Talk:Rabies/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Early 2004 comments

As stated in the "mosquito bat" article, bats eats a lot of mosquitos. As stated in the "rabies bat" article, there are numerous types of rabies viruses in bats. I thought that the article about rabies and bats would indicate that during the evolution of bats, the bats were infected by the rabies virus carried by mosquitos, and the bats developed a vaccine for rabies. Bats are carrier of rabies and that they are using the rabies as a biological defense against preditors.

I thought i'd read that David McRae didn't have rabies after all. However the BBC report says he died of it. Did they say it wasn't rabies and then change their mind again?

Mr Macrae did have rabies. The vaccine has to be given preventatively before the symptoms show up. The doctor who he went to see at Ninewells hospital in Dundee, diagnosed it immediately but it was already too late by then as the symptoms had started. They did hope that it was something else... -- Derek Ross

Hmm, seems like you die if you get a rabies shot:

Current vaccines are relatively painless and are given in your arm, like a flu or tetanus vaccine. Once the symptoms begin, rabies is almost invariably fatal, ...

Could someone fix this please?

You know, I don't read it the same way you do. I think it works. --Dante Alighieri

The change of the article to say that in unvaccinated humans, untreated rabies is almost always fatal implies that there have been unvaccinated, untreated survivors. I cannot say for certainty that this is not correct and it would be impossible to prove. However, given that there have been only a tiny number of survivors of rabies - only one that I am aware of - after the most intensive care that modern medicine has to offer, and he was horribly brain-damaged, I suspect that an untreated victim has no hope of survival. Can anyone quote me a case of an unvaccinated and untreated human rabies victim who has survived? If not, I think the article should go back to stating that untreated, unvaccinated rabies is thought to be uniformly fatal. That implies that while it might be possible, there are no known cases of survival.

Brian Rock 23:12, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

---

Two qualms...

'In vitro' appears to have been misused. Experimentally seems to have been meant. Am I correct?

'Only viruses to travel along nerves...' I seem to remember that at least one herpes type virus does something similar. Chicken pox (herpes zoster, if memory serves) goes dormant and reerupts along nerve tracts, but is then shingles, not chicken pox. And other herpes viruses can do something similar in re dormancy (eg, genital herpes, and I think the 'cold sore' herpes virus).

Does this any of this mean the comment in the article should be changed? ww 15:07, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Accuracy question (Tekinia Corp)

I have removed the following paragraph from the end of the article:

"In August 2004 German Researchers at the pharmecutical company "Tekinia Corp" began experimenting with the Rabies virus to discover whether it could be used in biological warfare. Tekina Corp also announced that over a six year plan it would invest in the research of other viruses such as malaria and mad cow disease to observe whether they could possibly be used in a terrorist attack. The company has made no further comments or announced any findings."

It was added by an anonymous user 221.12.2.174 who at the same time inserted obvious vandalism elsewhere in the article. I have unsuccessfully tried to verify the factual statements. I get zero Google hits on the company name, which seems unlikely for a German pharmecutical company with the resources to do research on biological warfare, not to mention one announcing high-profile projects like this. If anyone has some information supporting what is said, please post it here. Alarm 12:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A Cure?

I don't know if this is the right place to post this but rabbits are not from the rodentia family. This article explains that rodents can catch hydrophoby, yet it lists rabbits as a member of the family(rodentia), that cannot contract this disease. I'm not sure if this counts as a cure/treatment but it might be worth adding to the article. http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/11/24/rabies.ap/

Guess what: if you'd read the entry, you would have seen that it was already inserted! I think we'll now need to wait until the doctors publish which drugs they have used. JFW | T@lk 09:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

My aunt told me that rabies is present in the UK now, having being introduced by rats running through the chunnel. Can anyone confirm/refute this? Pakaran (ark a pan) 15:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Breaking News

BREAKING NEWS: On 30 December 2004 Jeanna Giese of Wisconsin, aged 15, became the first ever human to survive bat rabies symptoms without absolutely ANY VACCINATION before or after the bite. She survived owing to an experimental treatment protocol of 3 antiviral drugs and deliberate placement into coma. She's not yet well, but supposed to be OK soon. The method is simple and the drugs are affordable, so this shall forever change rabies treatment worldwide. See: http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/01/01/rabies.survivor.ap/index.html

This protocol has since been tried in rabies-infested countries and it has never worked again, unfortunately. TechnoFaye Kane 19:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the method did not get proper prior animal testing and some medical ethic guidelines were probably broken. Anyhow, USA is the country with a culture of risk-taking.

Medical Nobel Prize for the Children's Hospital of Wisconsin personnel seems as inevitable as death used to be after rabies symptoms set on?Pasteur died too early to be awarded the medal and now, after almost 110 years, it could be righted .

There have been five people previously who survived rabies symptoms, but every one of them had immunization before or after the bite.

---

So more on this, there appears to be a cure (anti-viral drugs and such), but it must be administered ASAP and is not very successful. Perhaps the first paragraph of Prevention could be changed accordingly. It should state that there is a cure, but it has only once been a success. That is unless Jeanna was not infected in the first place.

As far as the USA being a country of risk-taking, i would contest that. Americans are actually denied experimental treatments for considerable time until they can pass the FDA. The regime given was with FDA-approved drugs, but was a new regimen. So the regimen was experimental, but the drugs were not. I don't believe this qualifies the USA as a risk-taking country, except in terms of the risks of keeping potentially useful drugs off the market. --Kevin L'Huillier 03:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

'euthanized' appropriate?

'Since there is no USDA-approved vaccine or quarantine period for skunks, pet skunks are frequently euthanized after accidentally biting a human.'

What is the modern understanding of 'euthanasia'?

the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable disease or in an irreversible coma.

Compact Oxford English Dictionary

the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy

www.m-w.com

Perhaps historially it referred to an easy or painless death... now it seems more specific, if these entries are any indication.

What is appropriate? I think it should be something emotionally distant, without suggestion of moral judgement. I had tried 'terminated', but this was reverted. Am I making a deal of nothing?

--Withersoever 11:22, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Euthanasia

I was the one who changed "terminated" to "euthanized" because the Webster's definition for "terminate" does not list an entry for a death whos purpose is for the ending of suffering. Although this is the one and only definition for the word "euthanasia".

Although I don't like the term "put down", it is in Webster's dictionary as "to do away with (as an injured, sick, or aged animal)".

Dismas

Terminated sounds a bit brutal to me, and euthanized seems very euphemised :) I changed it to 'put down', definitely the best choice of words and universally understood in British English. Wasn't sure if it would be similarly used in other forms of english - perhaps not. Worldtraveller 16:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Euthanized is a good word. They use it as a more formal alternative to "put down" with pets. Euthanasia probably has different moral significance with most people when used for animals as opposed to people. raptor 12:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

First:

>>In unvaccinated humans, untreated rabies is almost invariably fatal.<<

This sentence does not make much sense. What is treatment? Cold-water pack on your forehead, two pills of placebo twice a day or post-bite vaccination? So I made it read more precise.

Second:

The news about Jeanna Giese must not be hidden inside the bulk of the article! I gave here one line right after the above quoted sentence.

It's hardly 'hidden' - any interested reader can find it, a section entitled 'recently publicised cases' is clear enough. You're right the first bit needed clarification though, I've also tweaked it a bit and hope it is clearer now. Worldtraveller 01:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Islands

"Many territories, such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, Hawaii, and Guam, are free of rabies"

Given that the United Kingdom is a nation spread across both Great Britain and part of Ireland, and that Ireland is an island, not a nation, this would be better off as "such as the United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland..." or, alternatively, as ""such as Great Britain, Ireland...". Given the choice, and that it's a case of me being a little pedantic, I'd value a second opinion before changing it. Mullet 20:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This isn't actually particularly simple. "Republic of Ireland" is only the official "description" of the state comprising 5/6s of the island of Ireland. The actual name of the state is Ireland (Éire).
I use the term state here rather than nation, as that is a separate matter (nations in that region generally mean England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland).
"Republic of Ireland" is less ambiguous, but rather more awkward a title than "Ireland".
Wikipedia has extensive detail on the history behind all this and the naming issues at the articles Ireland, Éire, Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, Home Nations. Happy reading.
Just to make this comment more relevant to the article, I wonder should we mention in the introduction paragraph the areas of the world where rabies is not present - or at least that it's present in much/most of the world?
zoney talk 21:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 05:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)== Contradiction ==

In November 2004, Jeanna Giese, a 15-year old girl from Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, became one of only six people known to have survived rabies after the onset of symptoms. All of the other five received vaccination before symptoms developed.

