Talk:Ebola/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Ebola can affect other animals

Someone should edit the first sentence by removing "and other primates" and replacing it with "and animals".

Possible treatment

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/46179/20100825/new-experimental-drug-fights-ebola.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.202.27 (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC) --

talk
) 15:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC) I think the above link is dead!

This is not the place for it, but a patient should try 2 or 3 BHT capsules per day. BHT kills viruses.72.69.11.171 (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)BG

Proposal to Edit Epidemiology Section

I've rearranged the table in this section to include separate columns for cases and deaths. Here was the original format:

Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreaks
Year Virus Geographic location Human deaths/cases (case-fatality rate)

It is odd to have cases/deaths next to the CFR which is clearly calculated as deaths in the numerator and cases in the denominator. Is this way of writing conventional, or useful for some type of research, or just kinda random formatting preferences? If so, keeping it as it was makes sense.

Things I didn't change but want to: Is anyone aware of ways to keep a footer fixed at the bottom of the table for totals? Putting totals in the last line just allows it to float around when you re-sort the table, but I don't see any option for footers in the insert table function. Also, would adding this to the article violate 'no original research' standards? It's not much of a leap to do this, but I suppose you could apply all sorts of statistical techniques to the data provided and at some point that analysis becomes more interpretation than fact.

Here is roughly what I'd like to see included:

Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreaks
Year Virus Geographic location Cases Human deaths CFR (case-fatality rate)
Totals All All 1633 2448 66% 


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.192.163 (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to add "See Also" and "Further Reading" sections

Monorbeta (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC) General info about Ebola Virus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVOHcHlUFMw I want to add a "See Also" section and a "Further Reading" section to this article. I made a list of some possible article links.

I would like input as to why you think these sections should or should not be added, which article links should be added to or removed from the list, and what order they should be in.

To make discussion easier, I put one bold CAPITAL letter by each article link. If you support the proposal, start your post with "YES"; if you oppose, "NO". To say what order you think they should be in, say "ORDER: A B C O F R ..." . If there is an article link you believe doesn't need to be or shouldn't be on the list, then put "REJECT: H (because), N (because), ..." . If you only want to suggest a few links for me to definitely keep (and don't want to do anything else,) then put "KEEP: B C F G " "KEEP:" is (optional because). If you have an article link you think should be added, then put "ADD: _______ (because)". If you aren't sure if an article link should be REJECTed or KEEPed, put "MAYBE: (optional because)".

A good example of a response supporting the section additions is: "YES. I think it would be very helpful to have a bunch of related and pertinent ebola links all grouped together. REJECT: D or E (don't need both), L or M (don't need both), W (too broad/general), N (too insignificant). ADD: Richard Preston (he wrote the bestselling nonfiction book on ebola called The Hot Zone). KEEP: BCFGOQRUXYZ. O (if anyone would cause an ebola plague, it'd be them). MAYBE: H (could be seen as either important or unnecessary), K (sad but not ebola-important), S (important but not ebola-important). ORDER: A B C G F D I H ... "


--See Also--


--Further Reading --

Thanks. Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


I'm all for a Further Reading section, as you detailed. In terms of See Alsos, yes, the article shoud have a See Also section. Avoid incuding anything that is already linked in the article (e.g., virus). Definitely include the List of outbreaks. Beyond that, simply trim the list to the top 10 or less items, by importance/relevance, that haven't already been mentioned in the article. Softlavender (talk)

I got Ebola semi-protected!

Ebola (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Semi-protected Long-term, reoccurring, incidents of vandalism by anonymous users. Excluding my two constructive revisions, only 8 of the last 50 revisions (Sept15-Nov3) were constructive -- meaning they added information to the article. So 42 of the last 50 revisions were edits/changes that were later reverted or were people making revisions to revert the aforementioned. I changed the view to the most recent 500, and from 10-27-09 through 11-27-09, there were 16 reversions that identified anonymous revisions as the reason, which definitely makes this problem long-term. Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 3:11 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months. After 3 months the page will be automatically unprotected. Courcelles 3:15 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

ok, so, how can users submit changes?

here's a typo: Reston elabavirus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.111.241 (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Typo in the image

...of File:Ebola_Pathenogensis_path.svg – "Infected Monocyte" is misspelled as "Monotcyte". Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed in Commons. To anyone who needs to fix a similar error: The displayed SVG is a version where the text has been converted to paths (lines), perhaps to avoid font problems. Luckily, the file's page links to a version where the text is still text. Fixing a typo in such an SVG file is easy, just open it in a good text editor, search for the misspelled word(s), repair and save, maybe with a new file name to make it clear that this is the fixed version. After fixing the typo in the SVG source, load the fixed, non-"path" SVG into Inkscape, and for every text, do this: Select it, then Path -> Convert Object to Path (Ctrl-Shift-C). Then save the image under the a new file name, appending "_path" to its name. Finally, upload the fixed versions, both the "text" and the "path" version. Now, according to the referenced source, the file name itself is also misspelled, it should be "Pathogenesis" instead of "Pathenogensis". Whether that is worth fixing, I don't know. --RainerBlome (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

History of 1976 Zaire/Sudan outbreak

I'd like to have a complete history of the 1976 Zaire/Sudan outbreaks, and their containment and so forth, somewhere on Wikipedia. There's nothing on it in this article beside mention of their existence -- I assume that's because this article presumes to be strictly about the medical facts on Ebola.

In my mind, the historical outbreaks in Zaire and Sudan in 1976/1977 are important enough to have complete information in Wikipedia -- possibly in a separate article on them. The subject was frequently in the news in those years. Also, the film And the Band Plays On makes a significant reference to how those outbreaks were managed and controlled, versus how the outbreak of AIDS in the U.S. and elsewhere was managed, so it would be interesting to be able to verify the historical facts on the management and containment of the Ebola outbreaks. Softlavender (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I would also like any article to clarify the distinction between the Sudan and Zaire/Congo outbreaks in 1976. It seems odd indeed that the 1976 outbreak "began" Aug 26 with the so-called index case, Mabalo Lokela, even though the Sudan outbreak had already begun two months earlier. Tara Waterman's Honors Thesis cites a WHO source for the start of the Sudan outbreak at the end of June. Can these two assertions both be true?

Perhaps this is case of clarifying the two strains that appeared in 1976. Either way, the current version of the history section does not given sufficient attention the preceding Sudan outbreak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowe825 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I am with you on getting a better handle on the epidemiology in general, regeneration rates and the first outbreaks. Even if there is a separate article it needs a better summary in this article, both of what is known and unknown. I found this article fascinating reading (also quoted above). http://www.enivd.de/EBOLA/ebola-24.htm Greenbe (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola hemorrhagic fever v.Ebola virus disease

The more correct name and more widely used name is Ebola hemorrhagic fever (EHF). This is what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention[1] and the World Health Organization[2] call it. So does the United States Army Medical Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick, Bethesda, Maryland (USAMRIID)[3] 7mike5000 (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Naming used in article

The intro section makes unfortunate use of proposed revisions to the naming and classification scheme (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21046175). I added in the more customary names and abbreviations. 128.12.86.170 (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Photograph caption contradicts article

The caption on the photograph at the top of the page says the patient died due to internal bleeding and haemorrage. The article says even with haemorraging patients die due to other causes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.0.63 (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

New possible treatments with imatinib (Gleevec) & nilotinib (Tasigna)

Hi gang, I don't have time to add this myself, but would be useful to add; there's new data that two drugs used in Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML) may, at least in tissue culture in a lab, be effective in treating Ebola virus infected cells. I believe the experiment was in a kidney cell culture (human? other?), and the drugs suppressed virus release from infected cells. The drugs are tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and were developed to block the action of the tyrosine kinase activity of the BCR-ABL fusion protein which is the result of the 9:22 chromosomal translocation in Philadelphia-chromosome-positive CML. Apparently the virus also uses a protein or enzyme with tyrosine kinase activity, and so these drugs may also be effective in acute Ebola infection. Because the two drugs are already FDA-approved for use in patients with CML, they may be immediately used "off-label" by physicians to treat Ebola, without additional formalities, so as soon as a new Ebola outbreak occurs in some remote jungle somewheres (or somebody gets infected because of some lab accident), somebody's probably going to try the drugs in infected humans (especially as no other good treatments are yet available). However, because usually natural infections are in some remote jungle, this may not happen too soon. The reference is in the New York Times today (3/20/2012), and there's also this: "Novartis Cancer Drugs Fight Deadly Ebola Virus in Lab, Researchers Find", By Simeon Bennett - Feb 29, 2012 11:00 AM PT , Bloomberg news, < http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-29/novartis-cancer-drugs-fight-deadly-ebola-virus-in-lab-researchers-find.html > (found by googling < Gleevec Ebola >). It would probably be good to find the original published peer-reviewed scientific paper (assuming there is one) as well. Hope somebody can add this to the Ebola article. Thanks. Lanephil (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Use of 15 back to back citations in the Signs and Symptoms section

There are currently 15 citations at the end of the Signs and Symptoms section. Are there no secondary or tertiary summaries of available knowledge that would be more appropriate? If not, this citation overkill should be cut down to maybe 3 to 5 refs that cover all of the information in those two paragraphs. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I came to the talk page with exactly that questions, only to find it had already been asked! Surely there is no need for a
WP:REFBOMB like this? There must be one or two reliable sources which would cover, between them, the information in this paragraph. Pesky (talk
) 04:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion it's very good to have a lot of citations. Stop complaining about it--92.202.70.87 (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

timeline

Does this article actually state how long it takes from initial infection to symptoms then death? Can't see it any where. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.95.24 (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Old page history and relevant talk page content

Some old page history that used to be at the title "Ebola virus disease" can now be found at Talk:Ebola virus disease/Old history. Graham87 11:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There's also some relevant old talk page content at
history merge it here because of the mess of moves/merges/redirects. Graham87
11:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Treatment

At the very end, there is a statement "However, this potential treatment is considered controversial" Then it cites a source that does not have anything to do with controversy in that method. The method described (seven of eight patients having received blood transfusions from convalescent individuals survived) is only a one-time study in which there *might* have been a link between the two, as there is not conclusive evidence, but there's no "controversy" mentioned anywhere. 72.209.46.20 (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You should have checked the full text. See [4]: "but the success is controversial". Ruslik_Zero 19:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The section "Blood Transfusion" incorrectly states that the treatment occurred in Democratic Republic of Congo in 1999. As you can see in Reference 165, the treatment occurred in 1995. The article about it was published in 1999. Further, it may be inaccurate at this time to call the treatment controversial as the World Health Organization announced in September, 2014, that: “Serum from people who are convalescing from infection with the Ebola virus can be used to treat new patients.” Source: First Ebola treatment is approved by WHO. BMJ 2014; 349 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g5539 (Published 08 September 2014). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.219.120 (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Intro wording is confusing

the wording in the intro "[...] is the human disease that may be caused by any of four of the five known ebola viruses." is confusing and can be interpreted in a number of ways. does it mean that only if you are infected simultaniously with any 4 of the 5 listed viruses then you're considered to have ebola? what if you have only 3? or are they saying that one is not human transmissable? then it can't be "any of four". I dont know enough about ebola or what the intro is trying to say in order to correct it so I'm just making a note of it here.--216.36.101.50 (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Only four Ebola viruses can infect humans. The fifth virus (
Reston ebolavirus) apparently does not cause disease in humans. Ruslik_Zero
19:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

News worthy?

Lozion (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Hi, I'm admittedly a newbie but as a resident of Côte d'Ivoire, I'm witnessing the authorities of countries neighbouring Guinea issuing various warnings and ordering the closing of border points between Guinea and Senegal, also flights are cancelled out of Conakry to Mauritania and so forth. I think this is "In the News" worthy or at least needs to be updated. I can provide links if needed. Txs.Lozion (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


Please I dont have the skills but can a editor or contributor update this page. This is getting serious: http://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&tl=en&u=http://www.lexpress.fr/actualites/1/monde/l-afrique-de-l-ouest-demande-l-aide-de-la-communaute-internationale-contre-ebola_1504144.html Txs. Lozion (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014 outbreaks in Guinea, Liberia and Canada

I have removed the claims about the March 2014 Conakry, Guinea outbreaks (again) and the associated Liberian and Canadian outbreaks. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26717490 "After two people died from a haemorrhagic fever in Conakry, samples were sent to the Pasteur Institute in neighbouring Senegal for testing. WHO spokesman Collins Boakye-Agyemang told the BBC these had shown that the victims had not been infected with Ebola. It is not known what killed them."Waugh Bacon (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The 2014 outbreaks sub section now re-direct to a new article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Guinea_ebola_outbreakLozion (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I have revised the number of cases for the Guinea and Sierra Leone outbreak shown in the table. The source cited, Fox News (reliable?) mentions 78 deaths from 122 cases of suspected Ebola since January, up from 70. Of these, there were 22 laboratory confirmed cases. The World Health organization states, 'As of 28 March 2014 (there are), 103 suspected and confirmed cases, including 66 deaths, (CFR 64%)'. As I wrote on 29 March 'Further testing of 37 samples (from 103 victims) have since tested positive in 15 cases with confirmation that the strain of ebolavirus identified is similar to the Zaire ebolavirus'. In other words only 40% of tested samples have proved to have come from Ebola infected individuals. See my edit on the the above date for links to the WHO data. Can I suggest that we refrain from putting figures on this outbreak until it has run its course, or alternatively prefix any figures with the word suspected?
Waugh Bacon (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ebola

This is a disease in Africa, a killer disease to be precise. Why is it that these diseases are only found in Africa? is it because we are Africans,what are the steps forware in fighting against Ebola.This is a situation wherein the whole contenent is at risk, As africans how ca we prevent ourselves from such diseases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.222.83.34 (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

An "emerging disease" has to emerge someplace. As a counter-example, Hanta virus is a "new" disease which did not originate in Africa. For Ebola, it "just happens" that the virus has lived or has evolved in Africa. I'm going to guess that as a equatorial area, Africa has a very diverse biosphere with numerous species, complex interactions between species, and large areas of wilderness -- which simply means there are probably numerous undiscovered species, some of which, unfortunately, are viruses. The article explains where the virus normally resides, and how it is thought to spread to people. Feldercarb (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

NPC1 inhibitor

Currently the article only says "a small molecule" can inhibit EBV binding to NPC1, as well as saying that NPC1 seems to be critical for EBV entry into the cell. There's no further identification in the article, although anyone who's genuinely interested can view the Nature paper. It's a benzylpiperazine adamantane diamide. Should the article contain any more information on its structure?

The article could clarify the scientific importance of the discovery being discussed. The small molecule is interesting because it's an adamantane, but it doesn't appear to be a drug candidate. However, a critical step in the infection process was identified. Also, the NPC1 research indicates that some people are more susceptible to EBV infection than others. Readers shouldn't misconstrue the research to think that it's a cure on the horizon. But they should know this is an important step in understanding how EBV spreads and to whom.

SMILES notation for the lead compound: O=C(CC13CC2CC(C1)CC(C2)C3)NCC(=O)N5CCN(Cc4ccccc4)CC5

Roches (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, here is the SMILES for the much more potent compound from the same article:

O=C(NCC(N1CCN(CC1)Cc2c(OCC3=CC=C(C(OC)=O)C=C3)cccc2)=O)CC45CC6CC(CC(C5)C6)C4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.121.84 (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

the reason that only men are present in the lede's statistics?

copy and paste from lede:

"Once infection occurs, the disease may be spread from one person to :another. Men who survive may be able to transmit the disease sexually :for nearly two month"

I would also question whether this material should be included in the lede by virtue of being overly specific, and instead should be in the body of the article. As is, I'll remove it if female statistics are not presented or someone can supply me with a medical journal cite suggestion women cannot sexually transmit it -- good luck with that. Whatzinaname (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Later in the text a WHO fact sheet is cited. This says that the virus may persist in semen for several weeks. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
If you could find info for women we could add it.
talk · contribs · email
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
IP appears to be trying to edit war the change into place. I am unsure why as the current ref does not support the change.
talk · contribs · email
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Some people object, with justice, to the use of man when human is meant. This could be a case of overreaction (as in this instance what is meant is clearly men, not humans). Lavateraguy (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Yup it would be nice if people would read the sources.
talk · contribs · email
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Intro says semen is infectious two months, section "Transmission" says three months and quotes ref 21: "Questions and Answers on Ebola | Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever | CDC". But this page has neither the word "semen", "sex" or "month". Wrong ref? If someone knows, determine the right number of months, and harmonize the two different lengths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.46.118 (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
There's contradictory information on www.cdc.org. Specifically, here it says "Ebola can still be found in semen for 7 weeks after a person has recovered" and here it says "Ebola virus has been found in semen for up to 3 months. People who recover from Ebola are advised to abstain from sex or use condoms for 3 months". --93.203.226.145 (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Treatment of Ebola with Nano silver solution alone and or mixed with some anti viral strain of antibody. I have read that Nano silver solution may be an answer. Suggestion contact a company that has experimented with Nano Silver. Drug companies will be i

Sugest search internet with major silver company who has tested nano silver and are convinced it will break almost an viral infection. Yhere knowledge is posted on internet somwwhere as I did read it. Will try to find and I amsure it can be found easily.

