assumes a Christian background of the reader. Is this a verified fact?

Should it even be presented as such, considering how many other faiths don't include this character? Perhaps refer instead to the involvement of Lepers in the Christian traditiion than a statement of fact?

Lipatden 00:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought "Christian tradition" was a good phrase until I looked it up. It means the things Christians believe that are not in the Bible. I think "According to the Bible" is a good phrase that does not enforce a POV, rather allowing the reader to apply their own POV to it. Notinasnaid 10:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

While I accept your point, it does have highly Christian connotations, the Bible is much a historical source as any other book. Should we dismiss all written evidence based upon use by religion? If so we should illiminate most Roman (Cult of the Emperor etc.) and Egyptian (Pharoh as a living god) texts from the entirety of historical statements made on Wikipedia. I am not personally pro-religion, but as a historian I would suggest that you are purpotrating anti-religious sentiment which can negatively effect your judgement of a text, especially since the Bible has some of the most verifiable sources of any book ever written due to the extent of research surrounding it's origins. (Ben, University of Leeds)

"Transmission" section

I wanted to say that the "Transmission" section is pretty hard to follow. I know a bit about leprosy but reading that was a little more technical than I think it should be. It's a little too high falutin and there's just a little too much jargon. Wikipedia needs to remain accessible to everyone. Overzealous individuals sometimes go all out with an article or article section that they have extensive knowledge on. While the thought is appreciated the end result is sometimes a section of information that is of little use to the casual reader. Perhaps someone could re-word or summarize the information so it is easier to digest? Or perhaps a diagram/image of some kind would help? --DannyBoy7783 03:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I second this. 141.149.210.101 02:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

is it or isn't it infectious?

the first paragraph reads that it IS then the "Clinical features" section states that it is NOT

which is it?

Leprosy is likely only mildly communicable. There are many theories, including lengthy incubation periods (WWII soldiers) and the necessity of long term skin contact for transmission.[Waxler, N. (1981) Learning to be a Leper, Social Contexts of Health, Illness and Patient Care] As well, that if the disease is diagnosed early and treated regularly it is possible to arrest transmission and symptoms. It may increase clarity if the entry reflects the possibility that the exact relationship between Leprosy and M.leprae is not clear. T anth

"Infectious" does not mean a disease is easy, or even possible, to catch; the term is often abused to mean "easy to catch". Notinasnaid 12:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Main challenge in eradication of Leprosy

I don't think the eradication of Leprosy is solely limited by health care providers. It might be helpful to include a new subheading to discuss the different cultural contexts that affect whether a patient receives treatment or loses everything they have. Patient responses to stigma and social constructions of illness help explain why leprosy still exists where treatment is available.T anth

Treatment of leprosy

Leprosy can be cured by the use of multidrug therapy (MDT) - a combination of rifampicin, clofazimine and dapsone. WHO has been providing the drugs free of charge to all endemic countries since 1995 -see their website http://www.who.int/lep/ for details. Unfortunately the entry in Wikipedia providing this information was deleted in the last few days. I have now reinstated it and I hope the entry will ot be vandalised again, as the public need to know that the treatment is effective and available free.

The following statement has been removed: "A large number of recent cases have shown to be resistant to treatment, especially strains found in those residing in the Western United States and England.". No reports of resistance to MDT have been recorded or reported to WHO. Such a bold statement should have been accompanied by documentary evidence.

JayFBee, Dec 11th 2006: this whole section is obviously written by an ill informed person (with an agenda and a high dose of bad faith). I think it is a disgrace that this page should remain as it is. Examples: -"the old, false assumption that "leprosy is caused by the leprosy bacillus", rather than on a contemporary understanding of the microbes involved,". A bacterial cause is a FALSE ASSUMPTION????????? And what "microbes "involved????????? -"For most people, a six month course of tablets for the milder form of leprosy and two years for the more severe form is still given while they cure themselves of the disease." They do not cure "THEMSELVES" while taking tablets (for fun or to please an incompetent doctor). They are cured BY the tablets of ...antibiotics, of course! And so on and so forth. This page by itself, which merges historical and socilogical remarks with bizarre biological concepts, calling for the abandonment of antibiotics in favor of computer modelling, could be enough to make one doubt of Wikipedia.