It says "six people known to have survived rabies after the onset of symptoms", then it says "all of the other five received vaccination before symptoms developed". Did they have the onset of symptoms or not, or did they receive the vaccine then symtoms developed despite having the vaccine? It is very vague. --ShaunMacPherson 07:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Jeanna Giese: bite, symptoms, vaccine, survival.
other five: bite, vaccine, symptoms, survival. - Nunh-huh 07:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Did Jeanna receive vaccines? I thought she was given antiviral medication. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 05:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hydrophobia

Why is rabies also called Hydrophobia? Doesn't that mean 'fear of water'?

This explanation from the Merck Manual states the following: "The spasms can be excruciatingly painful. A slight breeze or an attempt to drink water can trigger the spasms. Thus, a person with rabies cannot drink. For this reason, the disease is sometimes called hydrophobia (fear of water)." --Arcadian 21:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, a person can develop the spasms (which can cut off breathing) upon just thinking about drinking--as a sort of conditioned reflex. What hastens this is excessive salivation and inability to swallow it. This is why rabid animals may foam at the mouth. Myron 23:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The actual mention of the word 'hydrophobia' in the article seems to be wrong. It implies that 'The production of large quantities of saliva and tears coupled with an inability to speak or swallow are typical during the later stages of the disease' is hydrophobia. Any reasons why I am wrong? Zetetic Apparatchik 18:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Increased Strength? Violent?

Three questions. Is it true that rabies gives the victim bursts of increased strength? Next, why does rabies turn the animal violent? And finally, is it known for humans to suffer from these violent outbursts as seen in other animals (for example do they bite other people)?

I had inserted a small excerpt in the beaver under Beaver Attacks. Rabies appears to embolden, thusly appears to make, the infected host to be stronger, to lunge after other animals/humans. Egberts 09:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't increase muscle mass, so it cannot make someone who is infected stronger. It will only make them more aggressive. It is a psychological impression of someone else being stronger than before when you see them be more agressive against others. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 05:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
"why does rabies turn the animal violent?" Because the virus takes over and hyperstimulates the panic/fear center of the brain, insuring that the terrified animal will bite anything it sees, including inanimate objects. Upon autopsy, rabid animals often have a bizarre collection of such objects in their stomachs which have been attacked, bitten, and swallowed. In man, rabies also induces unspeakably terrifying hallucinations, so you can imagine what the animals experience. It also collects in the saliva, which is it's transmission mode (animal bites), and causes hypersalivation. See the ecological niche going on? This info is from the pretty-much definitive 1986 medical book "Rabies: The Facts", which I HIGHLY recommend. Also from there:
"is it known for humans to suffer from these violent outbursts as seen in other animals?" Yes, absolutely. It makes people behave much like the "Rage Virus" in the movie 28 Days Later. In humans, rabies causes extreme paranoia, fear, hallucinations, and rage. It is standard practice to either sedate the patient into unconsciousness or tie the patient to the bed to prevent them from smashing things and attacking people, including biting them. See the youtube video of a little boy tied to a bed as he thrashes and screams in terror (link at bottom of rabies article). It'll give you nightmares, literally. So will the book "Rabies: The Facts". It almost made me want to shoot my dog just to be safe! TechnoFaye Kane 19:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

exceptionally aggressive

Why does Rabies cause infected animals to be exceptionally aggressive? --Abdull 10:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Presumably because of some combination of pain and confusion caused by delirium? Gzuckier 13:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
According to The Textbook of Veterinary Internal Medicine, the second stage of clinical rabies in dogs is the excitative stage. Dogs become hypersensitive to external stimuli and react by biting at anything or anyone close to them. This is known as furious rabies. Wild animals with rabies actually lose their natural inhibition of approaching humans, and may appear more friendly than normal. --Joelmills 01:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Update- there WAS one human death from raccoon rabies strain.

In Nov 2003 there was one confirmed human death in Virginia and the article is mirrored on CDC's website[1]. A second source from this year [2] states that this was the only one. I changed the sentence that said there were no cases, but I only cited the sources embedded. I don't know how to do footnotes.JeffStickney 01:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and footnoted it. --Joelmills 03:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Dormant Rabies Transmission

I wonder whether rabies can be transmitted when the it is still dormant in the infected animal without any symptons. Suppose a cat is bitten by a rabid dog and is thus infected, how soon the bite of the cat be infectious as well? Immediately? After a couple of hours? Or only after symptons begin to show? I can't find this in the article.

The answer to this is a little more clear in Dog health#Diseases and ailments. A dog or cat with rabies is not infectious until a few days before symptoms appear. It can take months for symptoms to appear after being bitten by a rabid animal. The general rule is that the further away from the brain the bite occurs, the longer it will take to show symptoms. --Joelmills 19:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Does this mean that if someone is bitten by a dog or cat, and the dog or cat does not show any symptom after one or two weeks, the person is free of rabies?
Yes, 10 days is the legal requirement for impoundment of the animal here in Illinois. --Joelmills 02:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Rabies vaccine?

How much does a rabies vaccine cost?Doesn't the government pay for it?

If you were going on holiday and were getting a vaccine so you could go safly, that costs. But I would expect if you got a bite from a animal acting strange I think it would be free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.89.173 (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Post-exposure prophylaxis

The distinction between immunoglobulin and vaccine wasn't clear to me, so I added a sentence explaining how the immunoglobulin is administered (1/2 at the site of the bite if possible and 1/2 and a distant site). I think it's also important to point out that immunoglobulin should not be administered to persons who've received pre-esposure vaccination.

I moved the mention of washing the wound to the beginning of the discussion because to emphasize the importance of this.

The mention of domestic animal vaccination was added because that is just as important if not more important at decreasing the death rate of rabies as is post-exposure prophylaxis.

Loupe 21:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Non human animals

Great article, however its rather ironic that in the Transmission by bite section, it says "non-human animals". Yes, I know we are animals, but isn't it rather ironic to say this? Bhaveer 21:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any irony in that statement 64.236.245.243 15:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I second the sentiment, all the references to non-humans in place of animals or "human hunters" is just wierd. Is there any chance this could be fixed?

I'd say it is making an important distinction, since we also talk about the virus's effects on all mammals, including humans. So we need to make it clear when you are talking about animals, including humans, and when you are talking about animals, excluding animals. 86.139.237.132 22:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Image of Man Infected

Does anybody else feel scared after looking at the image of the man infected with rabies? --Faraz Parsa 02:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC) -Reminds me of something out of 28 Days Later

Transmission other than bite

On the Australian bat lyssavirus Wiki, it says "ABLV has caused two human deaths. The first occurred in November 1996 when an animal carer was scratched [which I assume pierced the flesh] by a yellow-bellied sheathtailed bat." is this only related to the ABLV, or can all strands of Lyssavirus be transmitted though scratches? RooZ 18:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Virtually all cases of human rabies are acquired by a bite. But there are rare cases after scratches, abrasions or the licking of open wounds. Human rabies has also been documented after respiratory exposure in a cave with rabid bats in Texas, presumably from aerosolized saliva. And persons have been infected by accidentally aerosolized virus in research laboratories. Loupe 21:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
As well as organ transplants. cyclosarin 11:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Rash of Vandalism

Anyone have any idea why this article is being vandalized so frequently? no DrGaellon 21:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Can you point out the vandalism? Having read the entire article, I now wonder what is true and what is false...209.83.47.123 22:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
How long was "MONKEY!" sitting in the first line? cyclosarin 09:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC) I REPLACED THE WORD UNBEKNOWNCED CECAUSE IT IS A DUMB WORD

Rabies in the United States

Domestic animals constitute only 8% of rabies cases, but are increasing at a rapid rate.[9]

Actually, the incidence of rabies in domestic animals in the US has been fairly constant since about 1985. For example, in 2005, domestic animals accounted for 7.7% of all cases, a 9.2% decrease from the total reported in 2004. Also, the reference (9) for this statement is out of date (1996). I suggest changing to: "Domestic animals constitute approximately 8% of rabies cases"

Ref: Blanton JD, Krebs JW, Hanlon CA, Rupprecht CE. (2005) Rabies surveillance in the United States during 2005. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2006 Dec 15;229(12):1897-911. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=citation&list_uids=17173527&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

Loupe 19:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How many people die?