No copy write or claim just possible helpful info hopefully, No expertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.128.191.43 (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

capitalization? and compound words?

Why is it capitalized throughout? Once it is written ebolavirus, it loses the capital, so shouldn't it usually be lower case, like cancer or diabetes?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe because the name is derived from the Ebola, a river in Africa? Denisarona (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the article for Newcastle disease (for example), the name (derived from a place name) is capitalized throughout as "Newcastle disease virus". I am more concerned about the compound words: why ebolavirus as opposed to ebola virus? Several other dubious compounds exist.Feldercarb (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe here's the answer, looking at the CDC website, they use:

  • Ebola virus -- english common name of the virus, capital "E"
  • Ebola hemorrhagic fever (Ebola HF) -- name of the disease, capital "E". Note the "h" is hemorrhagic is not capitalized when spelled out, but is capitalized when abbreviated.
  • Ebolavirus - is the scientific genus name, probably should be italicized. When used by itself (talking about the genus) the word is capitalized. When used in the "two part" name ((Zaire ebolavirus) it is not capitalized.

Feldercarb (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I am very much against either ebolavirus or Ebola hemerrohagic fever. Think target readers. Make it easy on them not hard just for the sake of the scientific community. By all means have a cross link page that lands on this one, however, it is in my book Ebola virus. Pbmaise (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Nigeria

While a person with Ebola flew to Nigeria, this does not mean that Nigeria is part of the ongoing outbreak. It was one case. Others thoughts? Have adjusted the lead here [5]

talk · contribs · email
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The WHO Ebola outbreak response update (link to the right) July 28 & [6] 31st July comment on the single case simple as problematic, but do not call it an out-break, no. --
CFCF 🍌 (email
) 18:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
On the other hand [7] refers to it as an outbreak in Nigeria. --
CFCF 🍌 (email
) 18:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is Nigeria still shown as one of the Countries with a current outbreak when all news reports are to the contrary. Once again Wikipedia editors are showing a massive POV bias which completely rubbishes wikipedia for non-Western readers. At the very least the article should be edited to reflect the actual facts, instead of reflecting outdated information. Meanwhile, the current and ongoing live case in the USA is not promiment. NPOV rules ignored!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/09/nigeria-contains-ebola-outbreak_n_5959442.html http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/nigeria-ebola-cdc http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/notices/watch/ebola-nigeria

Akinsope (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia shows no bias here. You show NPOV by ignoring the
WHO, who will declare Nigeria Ebola free later this month (the last date I heard of is 20-October-2014). http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/chukwu-nigeria-contains-ebola-but-will-be-evd-free-oct-20/190652/ Wzrd1 (talk
) 16:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The 2014 outbreak did affect Nigeria unless I am missing something.
This is the article about Ebola NOT the 2014 outbreak.
talk · contribs · email
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Mortality Rate

Near the beginning, the article states "The disease has a high mortality rate: often between 50% and 90% of those who are infected with the virus." . Later on in the article there is a table that lists figures of infected vs. deaths. The table currently indicates 47.2 % survival rate. This figure is between 50 and 90% mentioned earlier, but the percentage range is too large -- why not just use the actuals based on the data in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.184.178.96 (talk) 05:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There are two references provided which we are using.
talk · contribs · email
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a general confusion between mortality rate and case fatality rate. I have a suspicion that this confusion might be reflected in the article, including the references given.--195.241.246.130 (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Reddening of the eyes

Several sources point to either bleeding or reddening of the eyes. Is this

CFCF 🍌 (email
) 18:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Gandy's edits

I have been doing some updates on wording using VE in hopes that the glitches have been fixed. Seems there are still problems... I'll watch for further probs or be sure to check my edits. Gandydancer (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

So VE added the " and " all by itself? I find these extra characters annoying.
talk · contribs · email
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I sure didn't add "and". Looking back I see that my VE edit added quote marks around many of the sources, CDC and WHO for instance. I was using my old computer which, for a lack of a better way to put it, "jumps" from time to time. At one point I unexpectedly got a message, "Do you want to continue with VE" or something like that and I checked "yes", not thinking much of it at the time. I'm guessing that that's when it happened...for lack of a better idea. Gandydancer (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Rename the title of the article

The CDC uses name "Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever (EHF)" to identify the disease, not "Ebola virus disease" which sounds awkward and does not properly identify it as a type of hemorrhagic fever. Foxhoundz (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

We use ICD 10 naming.
talk · contribs · email
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
WHO says: "Ebola virus disease (formerly known as Ebola haemorrhagic fever)...". I did some copy edits of this and the current article and changed EHF to EVD whenever I came across it. Medical articles are hard enough to comprehend without that added confusion. Gandydancer (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
There are also several other sources, including the U.S. National Library of Medicine that continue to identify it as EHF. Foxhoundz (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Yup and the use still uses pounds and miles. Would be exceedingly nice if they finally joined the rest of the world.
talk · contribs · email
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And why shouldn't they continue to use pounds and miles? The Americans have made incredible strides in advancing the medical frontier and every other frontier in the world, and they've been doing it using miles and pounds. They will likely come up with the vaccine against Ebola, so I'd say they're doing just fine with their weights and measures. Well done, them. As for the title, it's best to keep it at Ebola virus disease. It is more commonly referred to as that, especially in the media, and the average reader will likely use it as the search term. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This "they've been doing it using miles and pounds" is not true. While these may generally be used they are not within the American research community were kilograms and grams are used as are millimeters.
talk · contribs · email
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Weaponized?

Any information on whether or not this disease has been weaponized, or if any outbreaks were deliberately done? Any research on the virus that indicates that it has been refined, mutated, etc... in a laboratory?Jonny Quick (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

What have you read that suggests that possibility? Gandydancer (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
It's briefly discussed in Biohazard by Ken Alibek. They had difficulty working with Ebola and primarily focused on Marburg.Donners (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Alibek mentions a genetic chimera of Ebola and Smallpox made at Biopreparat in an interview with the Monterey Insitute for International Studies. This was specifically done for weapons use. http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/alibek63.pdf loupgarous (talk) 02:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

First recognised and described by experts from the Institude of Tropical Medicine Antwerp under leadership of the famous Belgian virologist Peter Piot. cfr: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Piot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.7.114.2 (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The virus was first "recognized" (instead of the virus "emerged") in 1976

Regarding the sentence: "Ebola virus first emerged in 1976 in outbreaks of Ebola hemorrhagic fever in Zaire[118] and Sudan.[119]..."

It didn't first 'emerge'; it was first 'recognized' at that time.

Big difference. To a laypeson (which is almost all of Wikipedia's audience), they might likely infer the virus' genesis was at that time. Of course, any decent biologist will know that the virus likely has existed for at least tens of thousands of years, and perhaps tens of millions or more.

Point is, it didn't "emerge" at that time; it was merely first officially "recognized" at that time. I ask that we consider changing that one word (it doesn't matter what we change it to as long as the implication is that it was probably there all along ... we just didn't realize it existed prior to that time).

 Done SW3 5DL (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Having said that, all known isolates of EBOV appear to have evolved from the 1976 outbreak in Zaire, which is extraordinary given its rate of genetic drift. The data indicate that it was only introduced to human and animal populations around 1976. There is discussion of this in Filoviruses by Jens Kuhn at page 154. Donners (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I find this paper fascinating. http://www.enivd.de/EBOLA/ebola-24.htm They seem to believe the 1976 outbreak originated in Sudan. But I thought the Sudan and Zaire 1976 outbreaks ended up being two separate species so that means there were two separate index patients two months apart and about 1000 km apart? But that is also very unlikely which is why I see that these researchers thought it came from Sudan. Do the genetics mentioned above shed any light on this? Greenbe (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Help with a revert that needs to be done

This edit: (cur | prev) 21:51, 4 August 2014‎ 50.9.48.58 (talk)‎ . . (87,095 bytes) (+218)‎ . . (CE.) (undo) needs to be undone. It was a CE that did little to improve the article. I'd do it if I knew how to revert now that several other new edits have been made...but I don't. Thanks Gandydancer (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ebola_virus_disease&diff=619877898&oldid=619877241 ?
prokaryotes (talk
) 00:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Yup made the article worse. Have undone it.
talk · contribs · email
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Doc. I think I know how to do and I've done it before, but this is such a high profile article right now that I did not want it to be screwed up for even a few minutes. Gandydancer (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warrior please chill.

You can revert if you contend that the assertions are dubious or factually inaccurate but you cannot insist that the only

WP:RS has to be CDC or WHO as they are usually the last to report. BTW this is not in regard to an edit I made. If you have other bases to revert then fire away but this RS issue is poorly supported by the edit comment. Please document basis for reversion you may ultimately prevail but a cavalier whine about RS does not cut it. Wikidgood (talk
) 00:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

not responding to this bad faith discussion. if you want to start over, i would be happy to talk. please note that reverting new content based on insufficient sourcing is perfectly fine per verify; the right thing to do for someone who wants to retain the content is to open a good faith discussion. the wrong thing is to edit war and re-revert. that is edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
You are again violating WP policy.
WP:AGF rules. You have no basis to impute bad faith. You are also edit warring having ignored this open thread and relying upon edit comments. Do not accuse other editors of bad faith. I noticed, when posting to your Talk Page, you have been warned not once but TWICE in recent weeks for edit warring and also you created a section all about (what you think) are "Bad Faith Editors". However passionate you may be as a "Clinton Democrat" you would do well to follow his examply by being cool, calm and collected rather than accusatory and vindictive. Seriously, Clinton is a good role model and since you trumpet your admiration of the man, and I too like him, you might think about adopting his style of approaching humanitarian concerns such as the Ebola situation. Wikidgood (talk
) 00:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
You reverted (another editors' not my) cited edit. You seem to be suggesting that the Voice of America is not a Reliable Source. Frankly, it is a news source which is vetted by high quality professionals who are government employess at the GS-9 through GS-14 level. Ultimately they are responsible to the State Department, I believe, which would make them as credible as the CDC now wouldn't it? HOWEVER on issues such as the Ukraine border conflict, where they are RS, their statements are subject to HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY in that there is a State Department agenda in that venue. But with regard to Ebola, they have no more or less of an agenda than HHS. Anyway the burden is on you to make your case. THis seems like a legit story and there is another RS. These are RS for facts such as this hospital said that and that doctor said this. They are not RS for facts of viral mutagenicity gene expression etc. Common sense. Please repair the deletionist damage youhave done by placing a summary of this topic wherever you feel it is appropriate thanks, http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/social/435516/siriraj-claims-breakthrough-antibody-treatment-could-cure-ebola Wikidgood (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
i have no interest in continuing this discussion with you. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
If youintend to assert unilateral control over Wikipedia content you will have to engage in discussion of your edits. As it stands two editors have weighed in, myself and the original editor, and you refuse to articulate a critique of the material and instead have alleged bad faith and made three reverts. You are at risk of a suspension. So, is this your way of agreeing to allow the content into the article? It appears to be the case that you are not willing to defend your thesis that the material should not go into the article and that you surrender the field to those who would like to see this development in the article. There may be other onjections, or other editors who either agree with your poorly defended RS issue,so I will refrain from inserting the material at this time so that others can weigh in. However, since you seem to have given up your crusade to exclude this material and there are two of us whobelieve it should go into the article, I will unilaterally edit the material back in if there is no further controversy and if my fact checking upholds the material. In the future, please do not make edits you are not willing to discuss.

Restoring the deleted material: Nuts and Bolts

Here is what was deleted. My impression is that it is too long and should be reduced to a line or two until there is more to go on. But this is not some kind of hoax and the information should be available to those who rely on WP for information. −

Researchers at Mahidol University in Thailand claim to have developed an antibody-based treatment for Ebola using synthesized fragments of the virus. However while it is claimed to have been successfully tested against less virulent related viruses, they admitted it has not been tested against Ebola itself as Thailand does not have a BSL-4 facility capable of safely conducting research on Ebolaviruses. Scientists from the WHO and NIH have offered to test the treatment against live Ebola virus in suitable laboratories in the USA, but emphasized that even if successful it would take quite some time for testing and development to the point that the treatment can be trialled in humans. Thai researchers claim breakthrough in Ebola treatment. Ron Corben, Voice of America News, 3 October 2014

− So hopefully the editor who originally deleted will see fit to buff the above text up and reinsert it into the article OR provide a better rationale for perhaps relocating it into a subpage of some kind. ThanksWikidgood (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

New refs version in progress

Researchers at Mahidol University in Thailand have developed an antibody-based treatment for Ebola using synthesized fragments of the virus. However while it is claimed to have been successfully tested against less virulent related viruses, they admitted it has not been tested against Ebola itself as Thailand does not have a BSL-4 facility capable of safely conducting research on Ebolaviruses. Scientists from the WHO and NIH have offered to test the treatment against live Ebola virus in suitable laboratories in the USA, but emphasized that even if successful it would take quite some time for testing and development to the point that the treatment can be trialled in humans.[Thai researchers claim breakthrough in Ebola treatment. Ron Corben, Voice of America News, 3 October 2014]

[8][ http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Wanpen_Chaicumpa2]Wikidgood (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC) Scientists in Thailand believe they've found a new type of antibody that is effective against the virus. The team of doctors at Siriraj Hospital are confident that it will work and the side effects will be low, but it has not been tested in animals or humans and is at least a year away at least from being developed.

let me be clear. I edit health/medicine topics quite a bit and deploy the guideline for health/medical content,

WP:AGF and to be uncivil in word and tone. I have no interest in discussing anything with someone who is simultaneously aggressive and ignorant. really. no. interest. Jytdog (talk
) 02:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes we seriously need better sources. We should never be using the popular press for research.
talk • contribs • email
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Do me a favor and refrain from speculation as to what I do and do not know and stick to the Wikipedia rules including
WP:RS and what you are requiring is either primary sources or alternatively for us to wait around a couple of years for a tertiary source. So there you have it. You are violating numerous Wikipedia policies and think you own this page and HIV/AIDS
.

CWikidgood (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Please do not use the article Talk page to discuss editors. Regarding the proposed Thai content, I disagree with the proposed and suggest maybe a brief one sentence mention like "they're working on it, not going to be available any time soon," sourced to CNN, in the Research section after the mention of the Russian efforts. Zad68 04:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wikidgood: I'm the first to agree that MEDRS, especially as it is actually used, is an overbearing and unreasonable guideline that has been used to destroy many interesting research leads in thousands of articles. That said, this is not the right hill to die on. I took the guy's name, Wanpen Chaicumpa, and searched Google News, sorted by date, came up with four items. And in most of those items, the tone was standoffish, using words like 'claim' or putting 'antibody' in quotes. Based on the lack of links for his name (but presence for others) at [9] I don't think he has a lab website, and the news reports don't cite any primary source (MEDRS people hate those but they're my gold standard) where I could start to figure out the details of the scheme - not even a statement it was presented at a conference. To be sure, he probably has something cool and he probably is collaborating trying to get it developed, but at this point it is still a very, very, VERY minor bit of news about a research direction that has not seen a real in vitro test. It doesn't deserve a paragraph, and to be honest, I don't think it even deserves a mention yet. Wnt (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

References

This should be added after

"proper disposal of the dead through cremation or burial.[1][4]"

The efficacy of proper protective gear and its disposal after use, and constant decontamination of one's hands and equipment was demonstrated by Fatu Kekula, a 22-year-old Liberian nursing student in August 2014. Ms Kekula singlehandedly treated four family members who had acquired the virus, using nothing more than disposable raincoats, plastic garbage bags and rain boots and a makeshift isolation unit. Her mother, father and sister survived; her 14-year-old cousin did not. reference: http://www.latimes.com/world/africa/la-fg-in-liberia-woman-fight-ebola-20141005-story.html.