All these changes can be tracked down to here. These makes up all of the contributions by a user, who did not add anything else. I present this, but do not seek to repair the article, lacking the technical knowledge; the editor included copious references. Technical knowledge or no, the tone is clearly non-encyclopedic in parts. I have added an NPOV flag to that section. Notinasnaid 12:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

JayFBee. All these changes can safely be called "vandalism". I do not have the time, nor the level of competence to amend them.

JayFBee. Thank you to Notinasnaid. I am quite relieved by the presence of the flag. (In fact, I think all the changes that are discussed above can be safely deleted).

I have added a stronger flag. However, undoing it would be complex; some changes have been further edited. A simple question for the experts: is the statement "caused by a DNA plasmid (transposon, or "ultravirus", a small circle of DNA) carried in Hansen's bacillus" right, wrong, or still controversial? Notinasnaid 12:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

JayFBee. I am neither an expert on leprosy nor a microbiologist. However I am a biologist. Leprosy is caused by the bacterium Mycobacterium leprae. I think that's all a reader of Wikipedia needs to know about the causative agent. Bacteria do harbour "plasmids" (circular pieces of DNA independent of the bacterial chromosome) and it is not, in principle, impossible (I have not searched the literature) that a plasmid in this bacterium would contain some genetic information relevant to the pathogenecity of the bacterium. However, if it were the case it would be an extremely arcane detail for the general reader (and there is little doubt that the bacterial chromosome itself also contains genetic information important for the pathogenecity). What is completely misleading is the idea, pervasive in the article, that a plasmid could free itself from the bacterium and enter human cells and be, by itself, a causative agent of a disease. An "ultravirus" is a very small virus. No virus is known to be involved in leprosy. A "transposon" is a piece of DNA which hops around in genomes, a concept unrelated to "ultravirus" or "plasmid", and irrelevant, as far as I know to the mechanism of leprosy. In conclusion, I would say: forget about the (putative) plasmid.

JayFBee. A last word for a while: I would delete everything from "Antibacterial treatments were based on the old" to "Hansens bacillus, its plasmid and their human hosts". It is at best trite (yes we need to work), at the worst nonsensical and dangerous (antibacterial treatment is useless). I also signal to your attention that this whole text is quoted verbatim at http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Leprosy, whatever that site is.

www.reference.com is one of many sites that reuse Wikipedia articles. If this article changes they might, or might not, at some point pick that up. Notinasnaid 00:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted this article to the pre-agenda-pushing/vandalism state. While this isn't an ideal solution, the changes were so deeply ingrained that I think it is the best course of action. Fixes that were added later can be added again. We are the #3 result on Google for leprosy, and we don't want to have an article telling people that the treatment which all reliable sources I have seen recommend is not effective. --70.181.253.87 07:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (I'm purposefully not logging in for various reasons)

70.181.253.87, none of these edits were vandalism. The history section is well referenced and contains a useful information over the disease's discovery. You should also keep the image as Wikipedia is not censored and the image makes a useful addition to the article's information over the effects of Leprosy. I've reverted your changes now. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I shall have to log in to deal with this issue. I had not expected someone other than the original single issue editor to revert my change. I'm not sure if you read the rest of this section before reverting me - the history section and image were but incidental victims of a reversion which was done to remove extremely significant fringe viewpoint pushing by a single editor, User:Itaintnecessarily, who inserted a variety of fringe material relating to a bizarre theory of the mechanism of the disease (the "ultravirus") that contradicted every external link on the page, and every source that I have found. I called this possible vandalism because the fringe theory doesn't appear to have even a web page supporting it, which is unusual in dealing with such matters, and could point toward this being a careful insertion of false material with important consequences. As I noted, the article in the state you reverted to claimed that MDT was not an effective treatment and that people shouldn't use it, in direct contradiction of every reliable source I have found, including websites from WHO, CDC, and a variety of other significant groups. Since there isn't any reliable source at all for the fringe theory, we really shouldn't be including it by WP:V. It is important that one be careful to understand the reasons for changes when reverting - as I noted, we are the number three result for leprosy, and you just reverted to a version that gives an entirely bizarre and unsupported view of the disease and its treatment that could quite possibly endanger the well being of people with the disease. Feel free to add the image and the history section to this version, however. --Constantine Evans 22:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If you see false facts, you can always remove them, or contact who added them. I don't think you should've reverted over 100 revisions which include my hard work and reorganizing of the article. Michaelas10 (Talk) 08:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