We only get numbers for India, how many die a year in the U.S.? I am guessing less than dozen but there are no clear answers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.1 (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

There are usually 1-2 human cases per year in the US. In 2005 there was one death (Mississippi). Loupe 18:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
India is a far more significant country due to the massive incidence of Rabies. cyclosarin 11:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Human vacination

Where is the information on human vaccination?--Gbleem 09:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggested change to the article

Having read through this article, I was a bit puzzled by the implied severity of the consequences to Pasteur's actions:

 "Had the vaccine not worked, Pasteur, who was not a doctor, would have been face a murder charge, but the boy survived."

It seemed odd to me that Pasteur would certainly face murder charges for attempting to save a boy's life. I decided to do some limited online research and have not found any other sources which reliably indicate that this was a serious possibility. This reference [3] does indicate that Pasteur had personal reservations to doing so since the vaccine had not undergone full human testing (note also that this reference says Joseph was *not* the first human to receive the vaccine, contrary to what Wikipedia says).

The one reference I found which does mention a possible criminal charge is [4], but this appears to be a book for young adults and I wonder whether it sensationalized the possible charges against Pasteur?

In any event, it seems that that sentence ought to be toned down in severity, perhaps:

Had the vaccine not worked, Pasteur could have faced murder charges for having administered a vaccine
which had not been fully tested on humans.

The fact that Pasteur "was not a doctor" does not seem to be a strong reason for Pasteur's reluctance to use the vaccine on the boy. --Marciot 01:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)



The article states "Later attempts to use the same treatment have failed, but recently (10/04/08) in Cali, Colombia, it was reported (by local newspapers) that an 11-year-old may have recovered successfully after induction of coma." Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the date 10/04/08 has yet to take place. I'm assuming either it is a typo, or the writer is psychic. The correct date would be greatly appreciated, otherwise I will probably just delete the date altogether.

I would assume that the date 10/4/08 refers to 10th of April 2008. This is the way dates are abbreviated in most of the English-speaking world except the United States where, for some unknown reason, it has become the custom to write dates with the month first rather than the day of the month. So, 10th April 2008 becomes 4/10/08. This annoying American eccentricity has been, and continues to be, the cause of great confusion. It is rather akin to their continued use of old English measurements such as miles, feet, pounds, etc., rather than changing to the metric system like the rest of the world. Even the notoriously stubborn and eccentric English have been converting to metric! Cheers, John Hill (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Or, we could all agree to use the ISO standard YYYY-MM-DD so me and my fellow swedes would also understand. It annoys me everytime I pull something out of the grocery cupboard and the expire date says 06/07/08 and I have to throw it away cause I can't figure out if it's old or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.236.30.115 (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Single notable exception

Any mammal may become infected with the rabies virus and develop symptoms, including humans.

Hyenas may become infected with rabies and spread it, but they never develop symptoms. They are immune to its effects, and make a poor vector for it.

--76.223.219.98 06:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting - but where and how did you discover this? If it can be backed with a credible reference it should go in the body of the article. Cheers, John Hill 06:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
A citation for the hyena information is: East ML, et al. Regular exposure to rabies virus and lack of symptomatic disease in Serengeti spotted hyenas. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Dec 18;98(26):15026-31. This journal may be available free. If not, I'm sure there's a pubmed reference for the abstract.Loupe 18:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"In popular culture"

So, like, is the plan to find every reference to rabies in popular culture and list it here? Seems to me there should be some limiting factor. For example, how important is it that a single, otherwise unexceptional, episode of a television show had a rabies plot? The list is pretty useless. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I've removed the entire section as running afoul of WP:TRIVIA - as far as I can tell, only the Old Yeller (and, possibly, the Cujo) references have even a hope of being integrated into the main article (and even that is doubtful, IMHO); the rest are simply "rabies was mentioned in X once". -- MarcoTolo 17:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Rabies in popular culture" section, part 2

Since I'm expecting some folks to object to the removal of this section, I'm annotating the list to justify my reasoning.

  • Cujo, a Stephen King novel (and film) about a mother and son being terrorized by a rabid dog.
  • Old Yeller, a novel and film that involves a frontier dog becoming infected by a rabid wolf.
These two are possibly relevant in a reconstituted "Cultural depictions of rabies" section.
  • Rage, a 1966 film in which an alcoholic doctor (Glenn Ford) suffers a rabies infection in a Mexican village and must race across the desert, and against time, for the needed antidote that will save his life.
Could be mentioned as an example of rabies representations in the movies (though that would make more sense if we had an article on it).

* Scrubs Season 5 Episode 20 (My Lunch) about 3 transplant patients who receive organs from a donor believed to have died of a cocaine overdose and subsequently found to have rabies, in a story reminiscent of the real-life Texarkana donor described above.

A patient on a TV show has rabies. "Giant who cares?" (progeram reference intentional)
  • House Season 1 Episode 10 (Histories) about a homeless woman suffering from rabies.
See previous.

* ER Season 13 Episode 8 (Reason to Believe) about a homeless kid, who after an encounter with a bat suffers from a rabies infection.

See previous.

* Diff'rent Strokes, in one episode, Arnold was bitten by a dog, and he, Willis, Mr. Drummond and Kimberly are concerned the dog may have had rabies, which would put Arnold at a risk of possible death, or at least a series of shots...in the stomach.

Again, see previous.

* Rant, a novel by Chuck Palahniuk, in which the main character, Buster "Rant" Casey, carries a form of rabies that begins a massive epidemic.

As above, but in novel form.

* Smonk, a novel by Tom Franklin, about a turn of the century town in the deep South infected with rabies and acting in a cult-like manner revering the rabies.

As above.

* Bonanza, a friend of the Cartwright's is bitten by a rabid wolf and spends most of her last days at the Ponderosa.* Seinfeld, in one episode Elaine is bitten on the leg by a dog. She later fears that she has contracted rabies. Her fear leads her to suffer from hypochondrical symptoms such as irritability, inability to swallow, and foaming at the mouth.

Elaine thinks she has rabies. Everyone laughs. And?

* Lake of Fire, a song by the Meat Puppets and covered by Nirvana, talks of "a lady who came from Duluth" who was "bitten by a dog with a rabid tooth". She "went to her grave just a little too soon, flew and lay down on the yellow moon."

Random passing reference to rabies in a song.

* To Kill a Mockingbird, a book written by author Harper Lee in 1960, contains a passage in which a rabid dog is seen near the home of the protagonist, Scout Finch. Her father, Atticus, shoots and kills the infected dog.

Classic, award-winning novel - but minor plot point.

* The novel Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston features an important incident where a character contracts rabies from a dog.

Another classic of American literature - but, again, not the primary theme of the book.

* Rabies, an album by Skinny Puppy.

Again, a minor reference to the disease.
Elaine Harold thinks she has rabies. Everyone laughs. And?
  • The Summer Garden by Paullina Simons. Interspersed throughout the novel is a sidestory, in which, a young girl contracts rabies from sleeping in a cave heavily infected with bat saliva-particles in the air.
It's a side-story.

-- MarcoTolo 17:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Useful source

PMID 12491203 seems to be a useful source for any clinical updates. JFW | T@lk 09:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please check if PMID 12491203 is the intented article with a publication date - 2003- if yes, this article cannot be a clinical update as it was written before the induced coma treatment survivor case. --Znuwin 15:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of date map?