This young woman's story was not widely publicized though it should be. Where other medical workers have been stuffing themselves into very costly level-4 biohazard suits which may have given some of them a false sense of security, this woman's ingenuity, and her success, should be more widely told. It demonstrates that one can be effective without access to high-tech equipment, as long as one remains acutely aware of the threat.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.37.69 (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

As inspiring as this is, anecdotes aren't really evidence. For all we know there could be dozens, even hundreds of Liberians who, having relatives turned away from treatment centers, made makeshift efforts ... and we only hear about one who lived. It is also possible that she was simply immune to the virus by some happy genetic accident, or was exposed to some related variant in the past and survived the infection. So we can't go beyond what this source presents the story as -- an inspiring story. Wnt (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

naming: EVD vs. EHF (Ebola virus disease vs. Ebola hemorrhagic fever)

Hey

Jeremyb (talk
) 18:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This ref say EHF [10]
talk • contribs • email
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
So how do we decide who to go with? My gut says that site just didn't get around to updating yet. (i.e. if we called them and asked whether they intended to be inconsistent they might fix it...) --
Jeremyb (talk
) 19:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Here is another reference stating the WHO and other groups prefer "Ebola virus disease": [11] I think the current wording with EHF in parentheses is appropriate.
Xqxf (talk
) 19:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, this is interesting. The CDC changed from calling it Ebola hemorrhagic fever on September 6 [12] to Ebola (and Ebola virus disease) by September 24 [13]. Most of the references I have seen for "hemorrhagic fever" are older ones.
Xqxf (talk
) 19:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, I'm somewhat new to medicine articles. I had a brief look at
Jeremyb (talk
) 19:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes I agree that "Ebola virus disease" is the prefered term. EHF is still however used per lots of major sites [14]
This is similar to the situation with "sexually transmitted infection" and "sexually transmitted disease". STI is prefer while STD is still extensively used.
As both EHF and EVD are still being used IMO we should just mention the main one first in the lead as we do right now. We could mention that EHF is less prefered in the society and culture section but I do not think this is important enough for the lead.
talk • contribs • email
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong subject heading "International spread"

The heading "International spread" is erroneous, unless you believe that Africa is a country. Liberia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Nigeria were also affected by "international spread" from Guinea. A better heading would be "Intercontinental spread". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.79.115 (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you and done.
talk • contribs • email
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2014

. ›

Under signs and symptoms, text is as follows: The time between exposure to the virus and the development of symptoms of the disease is usually 2 to 21 days.[1][9] Estimates based on mathematical models predict that around 5% of cases may take greater than 21 days to develop.[10]

I would like to recommend a different wording of the last sentence: The PLoS Current Outbreaks study indicates that the probability of exceeding the quarantine period is up to 12% (range 0.1%-12%). They state that "21 days may not be sufficiently protective to public health", and their mathematical model suggests a quarantine time of up to 31 days.[10]

CellbioPhD (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

What wording are you suggesting exactly?
talk • contribs • email
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
We were going by "The WHO Response Team17 has just published an incubation time distribution based on the first 9 months of the West Africa outbreak (total of 4010 confirmed and probable cases with usable data). They reported a mean incubation period of 11.4 days with an upper 95th percentile of 21 days — and they were able to fit the data to a gamma distribution."
talk • contribs • email
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear CellbioPhD I have commented on this in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa please look over there for the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbe (talk • contribs) 02:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola Reston cross-reactivity

Using human serum samples [15] and monoclonal antibodies [16] there seems to be substantial (though only partial) cross-reactivity between

Ebola Reston and Ebola Zaire. This interests me in that I wonder whether, in a near doomsday scenario, Ebola Reston could be used as a quick and dirty "vaccine" (as per cowpox). But I suspect that I might encounter some resistance in citing the two studies above without some more secondary publication to icebreak for them; can someone point me toward one? Wnt (talk
) 18:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

If someone is studying this possibility and it is mentioned in a secondary source we could mention it in the research section.
talk • contribs • email
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I haven't seen one so far, though this is just maddeningly suggestive. Wnt (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we get a better photo for page top?

I think we can do better than a poorly lit photo with dire need for color correction On my monitor it has wa too much bklue. How depressing. Wikidgood (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Basic English

So the question is should we be using basic English in the lead? While we are supposed to be writing for a general audience, so my position is yes. We can use more complicated terms in the body of the text but the lead should at least be keep as simple as reasonably possible with links to the more complicated terms. Others thoughts?

talk • contribs • email
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. Not every article needs to target a general audience, but this one clearly does. That doesn't mean that the whole article has to be non-technical, but it does mean that it should start at a level that would be comprehensible to a smart 12-year old.--Srleffler (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I definitely think the article lead (in all medical articles frankly) should be in basic English. Since this article is being read by an enormous audience, the ability of the audience to comprehend what is written should be among our highest priorities. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree. The current lead seems ok. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree as well. Gandydancer (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Right, but not to the point of talking down to people or turning this intoSimple English Wikipedia. I agree that the lede is NOW in good shape, after having won passive consensus that people who understand the term external bleeding can be expected to understand the term internal bkeeding. I had a bit of push back on that, but "bleeding inside the body" was so awkward and contrived and condescending I am glad you like it the way it is now. Just because it is an encyclopedia does not mean it has to use wrethced Enclish. Wikidgood (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Virology Section

The Virology section immediately starts with:

"They contain single-strand, non-infectious RNA genomes"

But, what are "they". Presumably the "they" are viruses, but the English is poor. This needs rewriting. 194.176.105.141 (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and done.
talk • contribs • email
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, my name is Michael and I am a student at Western University, Ontario, and am currently completing my BSc degree with Honors Specialization in Genetics. I would like to take some time to add some additional information on the genetics of the ebola virus, in conjunction with this "virology" subheading. This information will cover general concepts of the ebola genome, and help readers to realize the importance of genetics when thinking about a viral disease. The content added will all be taken from appropriate secondary sources, consisting of books from Western University's Virology collection, and online review articles. Please let me know if anyone is opposed to me doing so. This will be monitored and evaluated by my professor. Miacocca (talk · contribs)

Ebola virus predicted by Dr.Kamal hasan in his film "Dasavatharam" in 2008

Ebola virus predicted by Dr.Kamal hasan in his film "Dasavatharam" in 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.183.245.194 (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Dasavatharam is a unique film, no doubt. Its idea of crossing Marburg virus with Ebola is certainly doable, and might result in a worse strain, with some trial and error. However, the present outbreak does not have Marburg sequence and falls neatly enough into the Ebola "species"; there is no obvious reason to suspect foul play in its emergence. We don't presently have an "Ebola virus disease in popular culture" section (many may say that's a mercy, though we ought to house such data somewhere) but in any case this movie, using a more diverged strain, would go somewhere else. Wnt (talk
) 10:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola in us

will ebola kill most of the us? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.171.217 (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

up to now ebola outbreak has arrived at chetumal and mexico and many believe that it has reached guatemala.åĈÒŖŊשקףעןןמ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junway690 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Seriously. No. Doc James (talk • contribs • email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for hat-link modest expansion to include the epidemic.

I think that the majority of surfers/readers who are consulting WP regarding Ebola are primarily concerned about the outbreak rather than the pathology. It only makes sense to include a link at the top, what we call the hatlink, which both directs readers to

Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa and also informs them that there is in fact a page on that topic. People who are interested in virology per se, who are probably more knowledgable and sophisticated readers anyway, are well served by the link in the very first part of the lede. But for whatever reason the immediate lede does not discuss the current two outbreaks in Africa and so many peopkle who are primarily concerned with the epidemics are sent down a blind alley, or at least a dark alleyway of pathology studies when in fact they were seeking basic epidemiology...this doesn't seem right and the vague generality of the existing hatlink does little to clarify the matter Even more knowledgable surfers may overlook the hatlink to the disambiguation page thinking it is all about the Ebola River and pop music which by now we have all heard about regarding Ebola outreach and education. In fact, the very most sophisticated readers who know WIkipedia may, as do I, hate being diverted to disambiguation pages, so I think this makes the case for adding to the hat link reference to [Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa]. Problem is that I am having a bad day with a quirky wireless connection and odd browser behaviour and I can't quite see it through to make the edit right now so if someone knows how to edit the hatlink please be bold and make this commonsense edit for the good of all, thanks. Wikidgood (talk
) 22:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the majority are interested about the disease in general. We do not use hatlinks like this. The 4th paragraph of the lead does discuss the outbreak and links to the article on it.
talk • contribs • email
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see
WP:RELATED). This is also touched on at Talk:Ebola (disambiguation). Saying that, it's interesting that we don't seem to be consistent - Influenza A virus subtype H1N1 has a hatnote to the pandemic. Widefox; talk
09:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Fixed the issue at influenza.
talk • contribs • email
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, good work. Widefox; talk 19:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
It is not a "fix" it is a unilateralist imposition now onto another page I would suggest that other page establishes a precedent for my proposal. Hatlinks frequently link to two different alternative topics. I find it difficult to fathom why you would oppose a simple navigation aid like this. I don't see how it is that you claim hatlinks are not used that way. Many of them are.
A vague reference to an earlier discussion does not give you leave to apply that no to a different page. What you did is harmful to the whole process on WP because yuou are taking a suggestion I made for an edit, finding exactly onesupporter to outvote without further discussion, and then going out onto WIkipedia and applying the opposite approasch to what I had suggested. This onto a page that was set upin the suggested manner.
In other words, if I try to DISCUSS with you, at the first chance to outvote me you will then proceed not onkly to rejection the suggestion I have made but you will then unilaterally impose your preference on other pages which did not have the discussion.
It seems that you have thus invented a new for of
edit warring
. Please stop your oppositionalism. It seems now if I make even a suggestion rather than an edit you will go out onto mainspace looking for articles on which you can apply the exact opposite of what I had discussed.
Please don't do that again. It is in my opinion disruptive editing and destabilizes
WP:AGF. Wikidgood (talk
) 02:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
It may seem counterintuitive, but it is neither unilateral (I agree with it, as shown above and at several discussions linked above), and it is explicitly follows the guideline (as detailed above). As such, it's best to gain consensus for overriding it. Widefox; talk 10:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Proof of the pudding: how minimalist hatlinks confuse readers

This proves my point. The Frieden page links here inadvetantly when it means to klink to the epidemic, and the problem will go on foreve. An ordinary dual site hatlink is indicated.Wikidgood (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 outbreak -> 2013–2014

The "2014" outbreak started in 2013 (as correctly detailed at List of Ebola outbreaks, so we should refrain from using "2014 outbreak", the epidemic may be 2013 or 2014 I don't know. Our timeline in Epidemiology here is sectioned "1995 to 2013", then "2014 West African outbreak". Suggest simple rename "1995 to 2012" (luckily previous one stopped in 2012), and then "2013 to 2014 West African outbreak" for the current (large) outbreak. Widefox; talk 10:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It was only in 2014 that the outbreak was reported / detected. Doc James (talk • contribs • email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Sure, how much emphasis do we put on the reported/detected date, rather than the date it was traced back to? I can understand it both ways, certainly in terms of "epidemic" more than "outbreak" but we should at least be consistent, if not accurate across the list and here. Looking into my dark crystal ball, we're close to rolling this into 2015 too where it won't be 2014 and a range will be needed anyhow. I've fixed the previous section range to 2012 so at least we don't have to list it there too. Widefox; talk 17:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. Doc James (talk • contribs • email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Estimates based on mathematical models

Shouldn't that read "One mathematical model predicted...."? It's just one study in PLoS Current Outbreaks http://currents.plos.org/outbreaks/article/on-the-quarantine-period-for-ebola-virus/ I couldn't find any comment on it. It hasn't been listed in PubMed yet.

In fact, it's a

WP:MEDRS
primary source. Should it go into the article at all?

Interesting though it may be. --Nbauman (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Though about just removing it. A lot of popular press picked up on this. Thus may not be a bad idea to touch on it anyway. Doc James (talk • contribs • email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe good in the research section. Doc James (talk • contribs • email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Dogs

We discuss lower in the article [17] thus removed "Although infected dogs may remain

PMID 15757552
.]

Doc James (talk • contribs • email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Dogs / references

The popular press and primary sources are not good as references. Secondary sources and statements from national and international bodies are much better. Doc James (talk • contribs • email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It is quite clear that the CNN report I added is QUOTING a CDC spokesperson. That would seem to meet your threshold or do you actually have some other unstated metric? FeatherPluma (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a high quality secondary source [18]. This is popular press which we should not be using for medical content per

WP:MEDRS
.

While respecting your opinion, I disagree. With respect, the policy you reference doesn't say they are "not good as references" in a monolithic way. What it says explicitly is "As the quality of press coverage of medicine ranges from excellent to irresponsible, use common sense, and see how well the source fits the verifiability policy and general reliable sources guidelines." In this case, one element I added QUOTED the CDC. The other element QUOTED the CEO of the AVMA. That said, I do much prefer the PMID review you replaced with. But perhaps you might want to take stock of the embarrassing fact that despite the epidemic outbreak, I earlier removed the UNCITED rubbish in Wikipedia that EBOV is (still) diagnosed by exclusion (which is inconsistent with the entire strategy of setting up rapid turn around lab facilities in West Africa). This WAS reasonable before the outbreak (Positive and negative predictive values) but IMO it's outright crazy presently. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We should be using the CDC directly not CNN. Doc James (talk • contribs • email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You may have read more CDC releases than I have. If so, when you get your hands on it, we can replace the cited CDC spokesperson's quote because I understand what you are saying. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I will see what I can pull together. Doc James (talk • contribs • email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


Also, when citing websites, can you use the following template please? {{cite web |url= |title= |last1= |first1= |last2= |first2= |date= |website= |publisher= |accessdate=}} Thank you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
"Also?" Do you mean for THIS article could I please use the reference style that's established for THIS particular article? Sure, I'd typically be 100% fine with that. Because, yes, if you asked, I'd confirm I knew to do that. Except I think you are "also" bringing very substantial and completely INAPPROPRIATE pressure for me to stand down on the busy issue of substance in play by PUSHING this issue of FORM at this point. Despite being cloaked in a soft cloth, it's coming over to me as pressure to stop editing on the substance, in order to spend (immediate?) time on the form. You have considerable experience here and can very easily check that I spend enormous effort on typesetting references to the established style within individual articles. Your timing and the "also" are coming over to me as obsequious criticism of the content I was working on collaboratively with another editor, and, as such, I perceive it as abuse. So terribly sorry, but at this time I'm upset by you and I don't want to typeset any references. I have other life projects to multitask. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've thought a bit more about how I experienced things today. I think I ought to emphatically and apologetically withdraw any personal comment to other editor(s), but I'd like to emphasize why I am extremely frustrated by what happenens. What actually irks me is I've noticed this as a pattern. What I think likely happens is that an editor starts work on an article, and the wiki system flags the article watchers, who arrive "simultaneously and independently", and then the watching editors both (worst case scenario - all) "come at" the article and start to address the first person. And by not thinking of how it will come across, the second watcher skewers the original contributor in a two pronged thrust. This comes over as abuse, and the flurry of edits causes wiki conflicts that lock out the system. I think the solution is a recommendation to give the process / editing system some space if the original editor and the first watcher are making headway, which in my experience is usually the case. Otherwise, people (not me, lots of people) are going to be overwhelmed and driven away, even if they are good at multitasking. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to edit transmission guidlines

An addition should be made that says though ebola is generally not transmitted via the air, any aerosol-generating procedures (e.g., intubation, bronchoscopy, suctioning) require the addition of a full face respirator or powered air purifying respirator. ["007 Guideline for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings". CDC - Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Center For Disease Control. Retrieved 27 October 2014.] AMMedStudent (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Categories: Wikipedia pages referenced by the press

On October 26, 2014, Wikipedia's

Ebola virus disease page received a highly favorable write-up by The New York Times. I have accordingly added this entry to Categories: Wikipedia pages referenced by the press. Kudos to all the editors who contributed to creating and maintaining this outstanding article. JohnValeron (talk
) 05:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia took over the internet some time ago. It is why it is so important to keep it accurate; people trust us, sometimes rather blindly. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Note that on 3 October, Dr. Shane Speights of St. Bernards Medical Center was rather more critical of this article in a KAIT/ABC News report. He complained in particular about citations to press sources. (Dr. Speights said doctors never cite newspaper articles, rather journal articles and studies. "So even on Ebola, just in this quick review here, we found this is not referenced correctly," he said. "They try to cite it but they can't verify all of those. You're talking about hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of entries in Wikipedia. There's no way that humans can sit down, go through all of those and verify that information with any significant accuracy.") And indeed, some key medical information in this article is currently sourced to the New York Times (ironically). Source added to talk page header. Andreas JN466 00:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Note
WP:MEDRS#Popular press. Such sourcing is against Wikipedia's own guideline. There should really be a note at the top of this article directing people to reliable websites like the CDC first: http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/index.html Andreas JN466
00:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Melatonin? Comment

In this edit my removal was reverted. I don't consider the cited reference adequate for the claim, which has not been studied in vitro or in vivo. That the author is an internist (as stated in the reversion's edit summary) carries no weight. -- Scray (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree. There does not appear to be research supporting these conclusions. A strange paper indeed. Doc James (talk • contribs • email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

link to translation in Bambara

I added [[bm:Ebola virisi bana]] but it's not showing up. Can someone make sure the link appears? Guaka (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk • contribs • email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

More discussion of disease progression / prognosis

Right now, the weakest part of this article is probably the short "prognosis" section. It gives a little bit of vague information about death rates, and discusses some of the long-term problems that can occur, but there are many other things that could be added.

