Talk:Rabies

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleRabies was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 5, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 21, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 6, 2006, and July 6, 2007.
Current status: Delisted good article

Tragedy in Germany: six transplants have rabies

Terrible tragedy looms in Germany: more recent news say all six transplants have rabies now. Added to the article. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4271453.stm

Mentioned in FoxTrot

This article was mentioned in a FoxTrot comic strip (the image) about Wikipedia today (May 7 2005), though it obviously didn't get the same attention that Warthog did as a result [1]. Just thought I'd mention it. --Phoenix-forgotten 17:52, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Milwaukee Protocol needs nuance

The wiki article implies the Milwaukee Protocol is a viable treatment for rabies, but this is increasingly controversial. There is some evidence it may not actually be helpful.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.14.22283490v1.full

https://www.mjdrdypu.org/article.asp?issn=0975-2870%3Byear%3D2017%3Bvolume%3D10%3Bissue%3D2%3Bspage%3D184%3Bepage%3D186%3Baulast%3DAgarwal&ref=connortumbleson.com

https://www.wired.com/2012/07/ff-rabies/

https://pandorareport.org/2014/05/01/no-rabies-treatment-after-all-failure-of-the-milwaukee-protocol/ Jamescobalt (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's discredited, and somehow misinformation from poor sources had crept back into the article. Have fixed. This has been discussed at some length here before.[2] Bon courage (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current section on the Milwaukee Protocol is blatantly incorrect. While I do agree it's a controversial medical protocol, it's flat out not true that there was only a single survivor. [3] This review from 2020 reports 11 survivors and notes that all of them were under 18. Within the US, there are three known survivors. The original in 2004, a 17 year old girl in 2010, and the third was in 2011 [4]. The current section is just false. Not only that, the CDC still lists Milwaukee Protocol as one of two options for management of rabies [5]. I feel like we can't be out here saying it's discredited and not mentioning that the CDC still suggests it. 162.248.150.100 (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The CDC does not "list it as an option" on that page. As I recall our cited review goes into some detail on why any cases of survival cannot confidently be ascribed to the Protocol, and indeed the Brazilian review you link says "The effectiveness of the Milwaukee Protocol and the lethality of rabies cannot be quantitatively estimated due to difficulties in obtaining information about the cases in which it was used". It might be worth going into a little bit of detail about this in the article. Bon courage (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article : https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/712839_7?form=fpf too mentions several cases of survival after implementation of the Milwaukee protocol. Even assuming that "cases of survival cannot confidently be ascribed to the protocol", as you state, it doesn't mean that the Milwaukee protocol can confidently be rejected as the cause, either. Especially given that in its absence, there's no survival at all. In any case, the categorical assertion that "there has been no further case of survival" is incorrect, as, at worst, cases of survival are dubious, so I'm deleting this sentence from the article. 78.240.252.185 (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence has returned, obsolete or not. --2A02:908:898:9780:B130:E3F0:69CB:834 (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sentence should be removed, or at the very least, rephrased. It says, "While this treatment has been tried multiple times since, there have been no further cases of survival." As currently worded, it implies that only one person who has undergone the Milwaukee protocol has ever survived, and all other instances ended in death. From what I've been able to find, this is objectively false. There is at least one other case where a person has been put through the protocol and survived. [1][2]
That's not to say that additional clarification isn't warranted or that the general gist that the article is attempting to convey is necessarily wrong. To quote this [3] article, in Advances in Virus Research:
"The main component of the protocol is therapeutic coma, which was correctly predicted to lack efficacy in the accompanying editorial with the case report (Jackson, 2005)... The protocol lacks a firm scientific rationale (Zeiler & Jackson, 2016) and at least 53 failures have now been documented... plus an additional six cases... (Willoughby & Epstein, 2019). Claimed successes of the Milwaukee protocol include patients who have died and who likely did not have rabies, and others who received rabies vaccine prior to the onset of illness similar to many patients who survived without the protocol... There have been 10 successes reported from India with critical care since 2015, but without other components of the protocol. Hence, critical care is probably the only effective component of the protocol and has been previously recommended for aggressive therapy of rabies patients (Jackson et al., 2003)." TalkingMarlin (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, as I recall our cited review goes into some detail on why any cases of survival cannot confidently be ascribed to the Protocol, and indeed the Brazilian review linked above says "The effectiveness of the Milwaukee Protocol and the lethality of rabies cannot be quantitatively estimated due to difficulties in obtaining information about the cases in which it was used". The Jackson chapters says "critical care is probably the only effective component of the protocol" (i.e. not the protocol). The last thing we want is hopium from newspapers, too. Bon courage (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying here. However, as phrased, what you've detailed is not exactly what the article says. I'm proposing that this sentence is removed or reworded:
"While this treatment has been tried multiple times since, there have been no further cases of survival."
As currently worded, this sentence would be interpreted as, "No one who has undergone the Milwaukee protocol since then has survived", rather than, "No cases of rabies survival can be confidently attributed to the Milwaukee protocol". There's an important distinction here. The former is false, whereas the latter appears (to me) to be true. There appear to be survivors who have been treated with the protocol, even if the protocol is not what led to their survival. TalkingMarlin (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2024

