Talk:Babesiosis

Articles on Tick Borne Disease Babesiosis

1. Kjemtrup, A. M., and P. A. Conrad. "Human babesiosis: an emerging tick-borne disease." International journal for parasitology 30.12 (2000): 1323-1337. http://hy2ju6vj2n.scholar.serialssolutions.com/?sid=google&auinit=AM&aulast=Kjemtrup&atitle=Human+babesiosis:+an+emerging+tick-borne+disease&id=doi:10.1016/S0020-7519(00)00137-5&title=International+journal+for+parasitology&volume=30&issue=12&date=2000&spage=1323&issn=0020-7519

Comment: Interesting, initially while Babesiosis was known to primarily infect cattle, over the years more and more human cases are being discovered. It has been proposed that this is due to the dynamic ecology of the parasite. Nonetheless, while parasite infections infections continue to increase, so does awareness and intervention of the disease. While currently clindamyocin and quinone is being used for treatment, research has shown that other drugs also show potential and novel detections methods are well underway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheesecakefantasy (talk • contribs) 14:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

2. Randolph, Sarah E. "Evidence that climate change has caused ‘emergence’of tick-borne diseases in Europe?." International Journal of Medical Microbiology Supplements 293 (2004): 5-15. http://hy2ju6vj2n.scholar.serialssolutions.com/?sid=google&auinit=SE&aulast=Randolph&atitle=Evidence+that+climate+change+has+caused+%E2%80%98emergence%E2%80%99of+tick-borne+diseases+in+Europe%3F&id=doi:10.1016/S1433-1128(04)80004-4&title=International+journal+of+medical+microbiology&volume=293&date=2004&spage=5

3. Krause, Peter J., et al. "Disease-specific diagnosis of coinfecting tickborne zoonoses: babesiosis, human granulocytic ehrlichiosis, and Lyme disease." Clinical Infectious Diseases 34.9 (2002): 1184-1191. http://hy2ju6vj2n.scholar.serialssolutions.com/?sid=google&auinit=PJ&aulast=Krause&atitle=Disease-specific+diagnosis+of+coinfecting+tickborne+zoonoses:+babesiosis,+human+granulocytic+ehrlichiosis,+and+Lyme+disease&id=pmid:11941544

4. Spielman, Andrew. "The Emergence of Lyme Disease and Human Babesiosis in a Changing Environmenta." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 740.1 (1994): 146-156. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1994.tb19865.x/epdf

5. Wormser, Gary P., et al. "The clinical assessment, treatment, and prevention of Lyme disease, human granulocytic anaplasmosis, and babesiosis: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America." Clinical Infectious Diseases 43.9 (2006): 1089-1134. http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c3489998-1b43-4c11-96bd-9e6412ddd49c%40sessionmgr112&crlhashurl=login.aspx%253fdirect%253dtrue%2526profile%253dehost%2526scope%253dsite%2526authtype%253dcrawler%2526jrnl%253d10584838%2526AN%253d22652783&hid=117&vid=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheesecakefantasy (talk • contribs) 23:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Note

Note: the first version of this article was taken from the public domain source at http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/HTML/Babesiosis.htm

Bold text

This article is very well written being a student and having to do a report in infectious diseases this was a very great help I would like to inquire though who created the treatment for the disease and when.

______ I'm neither a doctor nor entymologist, simply a Cape Cod patient released from the hospital 2 days ago and recovering from Babesiosis. I'm a 60 y.o. healthy male, and this was the worse illness I've ever had: severe recurring fevers for 10 days; anemia (hematocrit 28, platelets 40); fluid around my lungs and atelectesis (sp?); liver functions over 400. Although my case was never considered life-threatening, it made me wish I was dead!

Anyway, having no particular expertise, I'm not going to edit the article, but I'm skeptical of the following statement: "Note that unlike the Plasmodium parasites that cause malaria, Babesia species lack an exo-erythrotic phase, so the liver is usually not affected." My doctors monitored my liver carefully fearing that it would be overwhelmed - I believe it works hard to separate the dead red blood cells from the blood.

Also, why is this article under 'dogs'?! I'd think it would be under disease, or protozoa. Nonukes 16:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I

I have a sneaking suspicion that this article has been "defaced." Having done parasitology i have never heard of babesiosis being caused by Babes on peaches. (see first line of the article). I propose to alter this first line and replace it with something more sensible, or to return to a previous edition of the first line. Ithillion 04:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Citing material not used in text

I don't understand edit, are you adding citations to articles that are not used in the article? If so, why? Maybe as additional resources, but the references are for materials used to write the article. If the articles would be useful for expanding this article, which is in need of major work, then maybe you could post them on the talk page instead, as suggestions? Please elaborate so I can understand what you intend. Thanks. --Blechnic (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right - I should have added the review article links in external links - if they're useful at all, which someone with domain knowledge should judge