December 16. If Michaelas made a hundred revisions on the two paragraphs about the uslesness of antibiotics, the non bacterial cause of leprosy and other dangerous gibberish, it is an unfortunate waste of time, and I understand that he would not be happy, but not a reason to leave these absurdities in Wikipedia. I deleted the two paragraphs. All the excellent reasons to do so have been spelled out aver and over again in this discussion. JayFBee.

December 13 JayFBee. (Did I say that I would not intervene for a while? Well, I found another moment to do so. Having spent some time writing a couple of paragraphs for Wikipedia, and developed a faith in the concept, I am totally dismayed by this article, hence my excessive commitment). The reverting is an excellent thing, for the time being (thank you to the unlogged person). It remains (it's a smaller problem) that it is jaring to read a "treatment" section about this devastating and, after all, still common disease on the planet's scale, that starts with a long paragraph in which Jesus, a saint and the purgatory figure prominently, all hyperlinked. There is nothing wrong with that content, but it should be moved to a "historical" section. I refrain from doing it myself, because I am no expert and I remember the time it took me to write a few things on which I am an expert.

For clearness' sake, I have moved the Disputed and NPOV tags to the top of the page. As far as I can tell, there is a fair share of vandalism left over in the article (the bullshit about the ultravirus is even still in the introduction), so I think it is better for everyone if the tags are visible outright without having to look for them. --84.186.254.176 03:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A very poor article

This must be one of the worst articles I have ever read on Wikipedia (no offence). The article plainly contradicts many of the information in the supplied links particularly around issues regarding what causes the disease and how it's treated. I am often ridiculed for suggesting that Wikipedia is a good source of encyclopedic information. This is not an example that backs up my claim. Ajkgordon 11:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This article has been the subject, some claim (see above), of pushing particular non-mainstream assertions at the expense of accepted medical views. It may not be cleaned up properly. If you can point out specific issues and contradictions you've seen it may help any non-technical editors deal with the most egregious problems. Notinasnaid 12:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The article's first sentence calls the disease "infectious" while the second sentence under the 'Clinical (something)' heading states "This chronic non-infectious disease..." What gives?

Support - I agree. This article is poorly written, organized and cited. For such an important disease, this is a terrible wikipedia article. It needs a total rewrite.

Vandalism

"Recently, leprosy has also emerged as a problem in HIV patients on antiretroviral drugs and abhilasha is cool.(NY Times)". Changed To: "Recently, leprosy has also emerged as a problem in HIV patients on antiretroviral drugs(NY Times)." Offensiveandconfusing 18:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Plasmid theory

The assertion that a plasmid is the etiological agent was contradicted by the footnotes and I removed it. I removed the following very old citation of Corcos (under "Further reading") which I deem to be misleading since it is listed with no discussion of the results of subsequent research. I think it may be useful as a footnote on the history of research on HD. Finally, I replaced the npov tag with the expert tag.

• Corcos, Michael, "Molecular Biology of H.D. - The Case For The involvement of a Transferable Plasmid". The Star, Volume 41, no. 3, January 1982

Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about leprosy? Also read my essay

I think that leprosy is a huge a deadly disease. It affects many people in the world right now and I feel bad and sorry for these people. In school, I had to research a disease that the teacher chose for me, my disease ended up being LEPROSY. I want people to read this essay and tell me what I should add to it. Here is my essay:

