Talk:Hepatitis B/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Emily Oster's "Hepatitis B and the Case of the Missing Women"

Perhaps worth mentioning Emily Oster's "Hepatitis B and the Case of the Missing Women"? She argues that much of the high sex ratio in some countries can be explained by Hepatitis B. Oster's paper --Daveeb 13:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) (Note - I also removed a link in the "Orthomolecular treatment" section of this discussion, and retyped it as text, because the spam filter was catching it and preventing me from publishing my comment - sorry about that.)--Daveeb 13:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Coc Pya

you should put a picture so that people can see what it is (in a microscopic computerized view)!!!

A picture of what, exactly? The hep-B virus itself? The nucleoties of the virus? The appearance of tissue damaged by the virus? I honestly don't think that a photo would really make the article that much more informative, but if you can point me to an appropriate photo I'll upload it and put it in.Matt gies 04:07, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Potato vaccine for hepatitis B

This is not acceptable for wikipedia since it is a research in progress, but i think it is a good informative link. It will help remind as to keep an eye on the topics progress. [1]

reorganization on 5/11/05

page was very disorganized and redundant is some areas. I did my best to put things in a more logical order and take out things that were repeated. It still seems out of sorts in some ways but is much better. some of the basic science stuff i'm not familar with off the top of my head, so i hope i didn't screw that part up too much. --sph

Group VII

I believe there's a mistake in the classification. Isn't group vii about dsDNA-RT viruses? Salvadorjo 6 July 2005 16:14 (UTC)

I agree. Wilke 8 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)

Pediatric Hepatitis B

I added a link to the Pediatric Hepatitis Report. This is not Hepatitis B specific, though a large part of the report deals with Hepatitis B. I thought to highlight it in the Hepatitis B article because children adopted from parts of asia where the infection is pervasive have a fairly high rate of HBV and the report is a good place for parents to turn. I was considering writing a section on pediatric hepatitis B including the subset of treatments currently approved by the FDA as well as comments about treatment and monitoring, but I'm no expert. Does anyone think this would be worthwhile as an additional section? Any other suggestions of what to include? Nissyen 11 July 2005 14:29 (UTC)

There are certainly a few things that could be and should be added in regard to pediatrics, but I'm not sure it warrents an additional section (and I'm half pediatrician). I'm not sure what additional treatments there are for kids that you are refering to. As is true in most of pediatrics, most of their treatments are founded on treatments initiated in adults. At least that was the true the last time I read up on the hepatits B peds stuff. Feel free to prove me wrong, though!  :)

By the way, as of June, the adult treatment section I wrote is out of date...already. I will revise it (or someone else can) once I get up-to-date on the most recent studies. Several studies have been published in the NEJM comparing combination therapy vs interferon vs antiviral and regarding Adefovir. Scanning the articles, the combination therapy appeared somewhat disappointing. I also plan to add a pathophys section at some point. It should complement the diagnosis and treatment sections. -sph

On reflection I think I don't have enough information to make a separate pediatric section, but if I have free time I might add information relevant to pediatric treatment (i.e. Interferon alpha and Lamivudine are the only FDA approved pediatric treatments, but Hepsera is under clinical pediatric trials).Nissyen 12 July 2005 19:38 UTC

Treatment

There is no mention of acute HBV infection. How about adding that there is currently no specific treatment, just advice to rest, eat well, keep hydrated and avoid alcohol intake until the virus has cleared? Sorry, I'm not a medical person so perhaps someone could re-write that in medical jargon.

