Talk:Cholera
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. |
| B | This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale |
 |
Cholera is part of WikiProject Microbiology, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of microbiology and microbiology-related topics. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. |
||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| Top | This article is on a subject of top-importance within microbiology. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 |
Cholera was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: April 12, 2006 |
 |
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. | ||||||||
 |
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
[edit] Comment
Cholera can be fatal once it has enough time to settle.
On another note, There's an interesting book on the subject by Charles Rosenberg, "The Cholera Years: The United States in 1832, 1849, and 1866", primarily it focuses on NYC for reasons of simplicity and symbolism (ie. well established city, so records are easier to find and compare), though it does make some reference to other cholera outbreaks in passing.
[edit] Good Article nomination has failed
The Good article nomination for Cholera has failed for the following reason:
- Some areas of the article should be expanded, including the lead section, Transmission, Research, and Other Historical Information. Though not required, it could also use more images, such as those of doctors treating patients, not just the bacteria alone. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- The mode of toxicity of cholera needs to be expanded as at this stage it's extremely misleading and thus just plain wrong.
- Above posted by User:149.167.200.3 on 10:01, 8 May 2006
[edit] Spelling of Diarrhea/Diarrhoea
To editor 86.128.86.30, if you're going to change one instance of "Diarrhea" to "Diarrhoea", change them all. That way the article is internally consistent. I'll wait a while for other users' comments, and then maybe revert or change all instances. --Storkk 21:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- On second thoughts, I'll just revert, as I've just visited the Diarrhea page, and it looks like the wiki standard is "Diarrhea" with "Diarrhoea" being a side note, referring to spelling differences --Storkk 21:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed Storkk - the consensus, as I understand it, is to use either British or American spellings as set when the article was first written and remain internally consistant with that selection. So if this article already uses American spellings then any new addition to this article should keep to this. However if a British editor creates a new article on Disease X and uses 'Diarrhoea', then subsequent American-English speaking editors should respect that too. Unfortunately (as a British-English speaker) Americans generally seem to have started most of the medical articles before we got here :-( David Ruben Talk 00:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cholera and Blood Types
The cited article shows an epidemiologic correlation betwen ABO blood groups and cholera, and does not advance a genetic rationale. Given the absence of any biologic reason why the arrangement of sugars on the outside of your red cells (ABO group) would have something to do with your resistance to cholera (mediated through the unrelated CFTR chloride channel) its more likely an example of coincidental coassortment of genes. The statements about A, B, and AB appear unsupported and are candidates for removal. Cholera is an ongoing public health threat in parts of the world where A, B, and AB are much more common than in caucasian-majority countries, and if they really did confer relative resistance to cholera, it would be big news, so I doubt it.
[edit] formatting changes
it looks like somebody got an html editor attached to the wiki. there were a lot of nbsp entities, including ones which were commented out. i am truly mystified. additionally, these two refs were hanging out up top with a broken comment:
please have a look at the diff. i am quite confused at what happened to get the article into the state it was in when i arrived, and i'm not actually sure i've "fixed" anything. it displays fine in my browser, but then mine's a little weird. i don't watch this article, i just stopped by for a look at the bioweapons category. ... aa:talk 04:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Inconsistent dates
Under the RESEARCH section:
"The scientists with major contributions to fighting cholera were John Snow, who found the link between cholera and drinking water in 1854, and Robert Koch, who identified V. cholerae as the bacillus causing the disease. The bacterium was originally isolated thirty years earlier by Italian anatomist Filippo Pacini ..."
This clearly implies that Pacini isolated the bacterium 30 years earlier that 1854 -- IE 1824.
However, in the Pacini article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Pacini, it states:
"Pacini ... an Italian anatomist ... famous for isolating the cholera bacillus Vibrio cholerae in 1854, well before Robert Koch's more widely accepted discoveries thirty years later."
So which is it -- 1824 or 1854?
Looking up the Koch article, it looks like 1854 is correct for Pacini, and Koch made his discoveries about cholera in 1883.
Someone may want to do some fact-checking.
[edit] Fix the pagee
Someone revert the page.
[edit] Additional Information?