These review articles via the PubMed search:

review[pt] Babesiosis[tiab] eng[la]

Is there is a way of 'pickling' the PubMed search? - because that's what I would have preferred to add, maybe restricting to title words with ti instead of tiab

• Krause PJ, Daily J, Telford SR, Vannier E, Lantos P, Spielman A (2007). "Shared features in the pathobiology of babesiosis and malaria". Trends Parasitol. 23 (12): 605–10. doi:10.1016/j.pt.2007.09.005. PMID 17988944. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Krause PJ (2003). "Babesiosis diagnosis and treatment". Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 3 (1): 45–51. doi:10.1089/153036603765627451. PMID 12804380.

RDBrown (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that suggesting review articles you find in pubmed searches is useful. I would add them as suggestions to stubs, but on the talk page. What would be most useful would be if you could add some information from the review article to the stub article, though.

These two reviews are not necessarily useful for this article. The first might be informative in the Apicomplexa article, and may have useful information for this article as Malaria is a much better understood disease in the lay intellect, but it's not so directly related. Probably I could get some information from the second article that could be used in this article. However, this article is in sad shape and needs more basics before clinical information.

As far as I know you can restrict to title words, not only title and abstract in pub med searches. Yes, if you're not sure about the usefulness allow someone else to add them as outside references. I'd go ahead and add both these as additional sources, but with descriptions after reading them. --Blechnic (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Having read a little PubMed documentation, PubMed will provide the URL for the query results from the "Detail" tab followed by the "URL" button.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=DetailsSearch&Term=review[pt]+AND+Babesiosis[ti]

is roughly what I wanted (~89 results or so with ~76 if restricted to English). Would some like this as a cite web be sensible to add to the External Refs for the stub articles, given I'm a layman for medical articles? RDBrown (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, search results are not useful. What is useful is adding particularly useful and pointed articles that relate to this article. You have to read the articles, decide they are the most useful, and why, then add them under an appropriate heading in the further reading or external references sections. If you do not have the background for reading the articles to do this, then this search is not useful. --Blechnic (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I had hoped that the articles indexed as publication type "review" were an appropriate starting point. RDBrown (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've read Pershing, Herwaldt, Glaser (currently cited in the article) and it doesn't really seem germane to the article as it stands; it discusses the discovery of what appears to be an as-yet unclassified species of Babesia as an agent of human disease. Hopefully there's a more generally review somewhere in PubMed. 138.123.66.59 (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The article's not well done, but I don't have time to edit. Feel free to pull source if necessary. RDBrown, these are review articles, and review articles are a good starting place, but not every review article with Bbesiosis in its title will be appropriate for including in this article. They have to be individually picked, read, and synopsized. --Blechnic (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Late Help

I notice that post from the student was over a year ago but it's important to point out that it definitely does affect the liver. Whether that means the organism is actually in the liver or not is a good question and more research needs to be completed. Liver and spleen swelling are both very common along with a list of other symptoms which I added, had sourced, but yet were deleted. There are also a few new tests with much better technology and sensitivity than past tests which I wrote about and that too was deleted (FISH testing is what it's called and IGENEX labs does it if anyone wants to learn for themselves rather than read opinions posted by moderators). The article could also use updating for the treatment of chronic cases that were misdiagnosed at the onset of the illness (which most cases are in the U.S.) which requires a much longer treatment duration. I'll have to wait to add that information once I get these moderators to actually read some current information rather than post ancient sources that reference even more ancient sources. If anyone wants to know more information on the disease I have the only published book on it (as of now) so you can write on my talk page and I'll try to get back to you. I also speak with a number of practicing doctors that have treated many cases of the disease and it's pretty interesting stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pryorka82 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Before you promote FISH and IGENEX any further, can you provide a reliable source describing its usefulness, sensitivity, and specificity for diagnosing babesiosis? In general terms, FISH is usually associated with a significant false-positive rate which requires careful interpretation. I could not find any such sources on FISH for diagnosis of babesiosis in my reading on PubMed and elsewhere. FISH is certainly not part of the diagnostic strategy recommended by reputable medical bodies. There are an awful lot of unapproved and/or useless diagnostic tests being marketed out there; tick-borne diseases in particular are the subject of an extensive number of misleading and incorrect Internet claims. Therefore, it would be nice to get a reliable source for this one.