There are many diseases in the world right now that are affecting people. Some examples of these diseases are cancer, diabetes, lung cancer etc. One disease in particular is leprosy. Leprosy has many symptoms and it also has a very interesting history that people might have never even known about. Leprosy is a deadly and infectious disease, but it is one of the fastest diseases to get. This disease can cause many different skin problems and loss of feeling. Leprosy can also cause paralysis in the hands and feet. Another name for leprosy, another name that people might know, is Hansen’s disease, which was named after Gerhard Henrick Armauer Hansen, the man who discovered the disease. The thing that causes leprosy is a bacteria called Mycobacterium leprae. This bacteria can be found on the skin and it very infectious. When this bacteria comes into the body, two things can happen. Either the immune system can block and reduce the disease from spreading (this is the milder form of leprosy, Tuberluloid leprosy), or the disease becomes to strong for the immune system to fight off and spreads more quickly (this type is more contagious and is called lepromatous). Leprosy has many symptoms and all of them come in stages. Leprosy attacks the skin first, so sometimes people would develop white or red patches on the skin called skin lesions. It also destroys the nerve endings, sweat glands, hair follicles and pigment making cells. Soon the body’s ability to feel goes away slowly and then all the feeling goes away. Then the nerves become thickened but if they are not treated the nerves can become damaged and it causes the feet and hands to become weak and curled up. Even though there are ways to cure cancer and some other diseases, there is no cure for leprosy, yet. But there are some medicines out that can slow down leprosy from growing. Sulfa-drug-dapsone is the chief drug that is used to treat leprosy. But there many people have developed a resistant against it. Some other medicines that can be taken are rifampin and clofazimine. Also there are many leper hospitals that people can go to treat leprosy. The history about leprosy is unknown. Historians don’t know when leprosy started or where it came from. The first real description of leprosy started before A.D 300. Leprosy later entered Europe in 400 B.C. It spread slowly through the Mediterranean Sea and throughout Europe. When living conditions improved, the disease started to disappear. People back then and even today have been shunned by neighbors and were kept in separate places, like leper colonies and sanitariums. Worldwide, one to two million people are disabled with leprosy. In 1999, 108 cases of leprosy were found in the United States. But in 2000, 91 countries had been discovered to have leprosy as an epidemic. In addition, men are two times more likely to get leprosy then women. Also there have been reports that have said that beside from humans, animals can also carry leprosy. These animals are the armadillo, monkey, rabbits and mice. There are many ways to get leprosy. But one of the fastest ways to get leprosy is if people live in the areas or countries that have leprosy as an epidemic. Also, if there are poor living conditions like contaminated water or a bad diet. But there are also many ways to prevent leprosy such as avoiding close and physical contact with people who are untreated with leprosy. So people who are on long term medication can become non-infectious.

THANK YOU FOR READING MY ESSAY Please comment back on what you think!

Busybutterflybeezwax 17:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

COMMENTS OR REVISIONS

My leprosy essay that was on the topic before, I

REALLY WANT PEOPLE TO READ IT!!!

I also want comments on it and revisions!!! PLEASE!!

Also, if you are making a comment on my essay please copy and paste my WHOLE ESSAY on there and make the SUBJECT/HEADLINE: COMMENT/REVSION

on the copyed essay underline the parts where you think i should make revisions on ok?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!

Busybutterflybeezwax 17:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

External links for leprosy

I have revised the external link to the World Health Organization home page to the WHO leprosy website as it is more relevant, and may otherwise be missed.--WHO Leprosy 15:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed text

Sans references, I've removed the following claim from the article:

However, new understandings of the cause of the two forms of the disease may allow prevention, for example, by attention to minimising skin pressure points in endemic areas, avoiding sleeping on hard surfaces, and general health measures to optimise immune function.

-- MarcoTolo 07:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Noting the presence of leprosy in the Bible may be appropriate, but the following POV statement is not:

According to the Bible, Jesus had not only walked with lepers, but touched and conversed with them, as have many workers since Jesus' time, without acquiring the disease and so in medieval religious society, it was a noble thing to be able to converse and build relationships with the leper.