For example, the prognosis section provides almost no information on the timeline of the disease. My understanding is that from the first fever to either death or the end of the acute infection is typically 4-10 days (mean 7.5 in current outbreak [19]) and only rarely more than two weeks, not including the longer period of recuperation that may be needed to deal with the effects of the virus. In addition, as I understand it, the virus generally presents with fever that is almost always followed a day or two later by GI symptoms (e.g. diarrhea / vomiting), which is followed by hemorrhagic symptoms in a minority of cases. We should be able to document the typical progression and give information on how often different major symptoms occur. Medscape gives one such summary of major symptoms [20]. We also say little about the immediate cause(s) of death due to Ebola. As I understand it, the immediate cause of death is often dehydration or low blood volume, though organ failure and other causes can occur. Obviously, we need to use sources to accurately document the details, but there have been many Ebola case studies published including some reviews, and right now very few details about the disease's progression have made it into our discussion of prognosis. We could also include the impact of supportive care or other treatments to the extent one can find sources discussing such things. (It probably isn't an accident that most cases treated outside Africa have survived, though that evidence might be a bit too anecdotal at the moment.)

As a minor point, I would also mention that main outbreak article cites the 70% CFR reported by the WHO team writing in NEJM in October [21] rather than the 50% we presently state (based curiously enough on a WHO website as updated in September). Dragons flight (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Added a bit. Doc James (talk • contribs • email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times: Wikipedia Emerges as Trusted Internet Source for Ebola Information

Might be a useful source for use in this article. — Cirt (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting article, but I do not think Wikipedia's coverage of the disease is relevant enough to the disease itself to merit any mention in the article. Or was there another piece of information in the source that you thought could be included? VQuakr (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2014

. ›

you all are idiots half of this information is invalid could you please remove it before you give to many peoplle false information 108.40.3.138 (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

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. Cannolis (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
What information is invalid exactly? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight for news article

I'm not sure about this content from a news article. This is way too long and the source may not be reliable for the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The content is not new - people have been saying poverty, illiteracy & poor infrastructure contribute to spread since March. It's an interview, not a citable article, and it's about the particular circumstances in West Africa. We've covered this topic pretty thoroughly in the West Africa page already. Robertpedley (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes agree it is undue weight here. We already discuss in other sections and this is specifically about the 2014 outbreak and if anywhere would be their not here. Doc James (talk • contribs • email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
This content is much too long and is from a single source. If we add more to article it need to be from a global collective or body who puts the issue into a worldwide context. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Linking to the ongoing out above the start of the lead

This was discussed here [22]. There is no consensus at this point. We link to the outbreak in the 4th paragraph of the lead and in the epidemiology section.

I see linking it their as problematic for a number of reasons. What happens for the next outbreak? Or when this outbreak is over? Doc James (talk • contribs • email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The "discussed here" example offered above concerns the disambiguation page, not this article.--Froglich (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
What would happen? Well, we certainly would not have to mail out recent updates to everybody that had bought our encyclopedia. We would just remove it and Presto! - problem solved. I have brought this up before in the case of other articles where a disease suddenly became newsworthy, but have been soundly voted down. It would be refreshing to see a change, but I'm not holding my breath. It seems odd to me that we have agreed to change our choices of wording to take the level of reading comprehension of our readers into consideration, but refuse to make any changes that may help to lead them to the information that they are seeking. Gandydancer (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The reticence to having redirects or links to the outbreak article from this one has been the most odd case I have seen during my time on Wikipedia (which I'll stipulate hasn't been that long, but I nonetheless). Sure: there's a link at the bottom of the fourth fat lead paragraph under a wall of text in the 27th sentence of the article and representing the 39th "blue link"-- as if someone quickly trying to find the current outbreak article (after having entered "Ebola" as a search term and been redirected here) is going to wade through all that before giving up in frustration). The 39th link? Uhm, *no*. I'm changing it back.--Froglich (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is
WP:NOTNEWS and articles shouldn't have time-sensitive hatnotes. Zad68
19:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
You need to actually READ that, and understand why you have misconstrued what
WP:NOTNEWS actually means. The first sentence you'll see there is "See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events)", with the main body of the piece concerning material which is not notable. So, is this ongoing outbreak a notable event? If you think not, by your own logic you should attempt to AfD the outbreak article right now.--Froglich (talk
) 19:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
This is an improper use of the lede. The lead should say "Ebola" redirects here. For other uses, see Ebola (disambiguation). There is a summary in the body with a wikilink to the main article. See
Ebola virus disease#2013 to 2014 West African outbreak. QuackGuru (talk
) 19:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: My previous edit caused the disambiguation link to disappear. It's now been fixed.--Froglich (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
There is also a wikilink in the lede: "The largest outbreak to date is the ongoing epidemic in West Africa, which is centered in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia.[7][8][9]" Too many wikilinks is a violation of
WP:OVERLINK. QuackGuru (talk
) 20:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
As mentioned above (see sentence beginning "The reticence..."), the lede is so lengthy that any particular link to another article is difficult to find amongst the clutter if you're a new arrival.--Froglich (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:OVERLINK
only allows one link in the lede and it is a distraction to link to another article at the top.
There is an entire section in the body titled in bold black 2013 to 2014 West African outbreak with a wikilink to "Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa". QuackGuru (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
1) WP:OVERLINK does not preclude hatnotes.
2) The bold section is halfway down the article far out of sight. In fact, the entire TOC is off-screen on a standard 15" laptop display with one's browser zoomed to full-screen. Such is far from ideal.--Froglich (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Second request for hat-link expansion

(Most recent discussion's last comment

here
.) Propose:

"Ebola" redirects here. For other uses, see
Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa
.

--Froglich (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose We already link to it in the lead and in the body of the text. We are not a news source and this is undue weight. Doc James (talk • contribs • email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS does not mean what you think it means (people really need to go there and bone up). I.e, it should not be construed as arguing that Wikipedia should refrain from commenting on obviously notable ongoing events.--Froglich (talk
) 00:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Request fails twofold due to
WP:10YT already - see 1. Widefox; talk
02:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
1) So there's an tiny outbreak confined to the jungles of the Congo, and then there's the other one which is five orders of magnitude larger and which is presently the collective world's #1 topic of conversation and likely to remain so for quite some time. No comparison whatsoever.
2) WR:RECENT expressly concerns main article content, not hatnote links to other temporal articles (the creation of which WP:RECENT specifically recommends (e.g., the west Africa outbreak article being just such an example).--Froglich (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
1. Good, we agree there's two outbreaks: the hatnote is factually misleading
2. "expressly" Where? It says "edits" - others disagree with your interpretation -
WP:RECENT apply. Widefox; talk
20:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Such expanded hats are in common, widespread, normal usage across the encyclopedia, and indeed the whole point of redirect6 templating is to easily enable them. As far as consensus is concerned, over the course of this request and the previous one, I'm seeing only two editors on this TP come out in opposition to an IMO perfectly reasonable link to the outbreak article in the hat (rather than having it buried under a wall of text). Meanwhile, no less than three were in support today (as I see from the editing history). Therefore, I do not judge that you have consensus. (Regards the reversions by other editors earlier today, they were in hindsight reasonable since improper template formulation was dropping the disambiguation link).--Froglich (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion of the merits (or incorrect implementation in other articles) of the guideline
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS wouldn't change anything. Widefox; talk
04:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Regards
WP:RELATED, go there, then go all the way to the top of the page. The second sentence of Wikipedia:Hatnote (of which WP:Related is a direct to one small section) reads: "Hatnotes help readers locate a different article they might be seeking." -- Yes, that's exactly what they're for, and so in the spirit of Wikipedia to step around arbitrarily-worded bureaucratese, I shall continue advocating helping readers to locate a different article they might be seeking. --Froglich (talk
) 05:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:RELATED is one section of WP:HAT, but it is also the section that is most relevant. There are a multitude of ways to link between articles, and a reader can click on the link in the text of the lede, click twice through the disambiguation page, or click from the hatnote in the "2014 spread outside of Africa". This is plenty of accessibility. If you disagree, there are multiple
dispute resolution methods available to you that are preferable to edit warring. VQuakr (talk
) 06:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is edit warring at the present time.--Froglich (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Yet to see any proposal based on policy/guideline, without one this seems
WP:DEADHORSE. Widefox; talk
20:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Strong support It is just a matter of common sense. Many people are concerned about the current outbreak situation and probably should read both this article, both, and perhaps the article about the virus itself. But clearly the addition of two or three words linking to the outbreak article is a very minimal addition which aids reader navigtion. I proposed this and provided an example of a link, one from the Tom Frieden article, which inadvertantly linked here when it obviously was concerned with Dr,. Frieden's work on the epidemic. The CDC is not the NIAID and his work on the epidemic containment and control is quite distinct from the work of scientists at NIH and its grantees who work on the virus and clinical trials as opposed to those who work on a retail clinical level. I cannot fathom the intensity with which two allied editors resist the addition of a few words which will vastly simplify reader choice and ability to use Wikipedia as a resource. In fairness I will withold further speculation as this thread escaped my notice and apparently has been running hot with suggestions that the minority position is some kind of dead-horse-whipper but I think that similarly unflattering metaphors could well be suggested for the obverse position. And I will remind you that the setup on AIDS was previously set up with disambiguating hatlinkage which was destroyed by one of the above editors after, and apparently spurred by, my simple request for the hatlink on this article. That was done unilaterally despite my obvious opposition, and is not consistent with WP etiquette and
WP:AGF because one is thereby assserting page ownership and virally spreading one's own preference in direct opposition to the thread of discussion. Again, just my initial perception as I don't have time now to review this entire thread. Be assured, the horse whipping is not done until the Ebola crisis has been laid to rest, and anyone engaging in obstructionism is harming rather than helping PWE. "Do No Harm". Wikidgood (talk
) 00:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from making comments about editors - comment on content instead. Commonsense for a newspaper yes - see
WP:LEGITHAT (which is similar to RELATED) "This is a typical and highly improper misuse of disambiguating hatnotes. Instead, the information belongs in the body of the article, or in the articles about the book, or in a separate article about names, or all three places. Hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion and direct readers to another article they might have been looking for, not for information about the subject of the article itself" Widefox; talk
01:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@Wikidgood: I fixed the link at Tom Frieden, which you of course could have just done yourself. We already link to the West Africa outbreak article in multiple places. We could add to the hatnote, but by your reasoning why stop there? The permutations of the number and prominence of links between the articles is nearly limitless. This is why we have guidelines on the subject, and the guideline directs us to exclude related articles from the hatnote. VQuakr (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

New Proposal: Mention current outbreak in the first paragraph

I made this edit as a compromise of sorts. It moves the link to the ongoing epidemic from the end of the fourth paragraph to the end of the first so that it is more prominent and somewhat easier for visitors to find. Dragons flight (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The epidemiology is dealt with in the 4th paragraph. Thus returned their. We are an encyclopedia and this is not the article about the outbreak. We do not need to become a newspaper.Doc James (talk • contribs • email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Ultimately, we are here to be useful to our readers. Some attention to what they are likely to be looking for is appropriate. In your obsession with NOTNEWS you seem to want to deemphasize a major part of Ebola's story, which is the present outbreak. Dragons flight (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Since Doc James so kindly reverted, let me formally propose that a link to the current epidemic page should be part of the first paragraph of this article. As mentioned above, I made an edit to suggest how that could be done, but I'm not wedded to any particular phrasing, and alternatives are welcome. I do think though that burying any reference of the present epidemic until the fourth paragraph is making it unnecessarily hard for readers to find information on what many people reading about Ebola are likely to be looking for. In the example edit, I left the newsy cases / death information where is was (in the fourth paragraph), but simply saying that the current outbreak is the largest ever is likely to be true for a very long time (maybe even forever, if we are very lucky). For good or ill the present outbreak is huge part of the story of EVD, and I disagree with waiting so long to mention it in the lead. (I also think the high mortality rate is one of the defining aspects of the disease and deserves a more prominent position in the lead, but that is perhaps an argument for later.) Dragons flight (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Nav templates go at the bottom of articles not in the lead. So yes objection to putting it under the infobox. Doc James (talk • contribs • email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Oops, I've corrected my imprecision. Options (in my preferred order): 1. put it in the relevant section 2. at the top after the infobox 3. not include it at all 4. other (such as creating a nav template or expanding the current infobox) Widefox; talk 20:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Questionably optimistic lethality-rate phrasing

The fourth paragraph of the lede begins: "No specific treatment for the virus is available. Efforts to help those who are infected are supportive; they include giving either oral rehydration therapy (slightly sweetened and salty water to drink) or intravenous fluids as well as treating symptoms. This supportive care improves outcomes. The disease has a high risk of death, killing between 25 percent and 90 percent of those infected with the virus, with an average mortality rate of 50 percent."

I would also note that in the two previous EBOV outbreaks in which # of cases exceeded 300, that CFR was over 80%. Therefore, I think the article should distinguish between more and less lethal viral strains, as the currently depicted numbers appear derived from inclusion of statistically small outbreak (i.e., those more easily dealt with by medical care) as well as numbers from the more lenient BDBV and SUDV strains. Taking out just the one Uganda BDBV outbreak causes the low end of lethality to jump from 25% into the fortieth percentiles (thus also skewing up the average mortality to well above 50%). For EBOV, the lowest CFR for any triple-digit outbreak is 79%--Froglich (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This are the numbers given by WHO and thus IMO we should stick with them for the lead. Doc James (talk • contribs • email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy with using those numbers, but the sentence is virtually repeated in the prognosis section, and certainly there, and probably in the lead, needs more explanation - different outbreaks (in WHO ref), different strains (not in WHO but not hard to ref I'm sure). The prognosis section could generally do with careful expansion. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
John, I agree, however I have never seen a RS that explains this. If you can find one, that would be great. Gandydancer (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2014

. ›

I'm logged in as TrueBlueLou -- don't know why I cannot edit this page. Anyway, someone please consider changing the ICD-9-CM code from 065.8 to 078.89

This is per this information: “It turns out there are two different codes that can be assigned to Ebola virus disease in ICD-9 depending on the way Ebola is located in the ICD-9 Alphabetic Index. First, index Infection→virus→Ebola to locate code 065.8, Other specified arthropod—borne hemorrhagic fever. Second, index Infection→Ebola to find code 078.89, Other specified diseases due to viruses. Upon a request for clarification from AHIMA, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has confirmed that the correct ICD-9-CM code is 078.89. This helps to clear up confusion about which ICD-9-CM code should be assigned today. Just like code 065.8 lacks the specificity to clearly identify Ebola as discussed in my last blog, so does code 078.89! In ICD-10, however, code A98.4, Ebola virus disease, will allow for unequivocal identification of this deadly disease.” Here is the source for the entire article” http://3mhealthinformation.wordpress.com/2014/09/17/follow-up-august-coding-challenge-on-ebola/.