The world map in the 'Prevalence' section shows East Germany and West Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob31415 (talkcontribs) 18:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, several rabies-free countries are not marked as such in the map. 130.234.198.85 (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

could i have rabies?

i just got bitten by my kitten. He is an outdoor cat and not vaccinated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.246.100 (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you were paying attention while reading the article, it would say that once we would actually know for sure that you have rabies, that there's nothing we could do for you. Please call a medical health line, or talk to a nurse/doctor. They will probably recommend a PEP shot regardless of if the kitten has rabies or not. You could also take your kitten in and have it tested for rabies, which would tell you if you need a PEP shot yourself, or if it could be safely ignored. As a general rule though, I (I am not a nurse/doctor) would say, since the only way to treat rabies is to have the vaccine beat it to the brain, then if there is any doubt that you might have rabies, get a PEP shot. It's probably better to be safe, than dead. --Puellanivis 15:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't going to respond to this originally because I don't think we should be giving medical advice. However, the above comment is a little extreme and would really only be necessary in the event of being bitten by a stray or wild animal. Laws regarding bite wounds vary depending on your location and the prevalence of rabies there, and at the very least the kitten should be examined by a vet now and in ten days (testing the kitten would result in its death). Consult with a doctor and do what they tell you. --Joelmills 15:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You got bitten by your kitten Oh boo hoo you should see my arms get lassarated 24/7 because my kitten wants milk. Also last time I checked I wasn't dying of rabies and neither was my cat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.89.173 (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

The Differential Diagnosis section is ripped almost word for word from Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine. 121.209.21.193 06:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

image:Rabies virus longitudinal.svg

Can someone please check this SVGified version of the JPG currently in use for mistakes? I am no expert in virology and thus might have interpreted the image wrong. Especially that ribonucleoprotein-string is pretty weird in the JPG. Furthermore I don't know whether there are any color- or shape-conventions for virus-schematics I broke. I will do the other crossection soon, if this one is okay. By the way, should I rather use numbers instead of text for the labels, so that Wikipedians of other languages do not need to make alternate versions of the image? Thanks in advance, 87.123.219.150 (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ecological effect

Missing in this article is description of any ecological impact of rabies. An unreliable source just told me that a recent racoon rabies epizootic in northeast Pennsylvania has decimated the racoon population resulting in marked increase in wild turkeys (whose eggs are eaten by racoons). Was there actually an upsurge in racoon infection and did this significantly affect the population in a manner at all comparable to the impact of canine distemper? Myron 10:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering whether there should be a section outlining methods of rabies control. India and the subcontinent is currently fighting a battle against canine rabies and human death. Various methods of control are being tested perhaps a summary might be indicated. benjicharlton (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Some comments

1) In the clinical manifestations part there is no mention about the classic furious (80%) and paralytic (20%) rabies categories. Every major ID textbook (mandell, gorbach, cohen etc) approaches the disease by using this method

2) Miss Giese isn't the sole survivor without severe neurologic sequelae- in fact 2 years later she still had dysarthria and ataxia (source: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/357/9/945.pdf). The unique survivor without long term disability is described in this article: Hattwick MA, Weis TT, Stechschulte CJ, Baer GM, Gregg MB. Recovery from rabies. A case report. Ann Intern Med 1972;76: 931--42. The unique fact about her case is the lack of vaccination.

3) It should be clearly stated that in the Milwaukee protocol case, the virus was never isolated from her body, the diagnosis was made by the patient's history and antibodies in CSF. This is unique among the 6 survivors, as in all other 5 the virus was identified via biopsies. This fact tones down the "miracle treatment" aura of this article (maybe it was a weaker strain, or her immune system was surprisingly effective)

4) Parts of this article are copy/pasted from other sources, word for word (like harrison, the cdc article about the Giese case, even the Wisconsin medical college page about this particular case, as it's one of the first to come up after googling for "milwaukee protocol"... poor research in my opinion)

these were my 2 cents 85.73.221.233 (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The spatial and temporal distribution of opossum rabies

The title and content of this section is confusing. How does an outbreak of rabies among opossums in Virginia, which resulted from previous outbreaks across the united states, relate to the parent section or to the rest of the article which discusses rabies as a whole?

Furthermore how does it warrant the name "The spatial and temporal distribution of opossum rabies"? Usually the words "spatial" (nature of space) and "temporal" (nature of time) are used within the context of theoretical physics, not epidemiology (the closest topic this section relates to).

I believe this sub-section should either: be merged into the parent section, cut out into its own section discussing the epidemiology of rabies, or omitted. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Spatial distribution" and "temporal distribution" are commonly used terms -- try Google-searching for them (as phrases). In fact, "spatial and temporal distribution", as a phrase, gets 342,000 Google hits. However, you're right that the opossum section is poorly written -- I think you should go ahead and rewrite it if you feel like it. Looie496 (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
320,000 is not a good number of hits and in the context of the "space and time" it is actually extremely small (the exact phrase received 5.5 million hits). It is not a "commonly used term", and in the context of the article it would a stretch to imagine that the distribution of cases of rabies among opossums would have an effect on the nature of space and time. I think it would be best to merge it into the parent section, and in a copy-edit sweep after a strong outline is established we could figure out how to use it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the number of ghits, "spatial distribution" and "temporal distribution" are not limited to the field of physics: they are both common concepts in epidemiology. For example, a quick search for "spatial AND temporal AND distribution AND rabies" on PubMed turns up 11 articles - most of them since 2003 - including this one: Guerra MA, Curns AT, Rupprecht CE, Hanlon CA, Krebs JW, Childs JE (2003). "Skunk and raccoon rabies in the eastern United States: temporal and spatial analysis". Emerging infectious diseases. 9 (9): 1143–50. PMID 14519253.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) -- MarcoTolo (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I still find it unusual for the title of the section to be so lengthy and filled with jargon, and yet to begin by stating the cases of infected opossums are spillover cases. Ultimately I'd like to here what you think should happen to this section. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that, as a section title, it is both too long and uninformative. I've been bold and re-sectioned the various vectors under a single heading. While all the subsections still need significant work, I think it flows a bit better that way. Thoughts? -- MarcoTolo (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Article restructuring

I approve, though classifying the animals as vectors does not seem entirely accurate. Perhaps a more fitting title would be "Rabies and animals", however I think we need to establish a criteria for what these sections are to be about before we proceed. The subsection "Bats" primarily discusses the history of rabies and bats, the subsection "Skunks" back-tracts to prevention and treatment before discussing a campaign for the approval of a vaccine, in "Opossums" it discusses epidemiology, in "Dogs" it discusses epidemiology and then symptoms, and finally in "Wolves" it discusses some history and then some behavioral information. Ultimately what I am saying is that this article has little cohesion, the sections and subsections don't make sense when read together. My thoughts are to cut section "Rabies vectors" into its own article and breifly discuss it in a summary section (possibly "Rabies in animals" or shorter "Animals") which could be under epidemiology. As a draft I'm proposing to establish an outline, possibly:
  • Virology
    • Structure
    • (Genome)
    • (Life cycle)
    • (Viral reservoirs)
  • Prevention
    • Pre-exposure prophylaxis
    • Post-exposure prophylaxis
  • Symptoms
  • Treatment
    • Induced coma
  • Epidemiology
    • Vectors (previously Transmission)
    • Prevalence
    • Rabies and animals
    • Recent cases
  • Cultural impact
  • Standard appendices...
I can begin the migration, though I'd like to see what you guys think. As a side note, under WP:LAYOUT Further reading isn't a subsection of References, References are generally reserved for external sources that verify the article and not recommended reading. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been bold and took the first step towards restructuring the article. There is still work to be done, and I'll get to it as time permits. Currently two articles have been splintered: Rabies and animals and Prevalence of rabies, both require work to create summaries, relevant, and concise material — which will the next phase. No content has been lost in this transition, however many sections have migrated (to the two splintered articles), renamed to provide accessibility, or rearranged. Nevertheless, there is some inconsistencies that need to be assessed such as standardizing and condensing the prose, explaining jargon, and eliminating padding.
One of the results of this transition is to increase emphasis on the epidemiology and virology. "Pet passports", "Dogs", "Bats", and so forth contain significant amounts of information discussing the political aspects, historical references, and current events. Rabies is a virus, and to ensure that its contents remain relevant, these sections have been summarized and moved. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Short footnotes

I'm switching the referencing style to short footnotes because this makes citing a lengthy work easier. The primary difference is simply giving the option to place the full citation at the bottom in the "Bibliography" section and being able to cite the exact page number or a quotation in the inline while keeping it concise. No conversion is necessary, it only opens the option to allow our references to be easier to verify. In addition, I'm also going by Looie496's innovation of adding a link to the inline to the full citations thus further simplifying verification. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Cultural impact

Rabies have been the source to cultural references for its violent symptoms. Because of this, it should receive some acknowledgment for the traditions, beliefs, and impact on society it has fostered. However in a previous consensus: Talk:Rabies/Archive 1#"In popular culture" "Popular culture" was removed on the grounds of WP:TRIVIA, however I believe we can reintroduce it on basis that for it to be "notable" it: (1) must have an article of its own, (2) is the main or significant theme of the the work, and (3) if the list exceeds 15 entries, the section will be splintered into its own article where it may expand further following the previous guidelines. I've copied and paste the cultural references MarcoTolo cited as the main theme from Talk:Rabies/Archive 1#"Rabies in popular culture" section, part 2 to start off the sub-section. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Prevalence

Why does the section on rabies in the United States take up the bulk of the section when they have only a handful of new infections each year and places such as India have tens of thousands?