-- MarcoTolo 07:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This following para is not really appropriate for a lead section. It also gives the false impression that a) only "Western humanitarian and church organizations" are providing for leprosy patients and b) that most or all patients need bandages. The reality is that the vast majority of cases do not suffer any wounds or need dressings. They need only the MDT drugs for a complete cure without disabilities.

Western humanitarian and church organizations regularly send relief supplies, including handmade "leper bandages"; bandages knitted or crocheted out of cotton, for greater breathability and durability than traditional gauze. The bandages can also be washed, sterilized and reused, making them more cost-effective as well.

-- --WHO Leprosy 10:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It may be useful to retain the information, however, if it does happen, perhaps further into the article. If it does not happen, it shouldn't appear, of course. Is the real situation that inappropriate action is taken by western humanitarian and church organisations? If so, this is important, and if a good source can be found, should be expanded. I completely agree that its placement gives it undue prominence, and that it is out of context.

Another interesting point (provided sources can be found) is whether authors have commented on a failure of attitudes, treatment and humanitarianism to keep up with modern developments, if that is what underpins your statement. (Has anyone observed that people are inappropriately sending bandages when they should be funding drugs, for example). Or is it the case that the information is in fact referring to a past situation, before effective treatment was available, and now nobody really does send bandages. Notinasnaid 11:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the information should be retained for a later section. I am sure that the statement about bandages is factual and that several humanitarian and church organisations, with the very best of intentions, see this provision of TLC to individual patients is the best way to tackle the disease. Others may prefer to focus their efforts on a more public health approach, looking at ways of breaking transmission of the disease within the community by ensuring early diagnosis and a widespread coverage of MDT drugs - hopefully to avoid the need for bandages in the future. Luckily the MDT drugs are free of charge until at least 2010 and generally speaking, public funds donated through NGOs appear adequate for the TLC approach - so the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. --WHO Leprosy 17:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've also pulled the following from the intro:

"It once affected every continent and it has left behind it a terrifying image in history and human memory – one of disfigurement, rejection and exclusion from society, community and family."

While colorful, I'm not convinced this statement is appropriate. I would like to see a less histrionic version noting the historical social impact of HD, but I was unable to come up with a reasonable alternative on my own. Thoughts? -- MarcoTolo 17:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep this in. Although it is now generally seen as a tropical disease, it did once affect every continent and was widespread in medieval Europe. In those countries where leprosy cases still exist in significant numbers, stigma is often very strong and people can still be cast out of homes and villages and end up in leprosaria or leprosy "villages" where they exist from one generation to the next because they fear rejection if they return home. With early diagnosis and treatment however, disabilities (and the stigma that goes with it) can largely be avoided, and the disease completely cured within the community itself, within 6 to 12 months.--WHO Leprosy 19:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your description is, in my opinion, more useful. Combining the two, I suggest something along the lines of

"Affecting every continent, the historical impact of leprosy has been profound at all societal levels. In countries where leprosy cases continues to exist in significant numbers, stigma is often very strong; individuals can still be cast out of homes and villages and end up in leprosaria or leprosy "villages" where they exist from one generation to the next because they fear rejection if they return home."

Thoughts on this version? -- MarcoTolo 19:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally settled on: "Once affecting every continent, the age-old stigma associated with the advanced form of the disease still lingers in many endemic countries, and remains a major obstacle to self-reporting and early treatment" --WHO Leprosy 14:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Even better—nicely done. -- MarcoTolo 18:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputed tag

The article still needs significant work, but I've removed the disputed tag pending specific comments on which statements/sections are so considered. -- MarcoTolo 07:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Discovery

This is perhaps not the best title for a section on Hansen. Hansen did not "discover" leprosy (which is a disease known for millenia), but discovered the organism m.leprae that causes the disease in man. As there is also a Wiki page on Hansen already, why not simply have a link to that rather than a separate section within this article on leprosy. --WHO Leprosy 16:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points. I've ported most of the GHA Hansen-specific info and refs to Gerhard Armauer Hansen and consolidated the nomenclature and etymology sections into Historical background. -- MarcoTolo 16:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Nomenclature

It is "Hansen's Disease" or "Hansen's disease" (note caps)? -- MarcoTolo 17:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)