Refs:

1. Recent personal experience!

2. "In the case of acute HBV infection, no specific medical treatment currently exists." [2]

3. "4.3 Treatment In most cases no special treatment is required for acute hepatitis B infection and most people can safely return to work when jaundice (if any) resolves and once they feel well enough even though ALT has not returned to normal levels. However alcohol should be avoided until the infection has resolved itself. Once HBsAb's appear the infection is considered to have been successfully defeated and the person is considered immune from future hepatitis B infection. Where symptoms are life threatening there is little that can be done although liver transplantation may be an option." [3]

4. "There's often no specific treatment for acute hepatitis B. Relief of symptoms, rest, a healthy diet and no alcohol may be advised. Many people either are symptom-free or recover completely within a couple of months and do not go on to develop chronic hepatitis. If you are diagnosed as having an active infection, you will be advised to have regular blood tests and physical check-ups." [4]

5. "There is no specific medical treatment for acute type B hepatitis." [5]

--sck skelly 18:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear, sck. Hopefully you'll get better. I agree we should cover acute infection, as HBV (as opposed to HCV) often does present with acute illness on infection. JFW | T@lk 16:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Orthomolecular treatment

Viral hepatitis can be cured with Vitamin C, as shown by Dr Cathcart MD [6]

"Viral hepatitis of all types is one of the easiest diseases for ascorbic acid to cure."---Dr Cathcart, M.D.

I would put a link in but it would be removed by medical editors.

Also there is no mention of the ineffectiveness and danger of hepatitis B vaccine as revealed in these articles. 86.128.169.252 20:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

(I'm removing the above link because the spamfilter is preventing me from saving my changes due to that link. In text, it's as follows: "www" dot "whale" dot "to" slash "vaccine" slash "hepatitis1" dot "html")--Daveeb 13:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Orthomolecular medicine is really, really simple. Invoke the spirit of Rath and Pauling, then prescribe so much vitamin C the patient's urine can be resold. JFW | T@lk 22:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hepatitis B cure

ViRexx Medical Corporation President and COO, Marc Canton, was interviewed by the Zangani Investor Community, regarding the recent PR about Health Canada's approval for Phase I trials of HepaVaxx B vaccine[7].

I keep seeing the above corporation showing up that they are working on a cure and are entering phase I with the FDA. Is this true and what are the odds on them getting a cure.

Question (Transmission)

I was wondering about the transmission of the hepatitus virus B and A. In Russia it is considered by the general population (at least according to some of my aqquaintances), that A is transmitted through Blood and fluid contact, and B is transmitted through food and fecal matter. I was just wondering how could such a large subset of the population be so horribly mistaken.

Another question. In the U.S., many colleges and univercities require people to present strong evidence that they were vaccinated agains the B virus. If the virus is transmitted only through fluids, then why should ordinary people care? I mean, it would not be that contageous right? --67.49.215.31 00:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I am confused my the statements regarding transmission. It says it's transmitted through sex, blood transfusions, etc., but then says that in some countries it's transmitted primarily through children. Obviously the article doesn't mean to imply that children engage in these activities? So what are the other transmission methods? Lagringa 10:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't really comment on why some people are mistaken about the different forms of hepatitis. Ordinary people care about hepatitis B because it is sexually transmitted and is easily prevented.

I'm a bit confused about the transmission AMONG children. I'll have to see if there's any information about that. At first I thought it was just referring to vertical transmission, but it's obviously not! InvictaHOG 20:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

When article states transmission between children, it refers to playground activities, general cuts and scratches, blood to blood contact (ie. blood brothers.

Claims in Article

I read in the article that one third of the world's population has had or has Hepatitis-B. I was just wondering where this info came from. Deepdesertfreman 20:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that number seemed large, so I did a little poking around. In a 2003 document, the World Health Organization states that "More than two thousand million people alive today have been infected with the hepatitis B virus". Assuming that the world population was about 6.5 billion in 2003, then the ratio would have been approximately 2bil/6.5bil, or about 30%. I can't find the source for the WHO numbers, though. --Arcadian 20:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The number is rubbish. If you read the small print, it merely talks about the total number of people who have been exposed to the virus. The actual prevalence is much smaller at 3 to 6% although in some parts of the world (e.g., South China) prevalence rates are as high as 20%. I have amended the summary to correct this. --Gak 18:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There's something wrong with the numbers. The article says that a third of the population has been exposed (i.e. 33%) and that there's only a 5% chance that one doesn't get cured by itself (so presumable one gets the chronic condition). 5% out of 33% is 1.65% of the whole population. However, the article says that 3 to 6 percent are currently infected. So, either more than one third of the population has been exposed or the chance that you get cured naturally is less than 95%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Upsidown (talk • contribs) 05:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting new study on HBV structure

PMID 16793552 --WS 20:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Risk statement

• I've removed this sentence from the end of the introductory paragraph:

"The hepatitis B virus is the second most prevalent cause of cancer in humans after Tobacco smoke."