I'm also on speaking terms with a number of doctors who treat people with babesiosis, but this is not sufficient grounds to accept claims from a Wikipedia pseudonym. Please provide a reliable source so that they can be verified by other editors. I'm not sure what you mean when you claim to have "the only published book on babesiosis". Every respectable infectious-disease and medical-microbiology textbook contains published information on babesiosis. MastCell ^Talk 03:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a full explaination of the FISH method in this patent on this site http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6165723/description.html And at this link http://igenex.com/Website/# you can read about the FISH test available at IGenex (other labs are working on them but I'm not sure if any are available yet). I am familiar with FISH testing being unreliable in some cases when the RNA link was not specific to just the genus or species that was being examined. IGenex site lays out the numbers for their tests and they have been evaluated by the FDA although each individual test is not approved and that is a very laborious process that can take 5 to 10 years or more. If you want more details I'm sure you can call them and they'd be glad to send any information you'd want.

When I say I have the only full text on babesiosis I'm refering to the over 200 page book Diagnosis and Treatment of Babesia by Dr. James Schaller. These books on infectious diseases at most have one to two pages on the disease and it is very untrustworthy biased information. This is a result of the corruption that has gone on in IDSA with lyme disease because babesia and a few other diseases were in the same document created by IDSA. You can read a summary of what I'm talking about here http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354168,00.html and the full details are available on the connecticut attorney generals website. The most discerning point to note is in this statement "Blumenthal said his investigation found that some of the 14 experts who approved the 2006 guidelines got consulting fees, research grants and stock ownership from drug companies and other businesses that have a stake in the treatment and diagnosis of Lyme disease." There was a report on this done on 48 hours recently and the CDC has said they will be stepping up in the future to try and take matters into their own hands. Not many people realize it but the CDC has previously just taken their guidelines from the IDSA and other organizations and then many textbooks simply reference the CDC. So a majority of the information out there all came about as a result of a handful of corrupt individuals making money for themselves and as a result causing suffering and death for a lot of people. The CDC was doing this because they were simply bogged down and never expected bribery and antitrust violations to occur.

I'd also like you to read the article at this link http://www.personalconsult.com/articles/californiababesia.html That is from the website of Dr. Schaller, he posts a number of articles from research journals and works closely with a number of the doctors doing the research. It's very inaccurate to say that babesia is a uncommon disease. I don't know that common would be correct either, but more correctly it should probably read that it is uncommon to be diagnosed correctly, or commonly misdiagnosed. Saying the disease is easily diagnosed is very shortsited. It certainly is easy to diagnose if it's caught in the first few weeks and found on a smear. What is left out is that it is very rarely diagnosed early on, most doctors simply think patients have a virus of some sort. Then in the later stages of the disease the story is very different and that's the story most infected persons are faced with.

I'll try to find a way that you can see that episode of 48 hours in the meantime. (maybe it was 60 minutes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pryorka82 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I will be brief:

• A patent application is not a reliable source of medical information. Simple questions: is this FISH test approved by the FDA or any other regulatory agency as a useful diagnostic tool? Has it been the subject of any published research in the peer-reviewed medical literature? I suspect the answer to both questions is no, in which case it does not have a place here. If/when it is studied and approved, then it will have a place here.
• A blanket argument that widely respected infectious-disease texts have "untrustworthy biased information" is a non-starter, as is your claim that the only "unbiased" source is a single-author book of unclear standing and the personal website of the book's author. I will again refer you to verifiability and reliable sourcing as cornerstones of Wikipedia.
• Inaccurate and downright incorrect claims about the IDSA undercut your credibility significantly. Additionally, the FOXNews link you provide directly contradicts the wild accusations which you base upon it.

As you seem dedicated to advocating a point of view unsupported (and in many cases directly contradicted) by published reliable sources, please consider whether Wikipedia is the appropriate venue for what you hope to achieve. MastCell ^Talk 20:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess I need to go through a play by play here since you're not reading anything I'm posting for you.

• A patent application is not a reliable source of medical information. It's more than an application, do some reading check the references at the bottom of the patent. Simple questions: is this FISH test approved by the FDA or any other regulatory agency as a useful diagnostic tool? No neither is any other test for babesia, brucella, and a host of other infections. Approval takes many years and a lot of manpower from the FDA, call them ask them about how much it costs and you'll understand why. Has it been the subject of any published research in the peer-reviewed medical literature? Yes, read the posts I've sent you look up the references. I suspect the answer to both questions is no, in which case it does not have a place here. If/when it is studied and approved, then it will have a place here. None of the test posted so far are approved either, should we delete those?
• A blanket argument that widely respected infectious-disease texts have "untrustworthy biased information" is a non-starter, as is your claim that the only "unbiased" source is a single-author book of unclear standing and the personal website of the book's author. I will again refer you to verifiability and reliable sourcing as cornerstones of Wikipedia. Once again read the posts I've given to you the research and publications of around 25 doctors are included in the book, this one doctor just took the time to organize it and explain research. Multiple doctors helped him write the book. Do some reading that's why I sent you all the links.
• Inaccurate and downright incorrect claims about the IDSA undercut your credibility significantly. Additionally, the FOXNews link you provide directly contradicts the wild accusations which you base upon it. Did you not read the link? I even posted part of it on this page. There is nothing contradictory about any of it with what I've said. You should stop saying the evidence against IDSA is inaccurate until you ACTUALLY READ THE EVIDENCE and see what was presented in court. These are more than just claims, this evidence forced IDSA board memebers to come to an agreement rather than proceed with court hearings and the punishment that could have followed.