TrueBlueLou (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Am I correct in my interpretation that a specific code for "Ebola" doesn't currently exist in the ICD-9-CM? AlphaEta 02:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
AE as far as I can tell, yes, according to this and this there's no specific entry for EVD in ICD-9, there's 2 "rollup" entries under which EVD might fit but nothing specific to EVD. I can't even see strong support for one over the other between them. The blog author Sue Belley works for 3M's coding services but I can't necessarily say that makes her blog the final authority. But reading around I see support for 078.89 and not 065.8 so given the lack of anything better I'll make the change. Zad68 03:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Prognosis in the lead

We have had the discussion regarding how to present prognosis before regarding other health issues. User:Dragons flight has again added it to the first paragraph here. Some are against having it in the lead at all. I am of the opinion that a fair compromise is to have it in the 4th paragraph along with epidemiology which was were it was before. Part of the reason is that the mortality is not simply 50% but varies based on supportive treatment. Doc James (talk • contribs • email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it varies with supportive treatment, and also substantially with the strain of virus. That said, the high mortality rate is one of the defining characteristics of EVD, and I believe it should be highlighted more than it was. Giving an average mortality (or perhaps a range of mortalities) seems like a reasonable approach to me. The previous language "Death, if it occurs, ..." was ridiculously non-specific on this point, and is essentially saying that death occurs in more than 0% and less than 100% of cases. I certainly think we can find a way to be more precise than that when we introduce death as a possible (and in fact, frequent) outcome. Dragons flight (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps worth considering that the media (in the UK at least) seems to mention it routinely. I would guess that high mortality wouldn't be a
shock to many, given the general circumstances and concern. 109.153.156.71 (talk
) 19:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't look to the popular press to guide us on this. Zad68 03:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I do see the WHO's site puts the death rate as Fact #3 on their fact sheet, so it should get weight, but as was pointed out a flat number won't do, I don't think, so I added that the rate can vary widely. Zad68 03:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

2013 West Africa outbreak date contradiction

For the index case in

2014 Ebola virus disease epidemic timeline#December 2013 we use the 6 December 2013 date per the sources there. Which is it, or do we quote both dates? Widefox; talk
12:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a good point. This from the NY Times says "Patient Zero ... died on Dec. 6" 2013, which appears to have picked it up from this article from the NEJM, which says "the suspected first case of the outbreak was a 2-year-old child who died in Meliandou in Guéckédou prefecture on December 6, 2013." However the NEJM article goes on to say "A second investigation confirmed the origin of the outbreak in Meliandou but revealed a somewhat different timing of the early events (including the death of Patient S1 at the end of December and the deaths of Patients S2, S3, and S4 in January)." -- so (once again) a popular press article (the NYTimes) is probably oversimplifying it. This from the WHO says "Onset 26/12/13 - Died 28/12/13". I think we should just say "December 2013" and not try to put a date on it, because the date within December doesn't appear well-established. Zad68 13:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Edit done. Zad68 13:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Other two articles  Done,  Done. Widefox; talk 22:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Symptomes

Maybe interesting: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1411680 192.38.121.229 (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

EBOV: doubled abbreviation

The article presently uses the abbreviation EBOV to refer to both Ebola viruses as a group and to the Zaire Ebola virus in particular. There are a several places where this makes the meaning unclear. I realize that both acronyms are used by various references, but we probably shouldn't use the same acronym different ways in a single article.

I would suggest that references that are specific to Zaire EBOV be abbreviated as ZEBOV, as seen at sources such as [25][26][27], and the abbreviation EBOV be restricted to cases where discussion of all Ebola viruses is intended. Dragons flight (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dragons flight, thanks for bringing this up because I have long seen this problem but never quite knew how to go about fixing it. When I first started working on these Ebola articles I spent a lot of time trying to learn about the viruses, how to properly label them, when to use italics and caps, etc., only to find that the more I read the more confused I got. Becoming desperate and concerned that I was becoming senile, I actually got out a pencil and paper and wrote it down, only to find that a different source had something different. Wikipedia was no help either since even in the same article there seemed to be differences in the way things were explained, to say nothing of how the various studies I read were using the terms. The WHO, the CDC, and the Canada site you suggest are all different. If you look at our article, Ebolavirus, the genus lists the 5 species, Zaire ebolavirus, etc. But then further down it says: The five characterised members of the Ebolavirus genus are:
Ebola virus (EBOV) Formerly known as "Zaire virus" or "Zaire ebolavirus"... AFAIK, this is presently not correct. Presently all 5 of the species, including the Ebola species, are called xxx ebolavirus , for example Sudan ebolavirus, Zaire ebolavirus, etc. From there on to the individual virus in each species: The common name for the single virus in each of these species is Ebola virus (formerly Zaire ebolavirus), Sudan virus (formerly Sudan ebolavirus), etc.
So, it seems to me that using the old terminology of ZEBOV is not correct. We should stick with Ebola virus (EBOV) which means the individual virus in the species Zaire ebolavirus. But we need to somehow fix the instances in which EBOV is used to indicate all five of the species. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Ummm, isn't the quoted section of ebolavirus just wrong? The section cites the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses. The specific citation is now a dead link, but if I look at their current taxonomy [28] it gives:
Genus: Ebolavirus (5 Species)
Species: Bundibugyo ebolavirus
Species: Reston ebolavirus
Species: Sudan ebolavirus
Species: Tai Forest ebolavirus
Species: Zaire ebolavirus
I would assume those are the five official names at present. No "formerly known" as far as I can tell. Also, it appears that you are the one who edited ebolavirus recently [29]. So I think you just got this wrong. In casual usage it would not be uncommon to conflate all Ebola viruses with Zaire ebolavirus, but that is not correct from a formal scientific perspective. Dragons flight (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I edited Ebolavirus to restore the "Zaire ebolavirus" species designation. Dragons flight (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that you are wrong. There is currently no virus called a Zaire virus. There is a virus called an Ebola virus. It is the only virus in the Zaire ebolavirus species. Gandydancer (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I think you are pretty obviously wrong (bordering on silly actually), but for the sake of argument what evidence would you care to cite? For the record, in microbiology genetically distinct individuals within a species are generally termed strains. At least 50 strains of Ebolaviruses are known, roughly 30 of which belong to the Zaire ebolavirus species. Individual strains have uninteresting names like "Kissidougou-C15", "Luebo43", and "Reston09-A". This paper, for example, provides a phylogeny based on 24 of these strains [30]. There is no formal subspecies or strain of Zaire ebolavirus called simply "Ebola virus" for the obvious reason that this would be confusing. I can only assume that your confusion stems for people imprecisely using terminology in a variety of contexts. Dragons flight (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
PS. Many authors use the abbreviation EBOV for the Zaire ebolavirus, mainly for historical reason, but that shouldn't be misunderstood to suggest that "Ebola virus" is in any way the proper name for the Zaire ebolavirus. Dragons flight (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I found a long article [31] discussing Ebola nomenclature, the conflicts between names as used and as recommended. The article recommended creating a subcategory within "Species: Zaire ebolavirus" labeled "Virus: Ebola virus" for the type strain of Zaire ebolavirus (as well as corresponding ranks for other type strains). In 2011, ICTV explicitly rejected that proposal (2010.010bV) as creating a subdesignation "Virus: Ebola virus" was not within their authority (i.e. outside the normal taxonomic ranking system). It was mentioned again in a later proposal (2012.005a-dV), but that seems to have been resolved without acting on the suggested "Virus" designation.
So, I guess some researchers do recommend "Ebola virus" as a distinct name, but the international body charged with establishing nomenclature does not. Dragons flight (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what to do with this. That said it is clearly incorrect to say that name of "Zaire ebolavirus" was changed to "Ebola virus". It wasn't, and even if the proposal mentioned above had been accepted the name wouldn't have been changed, rather a new subdivision would have been created. Dragons flight (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you have called my opinions silly while I had hoped for a conversation, I will keep this as short as I can. I did not say that Zaire ebolavirus has been changed - it has not and it is still the name of the species. However the one virus in that species is Ebola virus. There are not strains of the species - there are strains of the virus. For instance, consider Marburgvirus which contains a single species, Marburg marburgvirus, but has two individual viruses, Marburg virus and Ravn virus. If you are speaking of different strains, would you say strains of the species or strains of the individual viruses? I believe that you are wrong in the changes that you have been making. Gandydancer (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for suggesting you were silly, and I think I understand where you are coming from now. However, in a previous edit, you did replace a species name with the proposed Virus name [32] in a list explicitly labeled as the five species. I can understand if that's not what you intended or if you have since changed your understanding. With respect to Ravn and Marburg, you are presumably again using Kuhn et al. ICTV doesn't recognize those names either. More generally, ICTV doesn't officially assign any names below the level of species and there is no international organization that does. When one gets below species level even the labels used are varied. For many viruses there are no defined groupings below species at all, aside from individual strains. In other cases, there are groups labeled as "subtypes" (e.g. Influenza A virus and HIV-1), or "subspecies", or "variants" (e.g. variola major / minor), and often the label descriptions are used interchangeably. I'd never seen "Virus" implied as a taxonomic rank before, though Kuhn et al. clearly does that. In fact, my google-fu can't find any other examples of authors trying to define a "Virus" taxonomic rank. Do you have other examples? Arguably we could use the Kuhn et al. language, and focus on the proposed subspecies, though as they seem to not distinguish themselves meaningfully from the species, I'm not clear what advantage that would have. The main difference would appear to be whether we talk in terms of the international recognized (but inconsistently used) "Zaire ebolavirus" species or whether we talk in terms of the proposed, but never formally adopted, "Virus: Ebola virus". Personally, I think discussing "Ebola virus" as a term of art within the Zaire ebolavirus species is going to be very confusing to the typical reader, especially when we are also likely to discuss other Ebolaviruses (i.e. the genera). Dragons flight (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
As I said already, I did a lot of reading in my attempt to sort things out, but if had known then what I know now, that I had entered very dangerous waters when I made that edit, I would definitely not have done so. It is unfortunate that I did not leave a source because it would make it easier to figure out where I got what I thought at the time was a reliable source. On the other hand, reading this makes it easier for me to understand what may have happened:
Five to eight years have passed since the introduction of the names Cote d'Ivoire ebolavirus [sic], Reston ebolavirus, Sudan ebolavirus, and Zaire ebolavirus for the members of the four recognized ebolavirus species. Instead of using these names, the overwhelming majority of publications refer to “Ebola virus” instead of Zaire ebolavirus (Table 6), a preference that is also followed by the public press. The remainder of the viruses are usually referred to as Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast/Taï Forest, Reston, and Sudan in the context of “Ebola virus.” Worse, in the few cases in which the recommended names were used, they almost invariably were confused with species names (virus names italicized), an error that is understandable because discernment of the identically spelled taxa, a violation of ICVCN Article 3 Rule III:-3.24, requires a thorough grasp of the difference between species and viruses [26]. Introducing the name “Zaire ebolavirus” was a mistake, as it contradicts ICVCN Article 2.1 (described above). Here, we rectify this situation by recommending that the traditional virus name (“Ebola virus”) be used. Retrospectively, the virus nomenclature in most published articles will then be correct. Likewise, press articles, which almost invariably refer to “Ebola virus,” and usually with that term aim at referring to the virus that is currently officially named “Zaire ebolavirus,” will be correct retrospectively and prospectively. As the traditional names are different from the species names, confusing species and virus names will be much more difficult, even in the absence of taxonomic education.[33] Yikes! How's that for confusing?
So, back to what to do now. I think that we should not use EBOV when we are referring to all 5 Ebola species. I think that we agree there? As for the virus causing the present epidemics, I trust this source which says Ebola virus (EBOV; formerly Zaire ebolavirus), one of five ebolaviruses, is a lethal human pathogen, causing Ebola virus disease (EVD)... [34] and a September 2014 source states:
Ebola and Marburg hemorrhagic fever are caused by members of the genera Ebolavirus and Marburgvirus, respectively, in the family Filoviridae. The names of these viruses have undergone several taxonomic changes since they were first discovered, including new changes officially accepted in 2013. Currently, the genus Ebolavirus contains five recognized viral species: Zaire ebolavirus, Sudan ebolavirus, Taï Forest ebolavirus (formerly Cote d’Ivoire ebolavirus), Reston ebolavirus and Bundibugyo ebolavirus. The common name for the single virus in each of these species is Ebola virus (formerly Zaire ebolavirus), Sudan virus (formerly Sudan ebolavirus), Tai Forest virus (formerly Cote d’Ivoire ebolavirus), Reston virus (formerly Reston ebolavirus) and Bundibugyo virus. page 1 here: [35]
You said, "I think discussing "Ebola virus" as a term of art within the Zaire ebolavirus species is going to be very confusing to the typical reader...". I don't see how we can get around that since it (EBOV) is the term most often used, nor do I see it to be confusing. Gandydancer (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that EBOV shouldn't be used for referring to the five species. (Yay! We agree on something.  :-) ). Right now EBOV appears 31 times in the article text. Of these, casually reading suggests that about 8 of these are specifically about properties of the Zaire strain, 11 are probably being used in way that could refer to more than one species (either because the statement explicitly related to the broader class or because it would be equally valid for the larger class), and the remaining 12 are unclear from casual reading.
To the broader point of how to use "Ebola virus", etc. There are probably two kinds of presentations, depending one whether one focuses on using virus names or species names. The CFSPH reference you mentioned is an example of the latter approach [36]. It mentions the names "Ebola virus", "Tai Forest virus", etc. on the first page, and describes them as the "common names" and then most of those names are never used again ("Tai Forest virus" and "Reston virus" appear one additional time each). The other six pages of text rely strictly on species (or genus) names to identify the virus being discussed. Personally, I find that approach to be clearer and more well-defined. I think it especially makes sense for broad summaries that are going to be discussing information from multiple viruses and where the succinct name "Ebola virus" may confuse the reader about which Ebolaviruses were intended.
Part of the problem is that well-posed sources disagree on how to discuss the viruses. You have a Science article saying the current outbreak is caused by "Ebola virus (EBOV; formerly Zaire ebolavirus)", but I can easily find a New England Journal of Medicine report saying that the current outbreak is caused by "Zaire ebolavirus", and where the phrase "Ebola virus" never occurs except when written as "Ebola virus disease" to indicate the illness [37]. I suspect we could have dueling sources, including very good sources, for a very long time without really establishing anything other than that different authors describe the issue in different ways. Honestly, it feels like the virology community hasn't really come to an agreement on the language to use here.
The question then sort of becomes "are both framings equally valid?" (so that we might equally well focus on either "virus" language or species language), or is there actually some kind of linguistic dispute here that would require us to present both "sides"? Do we actually need to say something like, "some people call it Ebola virus" and "other people call it Zaire ebolavirus"? Since they are synonyms or nearly synonyms I would tend to lean toward the interpretation that either description is fine, but the more I look at this, I do wonder if there is some real dispute here. It wouldn't be the first time people have bickered over nomenclature. Dragons flight (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I guess the most important thing is to make it as simple as possible which suggests to me that we use the terms that one most often finds if they read the sources. But from the two examples that you offered - what might that be? They are both current. It wouldn't surprise me if there was some real dispute going on - I distinctly got that feeling as I read different sources as I was trying to understand how this all "works". It wouldn't be the first time that the general public is not aware of argument and pettiness going on in inner circles. Anyway, the WHO seems to use "Zaire species" when they give reports, should we stick with that? BTW, I want to thank you for this conversation. It is much easier for me to learn something when I have someone to "talk" to - otherwise things are just swirling around in my head and I don't seem to be able to sort things out very easily. Gandydancer (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
An example from WHO: [38] Gandydancer (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ebola Spreads Like Flu?

www.prisonplanet.com/cdc-ebola-spreads-like-flu.html Ebola Spread Like Flu?] Is this true? QuackGuru (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