While this statement may be true, it greatly oversimplifies the issue. It also needs to be more specific (something along the lines of HBV is the second most common preventable cause, or whatever), sourced, and placed in context. -- MarcoTolo 01:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Prevention

Under the prevention heading, there is a brief mention of both plasma derived vaccine and vaccine produced using recombinant DNA technology. I query, 'the two types of vaccines are equally effective and safe.' It's my understanding that as the recombinant DNA vaccine contains no living virus, it is therefore impossible to contract the virus from this vaccine, whereas there is a possibility of contraction from the plasma derived vaccine. Hence they aren't 'equally safe.' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.194.13.102 (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Lymphoma risk

After similar data in Hep C, there is now data of increased lymphoma risk (triple) in hepatitis B: doi:10.1002/hep.21642 JFW | T@lk 16:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Can the Stanford Asian Liver Center and (San Jose + San Francisco) Hepatitis B Free Initiative be included in this wikipedia as a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.65.116.203 (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Social Impact

Carriers of Hepatitis B face very strong discrimination in their lives in China. Maybe we can add that to the article. I know this is a medical article. But I still think the social impact of the disease is appropriate to be discussed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.90.55.65 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Societal implications of HBV carriers seems appropriate to me as well - do you have any reliable sources to use? -- MarcoTolo 16:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I have passed the article, but am looking for a second opinion to confirm that I'm correct (since I'm a new reviewer).Bless sins (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

2nd Opinion - I am also a new reviewer, however there are a few issues I've found, all of which are listed below:

• The lead sounds like it has original research and is entirely unreferenced.
• Some images need re-alignment - especially the one in the replication section.
• It may be worth expanding the vaccination section.

Until then, I am putting this GAN on hold for 7 days. Rudget _talk 15:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Response

• Thanks for your help with the article. I have re-aligned the images as you suggested. There is no original research in the lead, only established facts about the virus. Citations in the lead can be untidy and difficult because this section is written in a very general way.

The Wikipedia:Lead section says:

"Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none."

The vaccination section directs the reader to

Main article: Hepatitis B vaccine

.

--GrahamColm(^Talk ) 16:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the unsourced LEAD issue: many articles (e.g. Sperm whale, Chagas disease, DNA, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Medieval cuisine) have passed the FA status without having a single source in their lead. Given FA criteria is tougher than GA criteria, I don't think an unsourced lead is an issue. GrahamColm has also justified his/her choice using WP:LEAD. Of course, sources are always better than no sources, and this article would certainly be improved by adding them to the lead. Bless sins (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you again. I have added some citations to the lead. Because of the general nature of this section, the citations that I have included are review articles, but they have all been published in peer-reviewed academic journals.GrahamColm^Talk 20:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC) p.s. GrahamColm^Talk is male.

Further Assessment

I am willing to to pass the article, as I have read over it once again and the issues set out have been addressed. Well done to those involved. Rudget _talk 15:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Genome organization figure

There are a few minor problems with the genome figure that I'm hoping can get fixed.

1. (This first one is more of a suggestion.) Rather than numbering the four ORFs, the letter designations used in the text (i.e., ORF P, ORF S, ORF C, and ORF X) may be more appropriate for the figure.

2. The pre-S/ORF 2 box should be divided into "pre-S1," "pre-S2," and "S" to represent the three start codons.

3. ORF 3 (core antigen) should be divided into "pre-C" and "C" since there are actually two in-frame start codons.

4. The 5' end of ORF P (ORF 1) should overlap with the 3' end of ORF C (ORF 3). They are not overlapping in the current version of the figure.