I've asked you before and I will again, please stop undercutting new information and those people that provide it. Take the time to do a little reading and understanding rather than pointing the finger and argueing. You seem very supportive of the IDSA so I really hope you take the time to read the information of the connecticut attorney generals website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pryorka82 (talk • contribs)

As a start, please don't assume that disagreements between us are due to insufficient reading on my part. Please accept the possibility that I have read the sources you provide, but that I do not agree with your use and interpretation of them.

Regarding tests for babesiosis: serology is well-described in the peer-reviewed literature, performed by a reputable body (the CDC), and recognized as useful by numerous authorities in the field of infectious disease. PCR is well-described in the peer-reviewed literature, performed by accredited labs, and recognized as useful by numerous authorities in the field. This proprietary FISH test is not. Please don't mangle these tests together as if they were equivalently valid when such is quite obviously not the case. It is unecessary to lecture me on the FDA approval process, as I have some familiarity with it.

I don't see anything in the above arguments that leads me to change my mind on the FISH test in particular, though a simple peer-reviewed publication or independent indication of its usefulness would be a start. I'm not the final word on anything; if you feel your agenda is supported by Wikipedia's policies and I'm standing in your way unreasonably, then feel free to solicit outside input or follow the steps described in our dispute resolution pathway. MastCell ^Talk 07:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I knew IGENEX sounded familiar. The makers of the FISH test which you're promoting received the following writeup in Forbes:

Stricker and many of his chronic Lyme allies send their blood tests to a California lab called Igenex, which was once investigated by Medicare and the state of California for pumping out too many positive tests. Nick S. Harris, chief executive of Igenex, says he passed both investigations easily, but in 2001 the federal Office of the Inspector General put Igenex on a list of noncompliant labs. It paid fines totaling $48,000. Harris says his firm has had no recent brushes with regulators. Harris says that his tests are more sensitive than ones given by lab giants Quest Diagnostics and LabCorp, yielding positive results 25% of the time. The big national labs typically return positive results 8% of the time. He acknowledges that his results are more open to interpretation, which could facilitate more positive diagnoses. "Patients, because of the Internet, have become my best salesmen," Harris says. [1]

Indeed. I think at this point we should not be in a huge rush to add IGENEX's FISH test without some sort of independent validation beyond the company's patent application. MastCell ^Talk 21:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Patents are not reliable sources. People patent magnetic motors and antigravity devices all the time, but that doesn't mean they work. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not promoting IGENEX in general. There should just at least be mention of the FISH test (in general, not IGENEX) since the other tests are only available for two species and lose effectiveness the longer the disease goes undiagnosed. That article downplays their lyme testing which I don't know much about but is a separate issue from babesia. You're speaking of PCR's and serologies in general and not for this disease so I don't know if you understand the difficulty using those tests with this disease. Is there a way we can mention the FISH test in general? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pryorka82 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Cite a reliable source. MastCell ^Talk 00:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Great new review

There is anice new review about Babesiosis at Spetember International J of Parasitology by Hunfeld, K-P et al. I put some stuff in from that review, i wush these authors would come and write this article bc theirs has the right structure! I say this article should be more about the Veterinary pathology side of if since Babesiosis is a major problem in cattle esp. in tropic but it is very rare in people in NA and Eur. and mostly just a problem in people who had their spleen out. YEah there's exceptions but lets not make the article about exceptions. RetroS1mone talk 18:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Plasma is not a German word, or at least, not originally: ORIGIN early 18th cent. (in the sense ‘mold, shape’): from late Latin, literally ‘mold,’ from Greek plasma, from plassein ‘to shape.’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.223.122 (talk) 06:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

and another http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1202018 NEJM 2012 Doc James (talk · contribs · email)(please leave replies on my talk page) 20:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Great Article

Hi! I'm anon330. I added the season/months when this disease is common. Great article!! Anon330 (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Babesiosis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://annals.highwire.org/content/124/7/643.full.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110405112007/http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/4790_5838.htm to http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/4790_5838.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

PREVENTION: I live in the Northeast. Mow lawn, weed garden, ... I also have a dog and a cat that go outside. Anything to do to keep the family safe/safer? I also expect the pets can get it/ticks and spread it to us. Any collar or spray that works to repel or kill ticks? Thanks. Maybe need a prevention section in article. 2601:181:8301:4510:7904:1F27:E277:6C8F (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)