In short, no. Plenty of material on this page about transmission, with good references. Robertpedley (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/pdf/infections-spread-by-air-or-droplets.pdf The CDC says it does spread by droplets. QuackGuru (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
CDC have taken that link down (see timestamp). I guess they must have been watching! I'm sure that if you fill up a spray bottle with EBOV in suspension and aim it in someone's face, you could cause infection. But in answer to your question - "ebola spreads like flu - is it true" - not true. Robertpedley (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's getting a lot of press. This is a reasonably good rebuttal [39] Robertpedley (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Much better. [40] Robertpedley (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I added "According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "ebola might be spread through large droplets but only when a person is very sick."[41]" I think this is important information for the general reader and it can be expanded. Please review. QuackGuru (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ebola Virus Disease Research Discoveries

Would it be acceptable to add a topic like this to the research section if primary sources are going to be used (e.g., the cellular entry information temporarily added to the article today)? I fully realize primary sources are not typically used as per

WP:MEDRS guidelines, but perhaps it would be a good addition to the research section of this article to ensure that new information like this is present in the article (even if it is subject to change as new information emerges). I'm wondering how people feel about including such information. Thoughts? Yay or nay? I'm not terribly attached to either side of the issue but thought I would simply pose the question and see if the community thinks such a section merits inclusion in the article. TylerDurden8823 (talk
) 07:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Would be good to have better sources. Seems like this is pathophysiology. Maybe we need a subpage on the topic. Doc James (talk • contribs • email) 17:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I like the subpage idea and do remember we had tossed around that idea before. I agree that is probably the best way to go. If anyone else has thoughts on the matter, feel free to weigh in as well. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Craig Spencer's name

Is there any reason why Craig Spencer isn't named as the New York City doctor who got infected? --Nbauman (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Belongs on subpage about the cases in the USA. Doc James (talk • contribs • email) 02:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but why not here too? The section mentions Teresa Romero and Eric Duncan. In fact, why not identify the nurses who treated Duncan?
The reason for naming them that when you're following case reports, as I sometimes do, it can be hard to figure out which is which. "Is this another case, or is the it same case mentioned twice?" This can even be a problem when you're checking the main page to the subpage. If you identify each case by name, each case is unambiguously identified. --Nbauman (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with naming all people who have been infected here per
WP:UNDUE. Maybe on a list page. List of people who have been infected or something. Doc James (talk • contribs • email
) 00:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

External links

Science magazine http://www.sciencemag.org/site/extra/ebola/ NEJM http://www.nejm.org/page/ebola-outbreak and The Lancet http://ebola.thelancet.com/ all have special sections on Ebola with free access. (We could also link to JAMA's free content with some effort.)

Shouldn't we include them in the External links section?

DMOZ in contrast has only a handful of links, they go back to 1995, and include personal blogs and other sources of unknown origin. The only useful links they have are the CDC and WHO sites that we already link to. How is DMOZ a useful or reliable link? --Nbauman (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure I could see adding those. Doc James (talk • contribs • email) 21:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 22:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

talk
) 19:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, other articles that might conceivably be titled Ebola, but that's no reason not to use the term when it has a clear most common use. The fact that those other articles already have other names, and that Ebola already redirects here only supports this.—
talk
) 22:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You can of course pick a selection of sources to support your view, just as you can pick ones that don't. The redirect argument doesn't seem to carry any weight, because it could be made for the redirect in either direction, couldn't it? The specificity/ambiguity issue remains unaddressed. Zad68 22:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I have updated my comment to clarify that "ebola" is more common in scientific literature. My point about the redirect is that it addresses the ambiguity issue: "Ebola" already redirects here, so it can't be that ambiguous.—
    talk
    ) 22:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The methodology for the stats isn't very strong - "Ebola is" may also match virus articles, and I wouldn't restrict to using the article "is", either. Widefox; talk 14:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- For the same reason we go with Influenza or Malaria instead of "Influenza virus disease" or "Malaria parasite infection".--Froglich (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
So why not "flu" then? Johnbod (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Non-sequitur. ("Flu" is a layman's contraction for the four-syllable "influenza"; no such in-widespread-use contraction exists for Ebola)--Froglich (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Flu would be the commonname, so that example doesn't support that proposition as pointed out by Johnbod. Widefox; talk 01:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I beg to differ. The original point has not been refuted, to wit, the precedent that we do not go with "Influenza virus disease" or "Malaria parasite infection". The argument is not an interpretation of
WP:COMMONAME taken to an extreme to include slangy contractions. The apposite analogue is Influenza Viral Disease (IVD) is to Ebola Viral Disease is to Ebola. To interject the comment suggesting that the analogue consists of the contraction "flu" is inapposite, as if the proposition had been to Move/Rename this article "Eb" or "Ola". Wikidgood (talk
) 23:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you that a single bad example doesn't invalidate the point, but both examples fail: 1. bad examples: a) "Flu" is an alternative title (bolded in the lede) but "Influenza virus disease" isn't. As such, Johnbod's point is valid, unanswered and not a non-sequitur. b) Malaria has no bolded alt name 2. Proposition is a false dichotomy. 1. and 2. refute it. Widefox; talk 13:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
PRIMARYTOPIC is a red-herring - see my comments below. Should
Mozart? The naming convention is stopping it. Widefox; talk
14:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Should we then have "Influenza virus disease" under the same rationale? I don't think so, and no other disease which has entered common usage has such a long and arguably redundant title name on Wikipedia.--Froglich (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
See the 3rd comment above on that. You picked a poor example for your case there. Johnbod/Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
We are free to name it either
WP:NATURAL helps - "If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies." Widefox; talk
12:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with all that you say, but you're not addressing what I said. Yes, the reason we don't move
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --В²C ☎
17:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, as PRIMARYTOPIC is irrelevant, we come back to the topic: (See my !vote) per (controversial) exception to COMMONNAME in
WP:MOSAT which allows names per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Article_titles "Diseases—The World Health Organization, International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)." - exactly the reason given by Doc James when he moved this from Ebola to the current name years ago. Widefox; talk
20:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
That's your argument. But many in opposition here are arguing ambiguity, and PRIMARYTOPIC is relevant as a counter to that argument.

As to your argument, WHO calls it Ebola (http://www.who.int/csr/disease/ebola/en/). So does the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/). And that's in the article titles and content, not just the URLs. --В²C ☎ 22:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The webpage titles on those examples are "WHO | Ebola virus disease" [42] "Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever | CDC"[43]. All these valid alternative names are covered in the article. Widefox; talk 01:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, at best that shows the name is not being made up out of whole cloth, but it's hardly sufficient usage to form a basis using it as a title here. --В²C ☎ 06:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The point is, PRIMARYTOPIC as a counter argument is weak as it's a secondary issue that we already adequately manage with a redirect. It's a conflation of two tangential issues. We wouldn't move Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart because of the naming convention irrespective of any primary topic for "Mozart" (or likewise "Amadeus") - so as an argument (or counter argument) it has no weight here - ambiguity yes, PRIMARYTOPIC per se no. The usefulness of "Ebola" ending up where the reader most likely wants to, is an independent issue to that destination's name.
It seems that there's a formal name, a former name, and a less formal shortened ambiguous one even in those two examples, which makes me change my vote from Weak Disagree to Disagree. It's more similar to "flu" vs "influenza" than I realised. Widefox; talk 08:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
First, please stop refactoring my comments - I put in the new paragraph symbol, <p>, purposefully, to break up my comment into, you know, paragraphs, that cover separate points.

Tell all the people who are opposing this move on the basis that the proposed title is too ambiguous that it's a secondary issue. Even you're citing "ambiguous" in this very comment of yours! PRIMARYTOPIC remains relevant counter to the "it's ambiguous" argument: ambiguity is irrelevant when the topic in question is primary for the title in question.

It might be less formal, but it's most commonly used in reliable relevant sources; that's what matters most to choosing article titles on Wikipedia. --В²C ☎ 17:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

My refactor [44] 1. fixed the markup by removing the unmatched bold that I presumed was a remnant from a switch from highlighting with bold to "{{highlight}}" Was that correct? or did you intend to use two different methods of emphasis for a url and make me wonder why "en" was bold? 2. While fixing that, instead of changing <p> to <p/> I made a typo and did </p>. (<p> is valid HTML but invalid XHTML and breaks XML parsing which I use for debugging, whereas <p/> is valid for both) My intention was not to disable the paragraph break, which was by error and I apologise.
My point is
Mozart. All the proponents here saying users expect it at Ebola based on flawed stats and PRIMARYTOPIC criterion are looking solely at the secondary issue, and solely considering PRIMARYTOPIC. We use primary topic redirects a lot, and that's no argument to move articles over the redirect per se (argument or counterargument). We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Widefox; talk
11:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
<p/> does not cause a paragraph break. <p/> See? but <p> does.

Again, I agree. Yes, PRIMARYTOPIC is not a valid reason to support this move; however it is a valid reason to reject arguments favoring this move based on ambiguity. --В²C ☎ 00:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I was thinking about <br> vs <br/>. <p> always needs a matching </p> (for validity). Widefox; talk 23:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment ICD 10 used EVD [45] Doc James (talk • contribs • email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • support per
    WP:COMMONNAME. I'm sure there are fringe cases where the common name is not widespread and the medical term is as well known but this is not one of them, the common name is very widely used. The stats for the redirect are off the charts for a redirect. Clearly large numbers of readers expect to find the page there already.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds
    00:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Nope - most readers (90%) aren't using the redirect according to the discussion of the stats at
Mozart, HP and that's a tangential issue to article naming. Widefox; talk
02:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Most people when they search for "Ebola" want information about the disease, and that is why Ebola should redirect here and not to
AIDS
, but does have one titled with the technical term HIV/AIDS and even uses that term in article space often in preference to just AIDS.
Wikipedia has a commitment to accuracy, and in the past, has promoted greater accuracy at the expense of using technical terms rather than common names when the use of a common name is likely to lead to confusion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Bluerasberry, this is a much better explanation of the
WP:PRECISION problem I was trying to get at in my response. Zad68
13:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Second that. Johnbod/Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Well said. In practical terms, the move doesn't do much - we have a redirect and a primary topic. Widefox; talk 20:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm puzzled, because if you (and others) consider the usage by CDC (also here in their Q&A) and WHO the leading usage is "Ebola" not "Ebola virus disease". This, in part, is a basis for my (weak) support above. -- Scray (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
That's a fair point. The CDC and WHO pages you linked do use both terms interchangeably. However, even if we agree that the CDC and WHO vary in their terminology, the problem of ambiguity remains. I agree with the others above who point out that "Ebola" could informally refer to the disease, the etiological agent, the genus to which it belongs, other species within that genus, or even the river for which the virus is named. In my opinion, this makes the current, unambiguous title a better option. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 03:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per everyone above - We have Ebola river as well as an Ebola band, Personally I think the current titles fine .–Davey2010 • (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support "Ebola" is most accessible, and most appropriate per the evidence provided by Neil P. Quinn and others. The disease clearly is the primary topic for just "Ebola", and the other topics are dealt with by Ebola (disambiguation), as they should be; the band and river are irrelevant to whether this page shoud be moved. —innotata 16:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see no reason for change. Gandydancer (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    St. Louis encephalitis. Influenza and malaria are not named after places, so they aren't good examples to follow. Jehochman Talk
    20:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point and I'm sure there's more examples
Barmah Forest, (Bhopal vs Bhopal disaster). Worth contemplating systemic bias (and RECENTISM) in the desire to name it just Ebola. We'd never contemplate it even if Ross River fever was killing thousands, or similarly for the River Thames or Hudson River s. Widefox; talk
11:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Ebola (disease) is a reasonable option, and remains preferable to the current title per
WP:CONCISE. DeCausa (talk
) 10:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Redirect created  Done. Widefox; talk 10:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDICINE notified

FYI I notified

WP:MEDICINE about this discussion here. Zad68
22:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review
. No further edits should be made to this section.

Zaire vs. DRC

The current version of the article makes anachronistic references to the DRC, which was not called that until 1997. Between 1971 and 1997 the country referred to itself (and was generally referred to internationally) as Zaire. Perhaps such anachronistic references to the DRC could be changed to something like "Zaire (today's Democratic Republic of the Congo)". As a new contributor I am unable to initiate those changes. ProfessorDADGAD (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I've made what I hope are the needed changes, and also arranged for you to be able to edit this article now without you having to wait for the autoconfirmation process to complete. -- The Anome (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Transmission: fact checking "only by direct contact" in article: tagged in article as failed verification

Wikipedia presently states that, "Between people, Ebola disease spreads only[failed verification] by direct contact with the blood or body fluids of a person who has developed symptoms of the disease.[1][3]"

The two references attached to the sentence only state that this is how it is known to be transmitted. They do not plainly assert that it is known that this is "only" how EBV is transmitted. I added a not-in-source tag because there is a distinction.

There are several rewording options:

1 leave it as is
2 remove "only"
3 "Between people, Ebola disease only(refs 1,2,3,5 below) spreads by direct contact with the blood or body fluids of a person who has developed symptoms of the disease.[1][3]."
4 "Between people, Ebola disease spreads by direct contact with the blood or body fluids of a person who has developed symptoms of the disease.[1][3]. Known transmission of EBV between people only occurs in this way.(refs 1,2,3,5 below)"
5 "Between people, Ebola disease spreads by direct contact with the blood or body fluids of a person who has developed symptoms of the disease.[1][3]. Although available evidence is not definitive(add refs 6,7 below), this is the only known way EBV infection spreads between people.(refs 1,2,3,5 below) Exposure to blood or body fluids can arise from re-used needles that are contaminated by EBV or in surgical environments."
6 "Between people, Ebola disease spreads by direct contact with the blood or body fluids of a person who has developed symptoms of the disease.[1][3]. Transmission of EBV from people without symptoms has not been documented and is unlikely(refs 1,2,3,5 below), although scientific consensus is incomplete.(add refs 6,7 below)"

On the one hand, there are numerous sources that support "only".

Unlike infections such as influenza or tuberculosis, Ebola is not airborne. It can only be transmitted by direct contact with the body fluids of a person who is sick with the disease. ref1[49]

The virus spread only through injection with an unsterilized needle or very close and repeated patient contact. ref2[50]

We have very strong reason to believe that transmission occurs when the viral load in bodily fluids is high, on the order of millions of virions per microliter. This recognition has led to the dictum that an asymptomatic person is not contagious; field experience in West Africa has shown that conclusion to be valid. ref3[51]

Furthermore, we now know that fever precedes the contagious stage, allowing workers who are unknowingly infected to identify themselves before they become a threat to their community. This understanding is based on more than clinical observation: the sensitive blood polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) test for Ebola is often negative on the day when fever or other symptoms begin and only becomes reliably positive 2 to 3 days after symptom onset. ref3[52]

The similar rates of EBOV seropositivity in non epidemic regions and outbreak areas of Gabon, together with the small number of survivors from past outbreaks, rule out an important role of human-to-human transmission and rather suggest direct or indirect contact with infected animals. ref4[53]

...All 28 secondary cases involved direct physical contact with a known EVD patient; overall, 28 of 95 family members who had direct contact with a primary case became infected, whereas none of 78 family members who did not report direct contact became infected. Other studies have reported similar findings, in that all or the large majority of secondary transmissions involved direct physical contact with known EVD patients.7,10,12. Several investigations have also demonstrated that persons residing in confined, shared spaces (e.g., homes), but who had no direct physical contact with these cases did not develop EVD.3,10... ref5[54]

On the other hand, there are some questions about "only".

Reuters quotes medical science participants at a workshop at the
Institute of Medicine
(IOM).

...many questions crucial to preventing an outbreak in the United States remain unanswered, scientists told a workshop at the National Academy's Institute of Medicine. ref6[55]

Another crucial question is whether the virus can be spread by people who do not show symptoms. For months public health officials in the United States and elsewhere have insisted it cannot. But the possibility of such "subclinical transmission" remains very much open, (emphasis added) said Dr. Andrew Pavia, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah. ref6[56]

Population studies suggest subclinical exposure may occur.