Also there seem to be inconsistencies in the "rabies-free zone" descriptions, I have read that Australia is considered rabies-free in spite of ABLV, while it states that the UK is not rabies free because of another lyssavirus. cyclosarin (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We could add the definition of Rabies Free as per OIE

Rabies free country
A country may be considered free from rabies when:
  • the disease is notifiable;
  • an effective system of disease surveillance is in operation;
  • all regulatory measures for the prevention and control of rabies have been implemented including effective importation procedures;
  • no case of indigenously acquired rabies infection has been confirmed in man or any animal species during the past 2 years; however, this status would not be affected by the isolation of a European Bat Lyssavirus (EBL1 or EBL2);
  • no imported case in carnivores has been confirmed outside a quarantine station for the past 6 months.

Link: http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_2.2.5.htm#rubrique_rage Under this definition the UK is considered Rabies Free as is Australia. While Rabies is a member of the Lyssavirus's EBLV adn ABLV are not the same as rabies. The severity of spread is nothing like rabies. benjicharlton (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The Australian Government considers the following areas Rabies free (ie Category 1,2 or 3)

Rabies Free Countries and Territories
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3a&b Other Rabies Free
  • New Zealand
  • Bahrain
  • Barbados
  • Cyprus
  • Falkland Islands
  • Fiji
  • French Polynesia (includes Tahiti, Society Islands, Marquesas Islands, Austral Islands, Tuamotu Islands, Gambier Islands)
  • Guam
  • Hawaii
  • Iceland
  • the Republic of Ireland
  • Japan
  • Malta
  • Mauritius
  • New Caledonia
  • Norway
  • Singapore
  • Sweden
  • Taiwan
  • the United Kingdom
  • Vanuatu
  • American Samoa
  • Federated States of Micronesia
  • Kiribati
  • Papua New Guinea
  • Solomon Islands
  • Wallis and Futuna
  • Western Samoa
  • Christmas Island
  • Cook Islands
  • Nauru
  • Niue
  • Palau
  • Kingdom of Tonga
  • Tuvalu
  • Cocos (Keeling) Islands
  • Norfolk Island

Given the Australian Governments extremely tight policies regarding quarantine - I believe this might be a reliable source of Rabies Free Countries. benjicharlton (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the map of Rabies-free countries and its caption do not seem to match: Finland and Hawaii are mentioned in the caption but are not highlighted on the map, and Germany and Austria (and Cyprus, I think) are highlighted on the map but are not mentioned in the caption. Neither seems to match the Australian government's list above (for example New Zealand is not on the map and many are not in the caption). Does anybody know what the map and caption are based on? Maybe somebody who knows how could change the map to match the list above? 81.98.32.49 (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Epidemic vs. endemic

Since this has caused some confusion in the article, I'll address it here.

  • An epidemic is a disease (usually infectious) which appears in a given human population at an elevated rate, i.e. at a higher rate that historically seen. "Epidemic" is a noun, though it can be used as an adjective (an attributive noun). (NB: A pandemic is a widespread epidemic.)
  • Endemic (an adjective) means "native to a given area": endemic infections are those which are continuously present at low levels in an area.

-- MarcoTolo (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that (didn't catch the last part). However, I don't think Epidemic fits the situation either. The definition I used (Pinceton's WordWeb) "A widespread outbreak of an infectious disease; many people are infected at the same time". The infection is not widespread, and to avoid any misconception and WP:SYNTH we can just leaved it as "involving". ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

3 or 6 survivors?

There seems to be disagreement, and contradiction on the reference page cited very first. The directly cited article says that there were only three survivors of symptomatic rabies, and then the later case study linked to from that page says explicitly that there were five before Jeanne, and that would make six survivors. Do we have another reference to resolve this contradiction?


There has been a recent case of successful treatment in Brazil. The doctors followed the "Milwaukee's protocol" to successfully treat, and cure, a girl who was bitten by a bat.

http://www.infectologia.org.br/default.asp?site_Acao=mostraPagina&paginaId=134&mNoti_Acao=mostraNoticia&NoticiaId=2991

Is this nick black (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Differential diagnosis

In the article Rabies, is the addition of "differential diagnosis" necessary to the title? I am new to this field, and would like your opinion on that. One the key campaigns in Rabies was in simplifying the titles so that readers new to the field would not be overwhelmed (we had all short of unusual names, such as "The spatial and temporal distribution of opossum rabies", you can see the older version here [5]). ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In rabies, I suppose "differential diagnosis" is not strictly necessary. I suppose you can delete that. Do you want to transfer this conversation to that talk page if you do? --Gak (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be helpful since it would reduce the number of modifiers. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible Misinformation about Post-Exposure Prophylaxis

I have been doing some research about rabies on the internet, from official and non-official sites. There seems to be some contradicting information, which may lead to people being misinformed about this disease. Most sites say that incubation time lasts about 1 to 3 months before symtpoms start appearing, that once the virus enters the CNS and symptoms being to appear it is too late to begin treatment. A few sites mention specifically, that it is too late to being treatment once the virus infects a neuron, which would be found in the PNS, and long before the virus makes its way to the CNS. I don't know if this is true, and I would like an expert to confirm or refute this. Is the body's immune system capable of accessing and destroying the rabies virus if has incubated for a significant amount of time (ie. 2 weeks) and infected a neuron located in the PNS, but before it has made its way to the CNS via axonal transport?

Some sites claim that since incubation time lasts so long, that people have time (such as 1 month) to receive PEP treatment. If it is true that the immune system does not have access to the virus once in the PNS (still technically in its incubation stage without symptoms appearing for another couple of weeks) the misinformation on the internet would lead people too seek out treatment much to late for it to be effective.

Again, I would appreciate an expert responding to this. Thank you in advance, Perwisky (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


As you indicated, once the virus enters the peripheral nerve, it is thought to be relatively resistant to immune-mediated deactivation. The precise time at which this happens in an individual patient is difficult or impossible to know, and the extent of delay that renders postexposure prophylaxis ineffective is not known. So post-exposure prophylaxis should be instituted whenever exposure is suspected, regardless of the interval between exposure and treatment. Loupe (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I am tired of the misinformation about rabies treatment that persists on the internet. Most articles on rabies, including this one at the present moment, may lead people potentially infected with the disease to feel safe in delaying PEP. An example of this is the layman's explanation that a bite on the foot takes the virus longer to travel to the brain than a bite on the shoulder or neck. And therefore there is a larger window of time when treatment is still possible. This if false because while the virus is traveling from the foot towards the brain, it is already present inside neural tissue and therefore sequestered from the immune system. Other examples are statements that say that the virus becomes untreatable with the onset of symptoms, but without further explanation. The reality is that the disease becomes untreatable long before the onset of symptoms, while it is still in the incubation stage. I myself have gotten PEP due to possible rabies exposure before, only after somewhat delaying treatment because I felt safe that the option of treatment was always there as long as symptoms didn't show. I only realized after receiving my first PEP shot, when doing further research, that my choice to delay PEP may have rendered the treatment futile as the virus could have spread to a neuron. I'm sure many people have been in the same situation: that it took them some time to convince them of the risk before opting to receive treatment. Therefore, I am going to take the initiative and modify the last part of the post-exposure prophylaxis section. Perwisky (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for your condition, however I would ask you to provide some good faith. Nevertheless, you appeared to be the best qualified in writing this section; if you have a draft or otherwise, please feel free to implement it or post it here in the discussion if you want us to look over it before it's entered into the article. Remember to please provide us with at least one reliable source; if you're new to the wiki-syntax, we can provide that for you. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I have already added the part. It is the second paragraph of the Post-Exposure Prophylaxis section. I believe the most important citation needed is for the virus being sequestered from the immune system and I have a good reference for it. I will include the citation in a week or so when I have more time. In the meantime, could you tell me how to include the citation (as a document rather than a link to a website)? It is a pdf file which is avaiable online. [6] Perwisky (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Copy and paste the template from {{citeweb}} and fill out as many fields as you can. Then embed the referece between a pair of <ref>{{citeweb...</ref> tags which would add it the footnotes. Just ask if you need help. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that there is a mistake in the first sentence -- it says "consists of over 28 days." Consists of what over 28 days? 206.194.127.112 (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's removed now. If all the good faith anonymous users would register it would be no challenge to contest that this article should be semi-protected under WP:ROUGH. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

New Case

Michael Reed is presently at Missouri University Hospital (Columbia, Missouri) in an induced coma asw of November 26, 2008. He was diagnosed with rabies after being bitten on the ear by a bat some weeks ago. I was informed by his cousin. Hopefully someone will follow his case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.173.6 (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

copyedit

I did a little copy-editing; however, more is required. Also, what is the “preview <references />” box at the bottom? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the preview references; whoever added it didn't document it very well. The previous subsection "Cultural impact" is not a subsection of Epidemiology: they are two entirely different subjects; therefore I restored it to the previous stable version under the section History, which I think would fit it well once we can finish expanding it (ref and link provided).