NighthawkJ (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Effect of alcohol

I moved the comment on alcohol from the Treatment section to the Symptoms and Complications section. Seems much more appropriate in the latter Scray (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Combination therapy

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03695.x - ideal treatment (mono- vs combination therapy) still not known. JFW | T@lk 06:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks J., it looks like a very useful review. I've ordered a full copy. Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 17:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Another review: doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03731.x JFW | T@lk 11:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hi JFD, the this one looks like a bad link. GrahamColm^Talk 12:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Great new NEJM review article on drug therapy

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/359/14/1486Wawot1 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

--213.55.94.114 (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Headline text

== Questions ==will there be a possiblity that hepatitis virus is inherited from family

Please see here: Talk:Hepatitis#A_few_questions

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.176.111.68 (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Treatment section: delete paragraph?

I was just looking over the treatment section. I see a well-referenced paragraph that describes the dates that various meds were approved by various regulatory bodies in several different countries. This information doesn't seem especially relevant or important. (Need we add when the drug was approved in China/India/New Guinea?)

For readability purposes, I think this paragraph should be deleted. Any thoughts?Wawot1 (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Done. --Scray (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Re question in parentheses: Possibly yes? The leader in the article reads: "[...] has caused epidemics in parts of Asia and Africa, and it is endemic in China and various other parts of Asia[...]".
Due to its high prevalence in, for example, China, the information is possibly relevant/important/warranted for inclusion. I haven't re-added/reverted it in since I'm not sure it should be. I just wanted to suggest those more familiar with the article consider the matter again. Thanks. :) Whitehorse1 20:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

2 Questions about Hepatitis B

1) Is is possible to get infected by having contact with the saliva of another human being?

• Yes, if the person has an active (as opposed to past) HBV infection and sufficient saliva is transferred to the blood of another person, (by biting for example). Having said that, the risks of transmission by casual contact with saliva are very low. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

2) Is it possible to get infected even if one has been vaccinated against Hepatitis B?

• No. Providing a full course of vaccine has been given and the person has responded by producing antibody. There is a routine test for this. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• While GrahamColm is correct you can't get infected if you are vaccinated and producing are antibodies (which can be tested), most people aren't tested for antibodies after vaccination. As with any vaccine, some people will not produce antibodies after vaccination so it is possible to get infected even if you have been vaccinated but it is unlikely. Kurtmdphd (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• I agree, but as you said, infection after vaccination is rare. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please answer those two questions because I read and I was not sure at the end. I am a little bit concerned about this disease. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.14.139 (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Cancelling split + GAR

The article Hepatitis B virus has been divided into the former and Hepatitis B. This division was designed to divide the disease from the disease causing agent. Conducted by Arcadian, I have reverted his edit under WP:BRD. This article has attained a stable structure from which all pertinent subjects are provided, furthermore the ties between the virus and the disease is particularly clear: making it an unnecessary expense for the reader to travel between the two articles. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Quick note: I was shocked by the actions of the Medicine project yesterday. This GA has been stable and maintained for over a year. I understand that in the euphoria following the promotion to FA of Meningitis (to which I contributed) there is renewed interest in FAs by the project. But to tear a GA into two without discussion either here or at the viruses project and then nominate the abandoned stub at WP:GAR is a poor show and bad manners. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 07:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

During the time window of the split, this article got listed at GAR. In spite of the re-merging, improvments may still be necessary to maintain GA status. Link to comments in box at top of this page. Just letting people know so the GAR isn't forgotten during any split !arguing.YobMod 14:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The current article has 707 words on the virus, and 2091 words on the disease. If the article must remain unsplit, it should be at "Hepatitis B", not "Hepatitis B virus", per Wikipedia:Naming conventions. However, I ask that the merge be reconsidered. "Hepatitis B" and "Hepatitis B virus" are not synonyms. The damage done to the liver in Hepatitis B is primarily due to the body's response to the infection, not the infection itself, and immunomodulation is as important in treatment as antiviral therapy. Acute hepatitis B, chronic hepatitis B, B+D, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma are all caused by the virus. HIV has 6764 words (not including subarticles). Orthomyxoviridae has 1700. Herpes simplex virus has 2200. Hepatitis C virus has 1100. Poliovirus has 2300. Meanwhile, "more than one third of the world’s population has been infected with the hepatitis B virus". We should have at least as much content about the Hepatitis B virus as we do about HIV, and we should probably have much more. It is a fascinating virus, with many unique characteristics. But many medical editors object or revert when an article perceived to have a clinical focus is expanded to include information that is of interest to a different audience. If we want this article to get better, faster, we can't keep it all at "Hepatitis B virus". Articles with a clear focus improve more rapidly than articles where the subject of the article is not well defined. If the goal is to get a FA, undoing the merge would accelerate the process. --Arcadian (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You say "ask that the merge be reconsidered", but as far as I can see you made no attempt to discuss or raise it for consideration in the first place—certainly not here on its talk page.