...seroprevalence surveys of Ebola virus also indicate high exposure..., with prevalence rates up to 22%, depending on the population... But the prevalence of both viruses may be higher, as assays for seroprevalence can understate actual exposure rates (because antibody concentrations in the blood wane after exposure), or lower, as they are also subject to false positives (because some assays have low specificity). ref7[57]

Although fatality rates among hospital cases range from 12 to 78% for Lassa fever and 42 to 88% for Ebola fever (reference S1), the seroprevalence data and reports of asymptomatic individuals during Ebola outbreaks indicate that there are many subclinical cases. ref8[58]

...these data do show that asymptomatic, replicative Ebola-virus infection occurs in human beings...ref9[59]

An editor added a reference that cited a CDC infographic. This addressed the concern that "only" was not properly sourced. It was almost immediately redacted. The reason was along the lines of "overcitation/not a point of controversy". In fact, however, the added reference was the "only" reference that supported the "only". It's apparently enough of a controversy that several US governors have a different take from the CDC/WHO. I've spent considerable time looking at "only" very carefully. I have my opinion about the issue. Actually I disagree with the US governors. But that's not the point. I have looked at both citations attached to the sentence in detail. The point is verifiable sourcing, which if you look carefully, is presently absent. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure restored the ref. Do not think it is needed but if others disagree we can keep it. Doc James (talk • contribs • email) 00:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
We need to be careful as always to stay away from popular press and primary sources. Doc James (talk • contribs • email) 01:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that but that's talking off the point altogether. I went through the need for another reference very carefully. Another option is to remove the infographic reference, and probably one of the original references which are essentially duplicative for the material in the sentence, and add [60]. I'll mull over whether that's a good option but I think that's probably the way to go. As far as the non-existent support from the original 2 references for "only", here's the details:

It has also spread between countries starting in Guinea then spreading across land borders to Sierra Leone and Liberia, by air (1 traveller only) to Nigeria, and by land (1 traveller) to Senegal.

The most severely affected countries, Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia have very weak health systems, lacking human and infrastructural resources, having only recently emerged from long periods of conflict and instability.

And so on. If you run the same exercise with a text search again through both articles completely you will find the word "only" is used 7 more times, for a total of 9 times in the 2 references. Not one of these asserts that "Ebola disease spreads ONLY by direct contact with the blood or body fluids of a person who has developed symptoms of the disease". One of the references seems to wobble on the point, depending on how you interpret it.

As direct contact is the main route (emphasis added / ?not exclusive) of transmission for Ebola virus, only passengers who were seated adjacent to the index case on the side, in front or behind, including across an aisle,(emphasis added) should be included in contact tracing.

Proper sourcing for "only" is needed, just like we needed to remove the bizarrely outdated assertion (until October 26 or so) that "Ebola is a diagnosis of exclusion". I am fairly certain (as a matter of logic) that the notion of "diagnosis by exclusion" isn't supported by any recent

WP:MEDRS
, but there it sat in this article. A little thought gets to why "diagnosis by exclusion" as well as needle and blood bank equipment re-use all need to stop.

A tragic example of an iatrogenic point-source outbreak occurred in 1976, when an individual infected with Ebola virus was among the patients treated in a small missionary hospital in Yambuku, Zaire [70]. Because the medical staff routinely injected all febrile patients with antimalarial medications, employing syringes that were rinsed in the same pan of water, then reused, virus from the index case was transmitted simultaneously to nearly 100 people, all of whom developed fulminant Ebola virus disease and died [71]. Infection then spread to family caregivers, the hospital staff, and those who prepared bodies for burial. The Marburg epidemic in Angola in 2005 may have been initiated in similar fashion, through the reuse of contaminated blood bank equipment.[ Mike Bray, Martin S Hirsch, Jennifer Mitty. Epidemiology, pathogenesis, and clinical manifestations of Ebola and Marburg virus disease. UpToDate Topic 3023 Version 35.0 © 2014 UpToDate, Inc. Literature review current through: Oct 2014. This topic last updated: Oct 31, 2014]

The content of this high traffic article should reflect (and demonstrate that it reflects) the guidelines. "Only" needed a reference in support. [User:FeatherPluma|FeatherPluma]] (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I modified the references to a

WP:MEDRS with good linkage. Of course, if good faith additions made with careful diligence were not almost immediately redacted for what are clearly less than adequate reasons (basically, "I just don't think so") we could actually just edit the text, rather than having to plod through parsing the reasons on the talk page for the necessary change(s) in minute detail. Well, I think the present issue is now closed out. FeatherPluma (talk
) 02:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Add 2 external references: Scientific American articles

Recommend add these external references [61] [62] Jcardazzi (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC) jcardazzi

Not a great source. We should stick with better sources. Doc James (talk • contribs • email) 00:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
To Doc James. I believe the 2 Scientific American articles would be interesting to readers, they are not being listed as as sources, but as external references for additional reading on the Ebola subject. I am not certain of the criteria for external references, but I think Scientific American articles are well written,and valid as external references, if not could they be placed in another section? Jcardazzi (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)jcardazzi
As discussed in
WP:MEDRS in the section on popular press, Scientific American is not peer-reviewed and is therefore not a high-quality source by our standards for sourcing medical content. It is well-written and popular, and can be useful when in agreement with higher-quality sources. It should not be relied upon as authoritative. -- Scray (talk
) 04:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
We have
WP:ELNO Doc James (talk • contribs • email
) 05:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Etymology of the word ebola

I added two paragraphs to the Ebola River article concerning the etymology of the word ebola. They have been reverted by another user with the remark speculation.

The implication of the entry is that ebola was known in Africa before 1976. There is a good reason why the word ebola itself is associated with so much fear as shown by the following quotes:

“I understand the fear from that word, Ebola, and it is scary”. Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

“Wherever I turn, there is Ebola. In the newspapers and magazines, on television and radio, and across the ubiquitous social media. Ebola. I sweat, shake and cringe in mortal fear. Such an ugly word, fearsome in its primal sound, so African, so dark, so black”. Prof. Paul Tiyambe Zeleza

The entry was as follows:

The etymology of the word ebola is an open question. A correct etymological construction should have a verified syntax showing how the word was constructed; and a validated semantics demonstrating what the word means. The Ngbandi language is a member of the Niger-Congo family of African languages; another member of that family is the Igbo language. The word ebola in the Igbo language would not specifically be found in a dictionary. However, ebola would be a correct grammatical construction in that language.

There are three elements in the construction of the word ebola or more accurately egbola (in Igbo the vowel in gbo sounds like the vowel in the English born): (1) e, (2) gbo, (3) la. Firstly, gbo means to vomit, to throw up [www.igboenglish.com/igbo-nigerian-words-gb.php]; secondly egbo would mean they vomit [www.languagesgulper.com/eng/Igbo.html]; thirdly egbola would mean they vomited] Therefore, the verification of the syntax of the word has been demonstrated; the validation of the semantics follows from the well-known symptoms that can result from ebola virus infection.

Ibolachi (talk
) 13:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Although you have presented primary sources (see
WP:WPNOTRS to explain that Wikipedia term) that Ebola can mean "they vomited" (it says gbo also means "prevent" etc.), you haven't presented a source for the opinion that the river is so named because of an Ebola symptom. If it is, then how could the disease be named after the river, as the rest of the article explains? Is it because Ebola occurred only by the Ebola River before whites arrived? Unlikely; the first outbreaks known to whites were throughout central Africa. Art LaPella (talk
) 16:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting on this interesting issue. I hesitated a long time before adding the etymology because of this question of proof. What constitutes the proof of the correctness of an etymological definition? In certain branches of mathematics such as determining whether a number is prime probabilistic proofs are used. The construction here can be justified on the same principle. What are the chances of taking the name for any river, breaking it down into its syllables, looking up each syllable in a dictionary and getting the phrase “they vomited”; and then finding that the first documented case of a viral infection with the notable symptom of projective vomiting occurred as a result of a trip taken to the same river: in 1976 “The first person infected with the disease ... Mabalo Lokela ... visited the Ebola River between 12 and 22 August”. An explanation for the coincidence could be that there is a particularly significant reservoir of the ebola virus in that area. I did note your point about gbo meaning prevent and reference to 'an Ebola symptom' but I will keep this reply to a reasonable length.
Ibolachi (talk
) 10:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Probability is used in my job too. The
Wikipedia:Original research? That's what's missing. Art LaPella (talk
) 15:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
My opinion is that the river had the name Ebola before Europeans were told the name by Africans in the 19th century[jstor.org/stable/10.2307/25837382] and therefore a source for an etymology for the word ebola would have to refer to matters of deep antiquity. Could there be such a source? Is there an alternative? Yes! Replace the reliance on sources with a simple computational procedure as follows: break the word into its syllables, look up the meanings of the syllables in dictionaries for all languages in turn, stop when a match is found for pronunciation, syntactics, semantics and pathetics. Even for wikipedia a logically correct argument has to supersede any source. --
Ibolachi (talk
) 22:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, in my experience, jumping from such a dictionary definition to an etymology would be considered
Wikipedia:Policy. Even if you convinced me and everyone reading this, someone would revert original research. Take my word for it or ask others: arguing that your original research is so wonderful as to be an exception to the Wikipedia rule against it, will get a here-we-go-again reaction like a creationist at an evolution convention, or vice versa. Art LaPella (talk
) 00:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Ngbandi and Igbo are distantly related languages. (If you look at the Niger-Congo article you'll find that the inclusion of Ubangian (including Ngbandi) in Niger-Congo is disputed.) It's not legitimate to use a language from southern Nigeria to derive an etymology for a place name in the northern DR Congo where a distantly related language is spoken. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments on this interesting issue. Consider the article on
Ibolachi (talk
) 11:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Neither Igbo nor Ngbandi is a Bantu language. The inferred Bantu source area lies in easternmost Nigeria and southern Cameroon. Igbo is spoken further west.
The Bantu expansion passed south of northernmost DR Congo, where Ngbandi is spoken. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
In order to see if we can reach agreement let us begin with one issue. The wikipedia article on the
Ibolachi (talk
) 16:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I hadn't previously doubted that claim that Ebola was an indigenous name for the river, but in the light of your reference I am led to conclude that I was unwise not to doubt that. According to that source the local name is Legbola, nor Ebola. (But what you are arguing is analogous to arguing that because Indo-European languages originated near the Caucasus you can use an Armenian dictionary to derive the meaning of a Finnish word.) Lavateraguy (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Note that the Ebola River article gives the meaning of Legbala in Ngbandi as white river. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we're going to agree! So since the primary source is the 1939 article (in French) by Tanghe & Vangele, I have transcribed the first paragraph so people can use a translation engine if necessary to I understand it.
"REGION DE LA HAUTE EBOLA.
Notes d'histoire ( 1890 – 1900 )
Ebola est le nom d'une rivière qui prend sa source au même plateau que la Likati, la première roulant ses eaux dans la direction Ouest (Ubangi), et la seconde dans la région de l'Est (Uele). Dans la bouche des indigènes de la contrée, le nom de l'Ebola se prononce Legbala; dans le langage géographique on l'appelle Ebola et aussi Eau Blanche. Le eaux blanches et claires de l'Ebola rencontrent près de Businga les eaux noires de la Dua, appelée pour ce motif par les Blancs Eau Noire, et forme avec elles la rivière Mongala débouchant à la rive droite du fleuve Congo, à Mobeka." --
Ibolachi (talk
) 21:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Outbreaks Before 1976

Consider adding a section called: Outbreaks Before 1976

Consider adding an introductory paragraph to the section as follows: “Information about outbreaks in Africa before 1976 has been scarce. However, such knowledge exists and is essential to reconstruct the approach of Traditional African Medicine (TAM) to Ebola Virus Disease (EVD). An October 2014 interview with Dr (Mrs) Flora Nkemakonam Ilonzo [sunnewsonline.com/new/?p=86235] is a secondary source of important information based on primary sources. Non-Africans may find the article very hard to understand due to lack of familiarity with the cultural background.”

Consider adding a summary paragraph of the article: to be drafted. --

Ibolachi (talk
) 15:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Herbal Remedies

Consider adding a section called: (Research) Herbal Remedies

With text as follows:

“The proposal that bitter kola nut (Garcinia kola) has a role in the treatment of EVD is not new; the proposal was put forward by Prof. Maurice Iwu in sources as early as 1999. The current position of the The Nigerian Institute of Medical Research (NIMR) can be taken as the official position: “In an interview with SaharaReporters, NIMR’s director-general, Innocent Ujah, dismissed Mr. Iwu’s claim as scientifically unfounded. Mr. Ujah, who is a professor, suggested that delusive assertions by self-acclaimed medical professors should be taken with a grain of salt, adding that no scientific evidence exists to show any connection between kola nuts and the repression or cure of the Ebola virus. [63]. That said, Traditional African Medicine assigns bitter kola nut an important role in its response to EVD. The following are relevant sources; the BBC [64]; another source [65].” --

Ibolachi (talk
) 17:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I would imagine that many people in the current epidemic in West Africa have already used traditional medicines to try to cure themselves or family members. If they were even remotely effective, evidence of this would surely have appeared from the current outbreak by now, as a large number of people there are already invested in the theories behind traditional medicine, and could be relied upon to rapidly seize on any objective evidence that they were effective. Nor has it escaped the attention of science-based medicine: see [66] from 15 years ago. To the best of my knowledge, no such evidence has been forthcoming.
To quote Tim Minchin: “You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? - Medicine.” -- The Anome (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The interview with Dr. F. N. Ilonzo said that in Traditional African Medicine EVD was not self-treated. It was recognised as highly dangerous. The fundamental point is that the strategy used by the traditional African public health system was based on prevention. The record of ebola outbreaks in Africa clearly shows that this worked until now: average of about 40 deaths a year between 1976 and 2012; compared to 50,000 deaths a year in America from influenza. The key to this was hydration and bitter kola nut. Such an approach would account for the observation of antibodies in the population; people were essentially being vaccinated with live virus without knowing it! This has now broken down. For example, there is the West Point slum in Liberia where over 75,000 people live without running water.--
Ibolachi (talk
) 22:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The Metaphysics of Ebola

Wikipedia's talk page is not a place to propose hypotheses about the causes of ebola, following the policy laid out at
WP:MEDRS as we can. If these kinds of threads continue, administrators will have to warn and then block users. —Tom Morris (talk
) 17:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Metaphysics (Aristotle), Translated by W. D. Ross, Book I Part 1. “Now art arises when from many notions gained by experience one universal judgement about a class of objects is produced. For to have a judgement that when Callias was ill of this disease this did him good, and similarly in the case of Socrates and in many individual cases, is a matter of experience; but to judge that it has done good to all persons of a certain constitution, marked off in one class, when they were ill of this disease, e.g. to phlegmatic or bilious people when burning with fevers—this is a matter of art.” [67]

It is known that the ebola virus is an

Formal cause
is.

Therefore the following hypothesis is put forward: it is a guess, it is currently open, it is scientific as it is subject to

Ibolachi (talk
) 17:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

What??? -- The Anome (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Or more patiently: That would be considered Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Art LaPella (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The suggestion is that Ebola Virus Disease is Ebola Insulin Syndrome. EVD is EIS; and that hydration is the primary response to EIS as a treatment, prophylactic and preventive strategy: that is drinking water. --
Ibolachi (talk
) 19:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Insulin is unreferenced; your references don't mention insulin at all. They mention kola nut, but I'm pretty sure that would be considered Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Drinking water is helpful; the article already says that. Art LaPella (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
One danger is that patients under treatment for EVD are being given nutrition that raises insulin levels by well-meaning health care workers, thinking maybe that in their weak state they need energy, it being known that even healthy people should avoid raising insulin levels. If the EIS hypothesis is correct this would result in the accelerated replication of the virus and would be fatal. This is a life or death issue. The Hippocratic oath says “First do no harm". --
Ibolachi (talk
) 21:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
This "insulin hypothesis" was put forward by whom? I have not encountered a single peer-reviewed publication mentioning any role of insulin in the pathogenesis of EVD or as an explanation for why certain people with the disease survive while others do not. This seems very farfetched. Is this your personal opinion or hypothesis? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
If Wikipedia:No original research is hard to understand, I suggest the Wikipedia:Teahouse, where they specialize in explaining our basic policies to newcomers. Art LaPella (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The EVD article currently says: “No specific treatment is currently approved. However, survival is improved by early supportive care with rehydration and symptomatic treatment”. In the Nigerian outbreak what I noticed was that survival was 100% for the last group of 10 patients who used oral rehydration. Surely it is too early to have peer-reviewed articles. But there are press accounts: [69] Quote: “So, once there is a rise in temperature, we had an evacuation team, properly kitted at the centre, who would now go and evacuate the contacts developing the symptoms and all the contacts that developed symptoms that we got on time, all of them survived.” My understanding of this is that the Chief Medical Director of the Lagos University Teaching Hospital is saying that early stage EVD has a specific treatment that is 100% successful. Since no drugs or vaccines were used, the question is: what cured 100% of the patients? How can an article on EVD not say that if a person gets early treatment they have an almost 100% chance of survival? The EIS hypothesis is not a fringe theory it is the only theory that in my opinion correctly addresses cause and effect. EIS is not proven but it should inform the EVD article where it is confirmed by a reputable source in this case CMD LUTH. --
Ibolachi (talk
) 16:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
the fact that, in your opinion, it is reputable, is irrelevant; Wikipedia is built on sourcing, not on opinions. The news article you have provided as a source does not say that water is the cure, it says that the patient is disadvantaged if dehydrated, which the article
already notes. Ironholds (talk
) 16:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal for Renaming

Hi, I propose we rename "Ebola Virus Disease" to just "Ebola Virus", because it is widely called the Ebola Virus, and that a virus and a disease are different things.