In addition to that I've also restored, or rather divided, the "Popular culture" section. There are some entries that should be removed, however please comment out rather than an outright delete; since this helps track the entries so that they are not continually restored and deleted. It also should be defined as its own section since Cultural impact and Popular culture references (perhaps: Cultural references would be a more fitting name) are quite divergent in topical focus. Under WP:TRIVIA this section is subject to merge or deletion, however I am defending it for two purposes: the first is it acknowledges their existence, popular culture does have an effect on the reader's interest and an acknowledgment provides for grounds for them to pursue it; it also allows them to distinguish the fictional world and the non-fictional; the second is an outlet, Wikipedia is fairly well known in tracking popular culture items, and this section may provide for those who may be interested to do so.

I've restored outline oriented references under WP:MOS stability clause. I don't hold either method over the other, however I do defend that they keep to what is established. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Resectioning

I am proposing to move the subsection "Post-exposure prophylaxis" into the "Treatment" section, and rename "Pre-exposure prophylaxis" into "Vaccination".

  1. By definition "Pre-exposure prophylaxis" is defined as pre-exposure prevention of the disease from which the subsection mainly deals with vaccination. In order to simplify the section into a more intuitive and recognizable name, the title should be renamed to "Vaccination". In order to prevent loose of information, the prose "Pre-exposure prophylaxis" will be explained.
  2. The section "Prevention" most likely deals with preventing the infection or disease from occurring, from which the scope of the topic should be expanded to countermeasures against is spread in addition to vaccination.
  3. "Pre-exposure prophylaxis" or "after exposure prevention of the disease", deals with treating the virus after exposure. From my understanding there is no definitive treatment of Rabies, only a means to halt is progression. However, and in my view, halting its progression is essentially a treatment.

I've made the bold edit. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I made a few changes to the article outline than as stated above. This is perhaps an experiment in attempting to better understand how to build this article in the most relevant and intuitive way possible. This would be the second major resectionining of the article. The original version can be found here [7], following the first resectioning here [8], and the most recent one can be found as it is [9].

The rationale behind this outline is the article is built on beginning with the most relevant topic: Rabies. Rabies is a virus, and therefore the study of the virus "Virology" becomes the most relevant topic to the topic as a whole. Moving from which is "Epidemiology", which discusses how the viruses spreads, it's prevalence, and potentially method of controlling it. This article does not enter into controlling the virus's spread as it should, which is an omitted significant point. Following which which the article becomes significantly more focused on humanity, where the sections "Symptoms" through "Treatments" discuss topics relevant to treating and preventing the virus; it may be possible at some point in time to organize the current sections into its own section group (similar to Virology and Epidemiology) for consistency. Following which is "History", still in development this section will discuss its impact on humanity.

In context, I believe this is a movement away from being a resource founded entirely on the interest of the writers to being more focus on the topic as a whole; and this is also perhaps an attempt in reducing systematic bias. If you'd like to comment, I'd like to understand what you think. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Rabies in cats

Recent attack made by a cat on a human resulted in the cat being strangled to death. Just a point of interest: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/i-was-bleeding-all-over/2007/06/21/1182019235640.html Poor cat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.204.64.79 (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Transplantation

One issue that has arised in this article is that its content can be extremely specific in nature—to the point where it disproportionately discusses only one mode of transmission or, occasionally, even specific cases. This makes it a challenge for the reader to see the topic as a whole. I am not opposed to discussing specific incidences, and perhaps we can reintroduce the "Recent cases" section for this end, but it's getting to the point where it detracts from the article. So far the method of correcting this has been splintering those sections into articles and therefore preventing the specific cases from bogging down the reader. I am not entirely supportive of this approach, however it's the only one available that I know of. Therefore I've splintered out "Transplantation" along with its accompanying subsubsection into the new article Rabies transmission. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't particularly disagree with splitting out the detailed transmission material, as it makes keeping the main article encyclopedic much easier. We do have to watch for simply splitting out material of inappropriate depth, tone, etc, rather than trying to rewrite it to incorporate it properly. I think it would be interesting to have a little more summary material on human–human transmission via transplantation in the main article, but I don't have time to work on it now. I've restored a single example reference for transplantation, which otherwise looked as though it were covered by the fact tag I added earlier. If anyone has a reference to hand for direct human–human transmission that would be useful. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposing delisting as Good article

Moving discussion to GA review subpage; please continue discussion in the following section. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Rabies/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I was surprised to find this article was listed as a Good article. In its present state, I believe it fails to meet the criteria, and would therefore propose delisting until a stable version emerges, which provides a proper summary of all the material that has now been hived off into all the various subpages. I will notify the relevant wikiprojects. Please comment here. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't seem to find a GAC assessment. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Neither can I, still looking. Near as I can tell, GA template first use is with this edit, almost three years ago. Basie (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't find a review in the talk history either, but assuming that edit was accurate the version that was reviewed was probably c. 5 February 2006, eg: [10], which appears to be almost completely unreferenced, and probably wouldn't meet the current criteria either. I'll put a note on Cacophony's talk page, in case s/he remembers reviewing it. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's the snap shot of the article at the time of the GA assessment [11] and the talk page likewise [12]. To my understanding, the criteria did not exist until the March of 2006,[13] a month after this article was promoted, and it complete criteria didn't really exist until May [14]. My hypothesis that the promotion was at the discretion of the user at that point, and that the quality at the time was comparatively good. So in short, I think B would the rating we're looking at, however we could also ask for a reassessment. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
B doesn't sound too far off, but the GA delisting is an even easier call given the apparent lack of the kind of assessment that is required these days. Kingdon (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
If everyone agrees on delisting, after giving people adequate time to respond, then I don't think we need to ask for a reassessment, we can just do it ourselves. I'm not sure I'd give the current article more than C class. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Delist. This article is B class. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delist per above discussion. Basie (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. I believe the current article fails to meet GA criteria 1a, 2a, 3a, 3b & 5, and it is also peppered with various clean-up tags. I would rate it C class. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per above, I was being conservative with giving it a B, but C seems to better reflect the views here. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist (just in case I wasn't explicit enough above). Kingdon (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Spinoffs

The following articles have been spun off of Rabies:

  1. Rabies and animals
  2. Prevalence of rabies
  3. Rabies transmission
  4. Rabies vaccine
  5. Rabies virus

The first three was done because the section grew to the point where the large amounts of information began to detract the main point of the article, the fourth was done (to my understanding) because it could easily be divided into a topic of its own, and the fifth likewise. As Espresso Addict and myself have expressed, I think we need to question the sustainability of this practice, especially the last one. In short, the the Virology section was not particularly lengthy and I don't feel that it is ready to be discussed in its own article. What do you guys think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I was a little perturbed at the virology section being spun off. I think the whole article structure (including all the subpages) could use some focused discussion, once the GA review is out of the way, rather than people hacking the material this way and that. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, if it stays separate I would think there should be a summary in the Rabies article (per WP:SUMMARY). Kingdon (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Not necessarily, we've had a discussion some time ago in WP:VIRUS about distinguishing the disease from the disease causing agent; the two topics may be inherently divergent (one being focused on the its effects on humans and the other being focussed on the disease causing agent itself). So all that's really needed may be just a see also. This makes duplications and "ranking" less of an issue. Nevertheless, you have a point, and this will be something we'll have to think about. I agree with Espresso Addict that we need to understand what we're trying to get across, specifically when I first layout-ed the article, there were some areas were the focus dissolve into listing essentially what the author knew, and I may have simply split-ed it for the reason that it was poorly written. The best example of this would probably be in Rabies and animals. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Tasmania wat

Shouldn't this be rabies free on the map, seeing as it's part of Australia? 220.253.139.112 (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The information seems to be drawn from Prevalence_of_rabies#Rabies-free_jurisdictions. You're right, Tasmania should be shaded green, as should New Zealand.
Just as well New Zealand doesn't have rabies. We have a hard enough time with our hobbit infestation. Cheers, Basie (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC).
I updated the original SVG image, though I think the information I used to update it may have been a bit dubious (see File_talk:Rabies_Free_Countries.svg). I suggest linking to http://gamapserver.who.int/mapLibrary/Files/Maps/Global_Rabies_ITH2009.png which was current as of late 2008, and is far more comprehensive. It makes more sense to talk in terms of degree of risk rather than "rabies-free" anyway. Cheers, Basie (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

World map is wrong?