Please add this article tag until the indicated video, discussed in the Talk section with this same hour's timestamp, is hidden from view. (If the legal matter raised for Commons to adjudicate in that Talk section is decided toward the end that the video is compliant, it can of course be returned. But as long as the video remains in view, and the legal matter raised has not been addressed, this template message should call attention to the issue.)

24.14.18.35 (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this edit is the "legal matter" being raised here. There are three different concerns raised in that edit. The first two could be brought up on Wikimedia Commons (perhaps at the Commons help desk for lack of a more specific place to raise the concern about consent), while the third relates to Wikipedia sourcing guidelines so I believe this talk page would be the most appropriate place for that.
I will comment on the first concern raised; I don't have much to say about the others: Creative Commons licenses allow providing attribution in "any reasonable manner"; this phrase is present in every version of the licenses. A great deal (probably the majority) of images and media used on Wikipedia are available under Creative Commons licenses, so I suspect this would have received much more attention if Wikipedia's attribution was not done in a "reasonable manner" as required by the licenses. I will also note that the version 4.0 licenses specifically say: "For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the [attribution] conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information."
Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that the concerns raised with regard to the video being a primary source appear not to be a cause for concern. The actual policy relating to the use of primary sources is available at WP:PRIMARY. Nowhere does it say anything resembling "we are to view them as possibly correct, but possibly not" – it simply warns against making any interpretation of the source. No interpretation is being made in this case: the video is titled by the source as "Patient 1 with Hydrophobia". Media files are routinely used without secondary sources reporting that they do indeed represent what they are stated to.
It appears entirely plausible (and even likely) that the consent received from the patient would include release under the free license attached to the work. The article shouldn't have (but of course could have) been released under such a license without consent to do so. There's no way to know for certain without contacting the author of the article, obviously. I would personally not be concerned about using this video, but will leave this edit request open for further input. Tollens (talk) 12:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now marked the request answered. If there are further concerns please feel free to re-open. Tollens (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2024

Since it appears that even Talk in this article is protected, I have to ask that the following edit be made to the recently submitted new Talk section, regarding potential legal and ethical issues involving the 46 sec video currently appearing (just submitted, in this timestamped hour).

Correction: The link written into that newly submitted Talk section on the legal-ethical issues, the square bracketed link to a source of license and copyright information in that new Talk section, should be the following specific link, and not the one to PLOSOne originally posted. It makes no great difference, but it is best to be correct about such things.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/licenses-and-copyright 24.14.18.35 (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note here; not responding to the request: This talk page is not in fact protected. You can check this at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rabies&action=info. I don't know what obstacle you ran into trying to edit your earlier request, but it was not page protection. --Trovatore (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have edited the link as you requested. I will have a more substantial response to your original request shortly. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2024

my biology class is entering a wikipediathon for our 'final essay' grade this Thursday, we have been researching this topic for the entirely of the semester with a professor that double checks all our work to make sure it is wiki worthy, to be able to add the heavily researched topics i have and be graded properly in our class i need to have access to the rabies wiki page. my current topic is about rare cases of rabies, and unique cases of malpractice that has led to outbreaks. i am also doing a part of rabies epidemiology in south asian countries such as Cambodia, Thailand, and India. Megamilleron (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 04:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The form you used is for making requests of edits to the article. If you don't currently have anything to add/change about the article then please don't use this form. Once you have edits you wish to make you can resubmit this form with the changes, a source, and reasoning for them. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Rabies"