I hope this is taken into consideration.

talk
) 18:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Almost all of the article is about the disease. It's about the virus only because it describes the disease it causes (except for some sections like
Ebola virus disease#Virology
).
We have previously discussed renaming it Ebola or Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever. Art LaPella (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
You say "a virus and a disease are different things". Isn't that an argument for keeping the articles separate. There is a separate article on
Ebola virus and yet another on the genus Ebolavirus. Paul B (talk
) 21:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
We have an article on the virus and this is not it. Doc James (talk • contribs • email) 07:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I would support a move to
WP:COMMONNAME and Google N-grams All the best: Rich Farmbrough
, 01:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC).
I have to agree with the above comments. This discussion has already taken place and no consensus was achieved to rename the article as Ebola Virus and a separate article discussing the virus itself (since this article is about the disease caused by infection with the Ebola viruses) already exists and is fine that way IMO. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Why 21 days?

Both WHO and the CDC say that the incubation period for Ebola is 2 to 21 days. How did they come up with 21 days? I can't seem to find it in this or related Wikipedia articles. For example, I've heard that Ebola lasts up to 75 days in semen. If someone engages in unprotected sex 25 days after exposure, can anyone guarantee that their partner will not come down with Ebola?

Many organizations, particularly in the US, assure us that 21 days in the gold standard; that once you've passed 21 days, you're home free. Do WHO and/or CDC have any proof to base this on? Or is it simply their best guess, based on anecdotal evidence: Well, we've never heard of a patient (in Africa, in past Ebola outbreaks and always if they know what caused the exposure) taking longer than 15 days so let's raise it to three weeks just to be sure. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This recent PLOS article might be of interest regarding the 21 day limit. From their abstract:

A 21 day period for quarantine may result in the release of individuals with a 0.2 – 12% risk of release prior to full opportunity for the incubation to proceed. It is suggested that a detailed cost-benefit assessment, including considering full transmission risks, needs to occur in order to determine the appropriate quarantine period for potentially exposed individuals.

However, they also say:

The WHO Response Team17 has just published an incubation time distribution based on the first 9 months of the West Africa outbreak (total of 4010 confirmed and probable cases with usable data). They reported a mean incubation period of 11.4 days with an upper 95th percentile of 21 days — and they were able to fit the data to a gamma distribution.

which may be more relevant to the current outbreak. The cited source can be found here (full text).
This Scientific American article reports on the sex issue. and mentions both semen and vaginal fluids (but see the discussion above regarding Scientific American and WP:MEDRS). Also, see this CDC link for some references to the peer-reviewed literature on Ebola and breast-feeding. As far as I can see, the consensus in both cases seems to be that we don't really know what the risks are one way or the other, but because Ebola is such a serious disease it makes sense to be cautious and not to take the risk. -- The Anome (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
@The Anome: But, from a public relations / politics point of view, most Americans expect a zero chance of contracting Ebola in the United States once you have gone past 21 days. What if they were told that Kaci Hickox still had a 5% chance of passing on Ebola after she reaches November 10th? Would the American people (or the state of Maine) allow her to resume her normal life under those conditions? As contributors of an encyclopedia, shouldn't we report (with proper reliable sources) a mean incubation period of 11.4 days with an upper 95th percentile of 21 days? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Our article qualifies a bit, "The length of time between exposure to the virus and the development of symptoms of the disease is usually 2 to 21 days." But the WHO and the CDC sources cited are both surprisingly definitive, WHO says "The incubation period, that is, the time interval from infection with the virus to onset of symptoms is 2 to 21 days" and the CDC says "Symptoms may appear anywhere from 2 to 21 days after exposure". However both of those sources are consumer-friendly media pages and I'd like to see something better cited. Zad68 04:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the bit about ebolavirus persistence in bodily fluids (e.g., in seminal fluid for 75 days as mentioned above) is not the same as the incubation period. As Zad correctly stated, the incubation period (the 2-21 days figure in most but not all cases) is the interval of time between exposure to the virus and developing signs/symptoms of the disease. The persistence of the virus in bodily fluids after the illness is a separate concept from the incubation period and relates more to the topic of when does someone with EBOV infection cease to be contagious. With respect to the question of the gold standard of 21 days, there has been some recent controversy about that and some have called for longer incubation periods since a small proportion of cases do seem to occur past 21 days. So, there is probably no "guarantee" that 25 days after exposure to the virus that seminal fluid would not be contagious, but if the exposed person tested negative that whole time and never developed signs/symptoms of EVD, it's probably very unlikely (though I can't quantify the probability so I don't know HOW unlikely). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
That PLOS paper is based on a mathematical model. It is not based on real world data. Obviously it has not convinced either the CDC or WHO as they are both definitive. Per
WP:MEDRS we do not typically use primary sources to refute secondary ones. Doc James (talk • contribs • email
) 07:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Figure 3 ("Time between Exposure and Disease Onset.") of ["Ebola Virus Disease in West Africa — the First 9 Months of the Epidemic and Forward Projections". New England Journal of Medicine. 371 (16): 140922210513002. 2014.
PMID 25244186.] shows what appears to be the best real-world data we have at the moment for the current epidemic. There are definitely cases being seen more than 21 days after exposure: as the article says, "Approximately 95% of the case patients had symptom onset within 21 days after exposure (Figure 3A), which is the recommended period for follow-up of contacts." It looks like 100% of them were within 45 days, which is very similar to the 42 days the WHO is using for the cutoff point for declaring a country Ebola-free. I am quite sure the WHO are familiar with all of this: their own Ebola Response Team wrote the paper. None of this makes the use of a 21 day period unreasonable for practical use: resources are finite, the WHO and CDC have to balance practicality of implementation against perfection of result, and stopping the epidemic by reducing the reproduction rate everywhere takes priority over attempting to be 100% sure no-one will die of secondary infection anywhere. Note also that in some cases, particularly in the West, blood testing has also been used to confirm whether people are infected, which adds an extra layer of safeguard (although PCR testing doesn't seem to be useful for early detection). -- The Anome (talk
) 14:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
That's true James, should we have the qualifier "usually" in the signs/symptoms sections? Both of the cited references (CDC and WHO) do not use that qualifier and say 2-21 days. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
It might also be interesting to consider whether a peer-reviewed paper by the WHO's own Ebola Response Team, who appear to the WHO's own actual experts on this (and notably, also publishing the article under that collective name, not their own as individuals) would also be considered an official WHO source. Perhaps the "2-21" statement could be regarded as a simplified version for public consumption, and the evidence-based paper, based on actual data, as a more accurate and nuanced version of the true state of affairs, intended for professionals? -- The Anome (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
It's also possible, though admittedly speculative, that the formal guidance is choosing to discount the fraction of apparent incubation times longer than 21 as inaccurate. The NJEM paper is basing their incubation intervals on self-reporting of both likely exposure and symptom onset. It is entirely plausible that some of those reported cases are wrong about the exposure timeline. That said, I've never seen anyone with WHO and related groups make that argument, so it is hard to know what they are thinking. Dragons flight (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence under

Signs and Symptoms
is "The length of time between exposure to the virus and the development of symptoms of the disease is usually 2 to 21 days." Would it be correct to add (with proper sourcing) one of the following:

  • "PLOS reports that the average time is 11.4 days from exposure with about one out of twenty infected people not showing symptoms for more than 21 days."
  • (Or, if the 95% applies to the both ends of the range from 2 to 21 days; that is, a two-sigma limit, bell-shaped curve:) "PLOS reports that the average time is 11.4 days from exposure with about one out of forty infected people not showing symptoms for more than 21 days."
  • (Or, somewhat less definite:) "PLOS reports that the average time is 11 or 12 days from exposure with about one out of twenty (or forty) infected people not showing symptoms for more than 21 days."
  • (Or, really less definite on the confidence limit:) "PLOS reports that the average time is 11 or 12 days from exposure. They also report that a small fraction of infected people will show symptoms past 21 days."
  • (Or just not mention anything so far as the limit:) "PLOS reports that the average time is 11 or 12 days from exposure." (Why should we leave the limits out?)

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a primary source and uses a mathematical model. It has not been adopted by either the CDC or the WHO. Thus not convinced it is really notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2014

. ›

I would like to request to edit this page.

Drknowitall956 (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You can learn more about semi-protection
here, but you'll basically need to have an account for a few more days and edit constructively. -- Scray (talk
) 03:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to

reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk
) 13:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Immunity?

I can't find any mention of non-artificial acquired immunity in the article. If someone catches Ebola and survives, do they acquire natural immunity to the disease (like measles before vaccination)? If so, is it active or passive and, if passive, how long does it last? Also, does one become immune to all strains of Ebola or just the specific virus one was exposed to? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That is a good question and one I have not seen a clear answer to. Will look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Found it [70] Will add. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
@Doc James: I'm not following. How does this:
If someone survives Ebola, can he or she still spread the virus?
Once someone recovers from Ebola, they can no longer spread the virus. However, Ebola virus has been found in semen for up to 3 months. Abstinence from sex (including oral sex) is recommended for at least 3 months. If abstinence is not possible, condoms may help prevent the spread of disease.
become this:
Additionally they develop antibodies against Ebola that last at least 10 years but it is unclear if they are immune to repeated infections.
--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I only added this text "Additionally they develop

antibodies against Ebola that last at least 10 years but it is unclear if they are immune to repeated infections." [71] I am not sure what diff you are refering too? Doc James (talk · contribs · email
) 03:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Doc James: I'm talking about one diff where you inserted the entire sentence into the article. This addition splits up into three clauses:
  1. the patients develop
    antibodies
    against Ebola
  2. that last at least 10 years and
  3. it's unclear if they are immune to repeated infections.
All I find in the source is: "Once someone recovers from Ebola, they can no longer spread the virus." (You can ignore the stuff about semen and abstinence, in my opinion.) First, is there any other question in the reference that relates to our topic of acquired immunity? Does this material support what has been added to the article?
If not, I can find no place in which the citation says anything either about antibodies that last for 10 years (clause 2 above) or of patients not being immune for repeats (clause 3). Furthermore, I'm not sure if "develop antibodies" (your words, clause 1) is the same as "they can no longer spread the virus" (CDC's words).
WP:OR states that "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." We, as editors, may summarize and/or paraphrase; we may not add things that aren't stated in our source(s). This addition to the article's text seems to require additional citations. --RoyGoldsmith (talk
) 20:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you look at the ref supporting the text in question? It says "Available evidence shows that people who recover from Ebola infection develop antibodies that last for at least 10 years, possibly longer. We don’t know if people who recover are immune for life or if they can become infected with a different species of Ebola.? [72] How does this not support the text in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
@Doc James: Sorry, I didn't see the reference.
However, I'm not sure whether "unclear if they are immune to repeated infections" means the same as "they can no longer spread the virus". I've therefore inserted a second sentence, based on the question that follows yours in the Q&A ("If someone survives Ebola, can he or she still spread the virus?" Answer: "Once someone recovers from Ebola, they can no longer spread the virus."). Is this OK or is there some conflict between "We don’t know if people who recover are immune for life" and "they can no longer spread the virus". Both questions seem to be talking about the same thing yet the first says we don't know and the second says we are sure. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. Summarized it a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2014

. ›

My name is Naif Abraham III. I am new to Wikipedia. I encountered some interesting information relating to (what I believe would be) the "Research" section of the current "Ebola_Virus_Disease" entry of Wikipedia. I believe this information should be added. I have enclosed a draft, including links and references, for the community of established Wikipedians to review. Please feel free critique it, but please add appropriate explanation for why changes were made so that I can, indeed all of Wikipedia can, benefit and learn from the most accurate, concise presentation of user-edited information the internet has to offer.

Following is the proposed entry for a subheading under the "Research" section:



A United States patent with multinational collaborative recognition was applied for on 10/26/2009, and published 10/4/2012, for the rights to a variant of Ebola,

Ebola Bundibugyo, which was discovered and officially identified in a 2007 outbreak in Uganda Towner, Jonathan S., Stuart T. Nichol, James A. Comer, Thomas G. Ksiazek, and Pierre E. Rollin. Human Ebola Virus Species and Compositions and Methods Thereof. The Government of the US as Represented by the Secretary of the Dept. of Health, Atlanta, GA, assignee. Patent US 2012/0251502 A1. 4 Oct. 2012. Print. The original nomenclature for Ebola Bundibugyo, or EboBun, as seen in the patent, was updated to Bundibugyo virus (BDBV) in 2012 by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses
(ICTV), around the same time that the virus was defined as being in the family Filoviridae, genus Ebolavirus, species Bundibugyo ebolavirus. The patent is listed under six different numbers, including one assigned an US appellation, as well as one Canadian (CA), two European Patent Office (EP), and two World Intellectual Property Organization (WO) designations.


US 20120251502 A1

CA 2741523 A1

EP 2350270 A2

EP 2350270 A4

WO 2010048615 A2

WO 2010048615 A3


It is openly noted in the Deposit Statement of the patent (Section [0002]) that the virus sample was deposited to the CDC in Atlanta, GA, on November 26, 2007, not to an International Depository Authority (IDA), which was the accepted method as established under the Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for Purposes of Patent Procedure. According to the same section, the “deposited organism” was also admittedly, “not acceptable by American Type Culture Collection.” This sample was painstakingly researched, and led to the patent application.

Section [0037] of the patent explains its purpose as having “utility in design of diagnostic assays to monitor Ebola HF [Hemorrhagic Fever] disease in humans and animals, and develop effective antivirals and vaccines.” Further, to avoid limiting the extent and reach of the patent, Section [0036] states that:


It is to be understood that the present invention is not limited to particular embodiments described, as such may, of course, vary. It is also to be understood that the terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only, and is not intended to be limiting.


The patent was published before the US Supreme Court ruled that natural material could not be patented as being an invention (as dictated in the 2013 trial: “

Association for Molecular Pathology, et al., v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., et al.
;” argued 04/15/2013 and decided 06/13/2013), but synthetic copies of natural materials could be patented and protected. If and/or how this ruling has affected the patent for the Bundibugyo strain of Ebola is unclear.



Thank you for taking your time to read this. I am of the understanding that one can send messages via Wikipedia; if this is correct, please feel free to message me with questions, criticism or comments.

N.z.a.3 (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see previous entries on this talk page such as
Talk:Ebola virus disease#United States has a patent for Ebola? WTF? Ochiwar (talk
) 17:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Please don't; those links don't work. Click this and this instead. Art LaPella (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I eliminated the <ref> from N.z.a.3's text. It was:
Towner, Jonathan S., Stuart T. Nichol, James A. Comer, Thomas G. Ksiazek, and Pierre E. Rollin. Human Ebola Virus Species and Compositions and Methods Thereof. The Government of the US as Represented by the Secretary of the Dept. of Health, Atlanta, GA, assignee. Patent US 2012/0251502 A1. 4 Oct. 2012. Print
--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Outbreak Map

Needs UpdATING — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.56.145 (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I presume you mean this one:
Cases of Ebola fever in Africa from 1979 to 2008