The highlighted sections on the world map do not relate to the text in the article or the other article in EN: Prevalence_of_rabies. Specifically central Europe (is that Germany and Austria?). Moozaad (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Also see the countries list above in talk under 'prevalence' Moozaad (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Rabies Free Countries.svg

Yep, the version you're looking at there is actually my attempt at a revision because there were countries missing from the list I was presented with. However, per File_talk:Rabies_Free_Countries.svg, I mention http://gamapserver.who.int/mapLibrary/Files/Maps/Global_Rabies_ITH2009.png from World Health Organisation which seems to me to be a much more appropriate way of presenting the data, and more up to date besides. Of course, it's copyright. Perhaps the current image should be removed altogether until a more accurate representation can be found (or created)? Cheers, Basie (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I suppose it is down to an interpretation from either the human perspective (WHO) or the animal perspective (OIE) - which is where the major differences in the map exist. I think in this case, we are talking about the disease in general, and thus nature, not in the context of human contact, so the OIE data should take precedence.
It would be best to match the map to the text. If the text changes then update the map.
I did look at updating the image using inkscape but found no obvious way to upload the new version on the files page, so it's perhaps best left to others :) Moozaad (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is deleted Recent cases section?

I was one of human who have made many for this section and I think that is stupid just to delete someone else`s work.If this section makes too long Rabies article you could just move this section on one independent article but not to delete it. People must have respect of someone else`s work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.169.4 (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Recent cases" section was merged into "Transmissions" (it discussed mainly transmission by organ transplants), which then exported to Rabies transmission (see WP:SS, got too long). Here's a snap shot of before it was removed [15], if you want something restored, just post it and we'll see what we can do. Remember to check Rabies transmission to be sure that it's not there. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
If you are talking about Lisa McMurray, there was another discussion about her article. It was deleted because it was cited as non-notable (WP:N): Wikipedia is not a collection of new sources, and a case in Ireland (from which there has been none for some time) does not warrant that it may be significant to be included in an article about the general nature of a virus. If this topic is significant in Irish history then please add it there, otherwise Wikinews provides an outlet for such information. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I Am Legend

1. someone creates a miracle virus that cures cancer

2. virus mutates, shows rabies symptoms

3. almost common zombie behavior

add it to the list in article ? - Gunnar Guðvarðarson (My Talk) 09:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No. In the preface they stated that it was measles, the symptoms do not match, and the section is large enough anyway. ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Verification for rodents seldom affected

The first paragraph in the Transmission section says verification is needed for the claim that rodents are seldom affected. I don't seem to have permission to edit this, but I found the info at the US CDC. It's in the "Other Wild Animals" section of this page: http://www.cdc.gov/RABIES/exposure/types.html Ldkronos (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You will be granted permission (autoconfirmed) in two days. Thanks for the source, it's cited now with a trickle down to the main article Rabies transmission. In the mean time you can start a sandbox on your userpage, and if you see anymore changes that you would like, you can prepare them there. If you need help with Wikicode, just ask. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Cultural References

A relevant addition to the C.R. section would be, A Cry in the Wilderness; a 1974 TV Movie starring George Kennedy, who portrays a man bitten by a rabid skunk who then chains himself to a post in the barn of their remote farm in order to keep himself from infecting/attacking his family.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071374/

72.82.172.213 (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Post Bite Treatment

Under treatments for Post-exposure prophylaxis it reads & links to immunoglobulin. This is incorrect, it should read Human Rabies Immune Globulin (HRIG). Unfortunately for me I was bitten in Bali where HRIG isn't currently available. Based on the info on the site I called a Malaysian international hospital & asked if they had immunoglobulin which they did. I then flew to Kuala Lumpur to find that they did have immunoglobulin but not HRIG. I've since managed to get the correct jab in Hong Kong but if you could alter the site it might help someone not make the same mistake. Also, is it possible to show the various names of HRIG as I asked for one type in Hong Kong & almost didn't fly there as I was told they didn't have it. When I tried a different name they confirmed they had it, the point being that the pharmacy at the biggest Hong Kong hospital didn't make the leap of reasoning to see if there was the same drug under a different name

If you could include the drug names I have found the following: BayRab Hyperab Imogam Rabies-HT Imogam HRIG RIG

http://www.healthopedia.com/drugs/detailed/rabies-immune-globulin/

For additional information & veracity of my request please consult the following websites: ACIP: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr57e507a1.htm WHO: http://www.who.int/rabies/vaccines/en/index.html

Kind regards

219.76.247.211 (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Stuart Hellier stuart.omengineering@gmail.com

Those are pretty good sources, I'll have to go through some some day. Immunoglobin has been changed to "Human Rabies Immunoglobin". To my understanding HRIG is just a specific type of immunoglobin. ChyranandChloe (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that update Kind regards 202.58.203.98 (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Stuart Hellier

Left 4 Dead

In the article,it says that the virus in L4D is caused by a mutated strain of rabies.In fact,the game NEVER actually says what caused it.Valve deliberately kept that part vague because they wanted the player to think of his/her own theories how the infection started."Rabies" is just one theory.--99.52.197.62 (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Valve have already stated the infection was created by mutaded rabies. Even many of the game's sound files have the word "rabies" (and many others with "germ" and "bacteria") in them. I'll post sources when I have access to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.248.115 (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I have some sources now. One is gamespy, the other is the games actual files. Here they are.

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/turtle-rock-project/787896p1.html http://i542.photobucket.com/albums/gg410/Mr_Someguy/Rabies.jpg?t=1235778966

With that said and done, I am going to re-add Left 4 Dead back into the Cultural References section. If you have any further problems then talk to me and we'll sort it out. Mr. Someguy (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed a rabies strain referenced in that game. Thanks for adding the reference, Mr. Someguy. I agree it is noteworthy enough to include a single sentence like the other items. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 02:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Milwaukee Protocol

The last couple of paragraphs reference something called the Milwaukee protocol in a way that expects the reader to know what such a thing is. There is no explanation of what the Milwaukee protocol is and further there is no wikipedia link to it. Either a brief description (on the order of a sentence, parenthetical remark, or clause) should be included, a new link created, or it should be eliminated altogether.76.188.182.62 (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Can the Virginia Opossum transmit rabies?

The Virginia Opossum is a Marsupial, but still it is a Mammal, so can it become infected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.89.201 (talk) 18:51, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Rabies has been isolated in Didelphus virginiana (the Virginia opossum). However it is uncommmon due to its slow metabolism and relatively low body temperature.--Bajutsu (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Misanthrope

I can't seem to get ANYTHING done on this TERRIBLE website. There is either a LOOP of information or links that lead NO WHERE; the editing is BLOCKED and thusly can't be done; OR there just is no information/links/button(s) for what needs to be accomplished!!! THIS IS ABSURD!!! IN ANY CASE - I want SOMEONE to change the Rabies page, the main article is WRONG. It says it's USUALY fatal if untreated, THIS IS INCORRECT. RABIES IS ALWAYS 100% OF THE TIME FATAL IF UNTREATED. Having it listed the way it is makes people think that you have a CHANCE of dying if you get rabies and don't treat it, when in ACTUALITY if you get rabies and it isn't treated YOU WILL BE DEAD IN A MATTER OF A WEEK OR 2, WITHOUT FAIL. Not to mention, 90% of the time you will be UN-ABLE to tell if you've even gotten Rabies which is what makes it one of the worst diseases in the world; and the basis for the Zombie disease used in horror movies/books. Would SOMEONE with SOME SORT OF ACTUAL POWER PLEASE CHANGE THIS!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiserableMisanthrope (talkcontribs) 19:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is semi-protected, from which new users or unregistered users are block from editing this article. Sever logs tell me you registered on 12 March 2009, on 16 March 2009 you will be "autoconfirmed" and thus granted permission to edit this article. If you wish to unprotect this article, which is a prime target for vandalism, you can do so at WP:RPP. So far I've made some amends, we don't need the modifier "usually", just "fatal" is enough. Your second assertion seems ambiguous, dead in a matter of weeks from infection or from the onset of symptoms? It generally takes several months until symptoms begin to emerge, and several days after which. I'm applying WP:V on your third assertion—I'd like to know where that figure, "90%", came from. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't really care to bite my nails over site protocols, but since the page is locked, I can't fix this small error: Chuck Palahniuk's "Rant" is listed twice in the Cultural References section. One of you privileged editors should probably fix that. Personally, I'd recommend using the second instance rather than the first, as it is closer to describing the context of rabies in the novel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.198.226 (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ol yeller was bitten by a rabid grey wolf NOT a hog

