Talk:Enterovirus 68

Useful source

Here are a tidbit that the lay readers and the medical professionals might find interesting: EV68 and Rv87 are the same, and uniquely share characteristics of both enteroviruses and rhinoviruses. Abductive (reasoning) 07:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

yeah, thats why I put in the virus' growth characteristics, man... Oh, and since you love correcting others so much : It's "here is" not "here are a tidbit" Take it easy.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

rarity of EV68 paralysis

Abductive, you removed this sentence with the comment "Primary source material is off on a tangent".

Of 962 non-polio enterovirus isolates isolated from 10,263 patients with paralysis in Shandong Province, China from 1988 to 2013, none were due to EV68.

I understand (theoretically) where you are coming from, infact I really expected to hear this concern, when I added the sentence. I added this one sentence Primary source material on EV68's rarity in causing paralysis because :

1. You had already broached the topic on the/your page and it was a sore open spot.
2. The topic is serious and - in my professional experience (I dont know about your pediatric infectious disease expertise)- it is important to readers, parents or not. It is not a tangent. A respiratory infection, a rash, that may all be ok, but a permanent paralysis? That's scary. So the responsible thing to do is to delete or complete. Anticipating the reader's concern, and to satisfy my own thirst for knowledge, I looked to source the frequency, and came up with the above.

As far as waving it off as a WP:primary source: you gotta be kidding! Your refs 1-5 and 7 are all primary sources. (Thank me for the MMWR refs I introduced ?)

Think it over. Please offer a rewrite, instead of wholesale deletion. Maybe:

• Of about 10,000 Chinese patients with paralysis and the roughly 1000 non-polio enteroviruses isolated from 1988 to 2013, none were due to EV68.
• Or if you want to stress the connection to EV68: No EV68 was found in roughly bout 10,000 Chinese patients with paralysis and their 1000 non-polio enteroviruses.

--Wuerzele (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Just say, "Extremely rarely" and leave it at that. See WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Respect secondary sources. Also, Chinese scientists are hardly reliable.

If the paper is not about EV68 then why mention it? Abductive (reasoning) 21:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What? I explained why I mentioned the paper above. So your question is rhethorical and you want to provoke, rather than discuss.You should know better that WP:BRD is the law of the land. I cant believe you didnt really read my post...

why the hint for secondary sources? Your refs 1-5 and 7 are primary sources, not secondary sources.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me , that you do not know how, or dont care to honestly communicate: you do not ping people when responding, you mostly provide no edit summaries, and you are not interested in / you refuse true discussion- it's your way or the highway. --Wuerzele (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wuerzele No, that's not it at all. I am trying to get you to see my point of view: I am challenging a primary source. My reasoning is sound; a paper on a study that didn't find any EV68 has no bearing on EV68 and doesn't belong in this article. They looked at cases of paralysis, not cases of EV68. Furthermore, the guys over in WP:WikiProject Medicine take an even harder line on this sort of thing; see in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) how they have bolded the line "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content"? Abductive (reasoning) 08:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Abductive, I repeat, refs 1-5 and 7 are primary sources, not secondary sources, so your "reasoning" makes no sense.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Wuerzele Are you challenging those sources? Abductive (reasoning) 03:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Abductive, you reverted my use of ONE primary reference,yet -you have not corrected me so I think I am not wrong- you inserted 6 primary refs (refs 1-5 and 7), a double standard. And then you even lecture me on references. This is the fourth day of a pseudo-discussion, where you refuse to "get the point" and I start to question your competence.

I removed one of "your refs" which was about EV71 and thus incorrect. Now please source the CNS infection statement which is not a medical symptom and should be rephrased accordingly. good day,--Wuerzele (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Wuerzele You are absolutely right; that was a bad ref. Didn't have anything to do with EV68. The value of challenging primary refs is proved yet again. Please feel free to remove anything else you can't find a secondary source for. Abductive (reasoning) 02:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

update december 2015

polios-copycat

Sadly, while everyone hoped the paralysis in the affected kids would be temporary, the latest studies indicate most of the children have minimal to no improvement. Only two of the 120 have recovered.

CDC recently told that it would be at least nine months more before it would be able to reply to the first of our two Freedom of Information requests filed a year ago. The law requires a response in 20 days. --Covenant242 (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Enterovirus 68. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924025446/http://www.health.ny.gov/professionals/protocols_and_guidelines/antibiotic_resistance/docs/hospital_disinfectants_for_general_disinfection_of_environmental_surfaces.pdf to http://www.health.ny.gov/professionals/protocols_and_guidelines/antibiotic_resistance/docs/hospital_disinfectants_for_general_disinfection_of_environmental_surfaces.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 03:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)