There must have been some sort of superstition involved with cholera and how people believed it used to spread and how it could be treated. Would it improve the article if this was added? 87.5.150.10 15:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Certainly, if it is a widespread belief, and if the claim is well referenced.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- In many cases, "bad air" was blamed. Bwood 12:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Other than rehydrating the patient, which I imagine cannot go on indefinitely, and prior to antibiotics, or if they don't work, how does a patient survive? The answer, which I don't know, is not clear. 69.14.181.230 19:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd imagine the body kills it like any other bacteria, its just a matter of keeping them alive while it does it. Plugwash 20:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] March 2, 2007 repair to the MainPage
I just repaired the text that was deleted without justification in this edit. --Rednblu 23:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vaccine
What about vaccine? Is there one? If so, what are the risks/side effects with it?
- There is a vaccine (see the CDC comment), though it is of "questionable benefit" [1]. Side effects appear to be the standard for any vaccine (see here for specifics). -- MarcoTolo 06:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Contradictory/incomplete data
The article twice says that a victim of cholera can lose "up to 20L" of fluid. (This is incongruously equated with 20% of body weight; yet most people in the world weigh significantly less than 100 kg). A later explanation says "up to 16 litres of water" could be lost via the intestines. Now, obviously these details are (slightly) contradictory. Is it 16 or 20L? Or is 20% of total body mass a better value?
Furthermore, none of these figures have an associated time scale. Is the 20L lost over the whole course of the illness, in 24 hours, or what??? Finally, there doesn't seem to be cited source for this claim. It may seem that I am nit-picking, but these issues need to be squared away if this is going to become a good article. Could one of the regular contributors see to this? Many thanks -- 125.238.205.232 14:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Good point. PubMed ref added for up to 36 L loss in 6 days (~6L/day); fixed inconsistency. -- MarcoTolo 18:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Outstanding. Within five hours my question was answered. What a great community of contributors wikipedia has! Thank you very much, MarcoTolo. -- 125.238.205.232 09:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- but now it says 36L (20% body weight) which is nonsensical, implying a whopping 180KG avg body weight. maybe change the description to 36L water loss in 6 days and up to a 20% decrease in body mass (check source) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).
-
-
-
-
- Well, actually it said "up to 36 L (or 20% of body weight)" - its not an average. I've pulled the "20%" figure as the ref only quantifies volume, not percent. Additionally, I'm assuming that the trial participants were receiving IV therapy during the six day period (i.e. some of the 36 litres were "supplemental" losses). -- MarcoTolo 23:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Question
how long can it last if/once a host body has died and it has not been given a suitable new environment to occupy? Can it survive indefinitely "in the wild" without some form of "animal" host? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.119.203 (talk • contribs)
I seem to recall learning that pumpkin seeds are a treatment for Cholera. Anybody able to confirm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.66.37 (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Treatment Section
Could a treatment section be added? What can people do once they have contracted this disease - it is obviously not 100% fatal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.119.202 (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Engorged Snood
Last time I checked, the snood was a piece of skin hanging down from the beak of a TURKEY. Therefore, considering this article is on HUMAN CHOLERA, I've removed the offending remark in the Symptoms section.
If anyone can prove to me that the snood exists in humans, I'd be glad to hear it. Russthomas15 11:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Examples
Hi, i know another case of this illnes wich is the epidemy of Gran Canaria in 1851. There isn't a single source in english and i know two in spanish wich are:
One from the Canarian Stadistic Institute, page 2 (of the canarian government):
Another this article but only say the location not the article itself:
http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=587311
Summary: In 1851 the cholera arrived to Gran Canaria in a ship with infected dress from Cuba, the first dead was a worker woman from a laundry of the capital, along the Summer the illnes spread along the capital and with the people who was fleing from the capital to the rest of the island. The total number of deads was 6000-8000 persons, a 10% of the total population; only in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria 3500, 20% of the population with more than a half of the inhabitants infected.
I don't want put it in the article because i don't know how to put citations, sorry.--Bentaguayre (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Recovery
Article needs some information on how quickly cholera can kill. Misread. Also, if patient is properly cared for, how long does the illness last before the patient recovers? Is there permanent damage from cholera even if the patient survives? What is the survival rate with treatment? Without treatment?--Mrs Scarborough (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