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassoxwistle (talkcontribs) 20:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right - I've fixed it (along with some other minor errors in this section!) Nelliejellynoonaa (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Detection & Questions about Incident

Is there a way to tell if a cat has rabies, so that I can not be afraid of approaching that animal? In other words, are there cases where a cat would not show the typical signs of having rabies (agression, drooling, rabid), but still have it? Perhaps in the very early stage of it getting the virus (or maybe even during vaccination)? Also, if a cat is vaccinated, thus showing no signs of having rabies; if you are scratched/bitten by the cat, would you still get rabies? I was recently playing with this neighbourhood cat, (it had a collar and seemed to be either currently domesticated, or WAS domesticated but escaped and is now feral); however, that doesn't really matter, since the cat could STILL have rabies. The cat showed no signs of having rabies (typical signs); I am unaware of other symptoms, so I'm unsure... The cat had accidentally scratched me very slightly; and it was only later that I noticed the skin had a trace amount of blood; as tiny as a paper cut. I'm thinking a scratch of that small magnitude can still deliver rabies? Also, the cat has a habit of taking hold of your hand, and giving it a gentle "gnaw" or bite; sort of in a playful manner. I don't believe any blood was drawn, but some skin was scratched; similar to when a person scratches his own hand with his nails; not enough to draw blood, but still a scratch... Again it was until later had I noticed this, so IF blood was drawn, it may have already healed/been washed off. Based on what I've seen; and the little I know about this particular cat or rabies-symptoms in general, I'm thinking the cat may STILL have rabies (albeit there are no symptoms), and am afraid that his playful bite/gnawing or accidental scratch may have transfered rabies to me. I am also worried about other diseases like cat scratch fever, etc.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.6.222 (talk)

Typically what is done in this case, is to capture the animal and observe it for a couple of days (1-2 weeks) as small animals such as cats will develop symptoms fairly quickly and die. It is true that a small scratch can infect you with rabies (although the probability of this happening is very low), as cats frequently lick their paws and therefore may indirectly transfer saliva into the wound. If it has been some time after you posted this comment and you have seen the cat and it is alive and well, then I would not worry about a rabies infection. 24.203.224.90 (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

History?

There seems to be little material on the history of prevention and treatment of rabies. Given the effect on human history, it seems to be worth a section.

-Agreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.184.66 (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hydrophobia?

I just wanted to get some clarification on the symptoms described as "hydrophobia."

The article states:

The production of large quantities of saliva and tears coupled with an inability to speak or swallow are typical during the later stages of the disease; this can result in “hydrophobia”, where patients have difficulty swallowing because the throat and jaw become slowly paralyzed, shows panic when presented with liquids to drink, and cannot quench his or her thirst.

So is the hydrophobia actually describing the reluctance of a patient with rabies to drink liquids (due to the pain it causes) and not an actual fear of water?

That is to say, if someone was mopping the floor and walked in with a bucket of water the patient wouldn't freak out, right?

Also, is this "fear" just an unwillingness to drink or is it comparable to a panic attack resulting from the suggestion to drink? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.184.66 (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It means that the victim has an actual fear of water. At first the person will have difficulty drinking liquids but later the sight or even mention of water may cause paralysis/spasms in their throat (ie. the person will be unable to take a shower). Increased production of saliva coupled with the inability to swallow causes the victim to drool (or "foam" at the mouth). 24.203.224.90 (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

We really need a citation for this. I've heard that the idea that sufferers acquire a fear of water is a misunderstanding from the word "hydrophobia", which originally just referred to the inabililty to swallow. I'll see if I can find anything. Rojomoke (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hydrophobai....again

The first line states that rabies is alos known as "hydrophobia", isin't this incorrect? I was under the impression hydrophobia was the spefic fear of water, rather than a name for a disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Didymal (talkcontribs) 15:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen it as a name for the disease, so I'm changing it.Fuzbaby (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"Hydrophobia and aerophobia are pathognomonic for rabies and occur in 50% of patients."[16] Fear of water is unusual, because rabies is one of the few causes of this, and the fear of water usually entail rabies, some health organizations refer to it as both "Rabies" and "Hydrophobia".[17] Also the article on Hydrophobia uses Rabies as a hat-note. I think it belongs in the article. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Popular culture

Should this section exist at all? There are probably thousands of mentions of rabies in books, films, and TV shows; who is selecting this grab bag? What are the criteria? Why does this section exist? Does someone really think the purpose of the rabid dog in To Kill A Mockingbird was to demonstrate prejudice (as opposed to showing Scout an aspect of Atticus of which she was completely unaware)? --jpgordon::==( o ) 02:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

this section has been bothering me for some time and I decided to remove it completely. if somebody wants to, he or she can create an article rabies in popular culture but I definitively do not think that there should be any list in the article. especially since it will never be comprehensive, it will only make the article look 1. incomplete and 2. trivial. I think it hinders the goal of a scientific and encyclopedic article and thus we should rather improve on the history section than write more references to episodes of family guy and king of the hill into the article. greetings --hroest 08:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
It appears to have been deleted before -- take a look at the archives of this talk page. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I concur that it doesn't belong in this article, but would indeed support the creation of a separate article containing the information removed. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 16:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that section should exist, you can find it anywhere

Error in Map

The PNG map to show areas free of rabies doesn't show Finland being clear, even though the description does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.29.7 (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing "sneezing rabies"

I am removing a suspect paragraph added by an anonymous IP user claiming that there is a new form of rabies (and linking a personal website). If someone has more information about this, please undo my edit while adding a reliable reference. TheGoblin (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Effectively untreatable"

I'm not a regular wikipedia editor so I dont know the procedure but thought I should post here instead of changing the actual page. What does "effectively untreatable" even mean? I think it should say "untreatable" or "no effective treatment" maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.5.187.237 (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a treatment that has been successfully used in a small number of cases. It was first used successfully on a teenage girl in Wisconsin who picked up a bat out of a church pew and released it outside. The treatment involved putting her into a medically induced coma for something like four days and treating her with antivirals. I think that the treatment has proven successful at least once in Brazil and at least once in the southern US. It has been tried in other cases unsuccessfully.--65.68.190.251 (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Contradictory

In the first part of this article it says "the few humans who are known to have survived the disease were all left with severe brain damage.". Later in the article it says that under the milwakee protocol, the patient survived with little brain damage. Will leave it to those more informed to fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.202.6 (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I took it to mean those who survived without treatment, but I know no more than you do. 98.216.66.2 (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Introduction: Australia does not have rabies.

In the intro the statement is made "In several countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia and Japan, rabies carried by animals that live on the ground has been eradicated entirely."

Australia does not have, and never has had, rabies. There have been 3 incidents (http://www.amnet.net.au/~ypvinglewood/newclients.html#rabies) in Australia's history, of which one was never actually confirmed, in 1867. The other two were human immigrants with pre-existing but un-incubated disease.

I am removing the reference to Australia.

122.200.166.158 (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have also added Australia to the list (Australia and New Zealand) of rabies-free countries in the Prevalence section. I must comment here that to class Lyssavirus 1 or 2 as "rabies" is somewhat akin to classing Chickenpox/Shingles as Cold Sores, on the basis that both are caused by a type of Herpes virus. "Bat rabies" is not "Rabies". Australia is a rabies-free country.

122.200.166.158 (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the Australian cases was a Vietnamese girl who had been bitten by a dog shortly before her family left Vietnam. She came down with clinical signs of rabies something like six years later. The current page says that you can get it up to two years later, but that should be changed to just "years later" or maybe "as much as six years later." The second longest period that I've heard of was within two years. --65.68.190.251 (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

A large part of the introductory paragraph appears to have been lifted from the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/ Did they give permission to do this? Thomas.Hedden (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see some resemblance in the structure but other than that its all just basic information in which is all linked to relevant sources. CDC is also referenced in the article somewhere in the lead and is also government division/department and I don't think it is under any private copyright or interferes with any legal issue with 'plagiarism of ideas'. YuMaNuMa (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)