I've had the article watchlisted since asking a question, above. I've reverted vandalism or inappropriate edits a few times since I think. Yesterday, I suddenly found I was instead watching an article with just two edit history entries and all of the information—which I found informative & interesting—had been spirited away elsewhere. My thought was "Did you ever think to ask?". I second Graham Colm's comments above. The goal, is for an article to be the best it can be; this is true irrespective of FA/GA/v1.0, etc. The article I read had clarity and was focused. Coverage of Pathogenesis, Prevalence, Transmission et. al, and History did not negate that. –Whitehorse1 21:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Arcadian, your arguments are interesting but my view is that a split would be premature. I do not agree on your "word count" dichotomy at all—so many for the virus and so many for the disease—the relationships are too interwoven. If clinical or virological aspects of the infection are lacking then these can be added to the article now and a split reconsidered later. Also, which article do you want to improve to FA standard, Hepatitis B virus or Hepatitis B? Judging by the state the "virus" article was left in post split, I suspect it is the latter. A split now would produce two poor articles from one good one. There was no problem in getting Rotavirus to FA without this surgery, but I am open-minded on this. But I would prefer to see the current artcile improved before the idea of separating is considered. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that they're too interwoven, and I think that's just a historical artifact of the similarities of the name of the virus and the condition. But I understand that it's hard to explain why without providing links to content that isn't in Wikipedia yet. How about this -- we move the existing article to "Hepatitis B", keeping all the existing virology content in whatever format you prefer, and thus inheriting its existing "good article" status. (I gather from your comments elsewhere that this is one of your concerns, so I hope this would address it.) I could then create a new article for "Hepatitis B virus", modeling it to rise to about this level of detail initially, though hopefully surpassing it someday. I won't interfere with the "Hepatitis B" article. Are there any objections? --Arcadian (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Arcadian, I need time to think about this and I would welcome other views. I don't "own" this article and I certainly do not want you to consider your edits as "interfering" (please). Can we solicit comments from page watchers and perhaps from Wikipedia:WikiProject Viruses as well as the medics? Graham Colm ^Talk 22:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

We have had a discussion in WP:VIRUS. Essentially we've been over this before, trying to distinguish an articulate our ideas on how splits between the disease and the disease causing agent should be done. Aside from that, I in full support of Arcadian's compromise to move the current article Hepatitis B virus to Hepatitis B; and following which, to create a new article in Hepatitis B virus's place. The new article will be specifically focused on the virus, and the model provided appears to be enough to verify that there is sufficient content that a new article would be necessary in order to provide for the expansion of this topic. To my understanding there will be no splitting. Only a CSD move and a new article created from the subsequent redirect would be necessary. I don't view this as a WP:SIZE issue; this article is 36kb long, however the amount of readable prose will likely be less. As defined, this article would be in the range of "May need to be divided". This is not a compelling reason, and the text is distributed evenly throughout the article. Because of this I am not arguing this point using Arcadian's logic or under a speculative hypothesis that articles with specific focus grow much quicker than those without. Essentially, (1) Hepatitis B appears to be the most natural name under WP:NC, (2) if the model holds true, a follow up edit would be enough for a main article specifically focused the virus. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree in full with ChyranandChloe on this. Graham Colm ^Talk 10:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is moved, and a virus page made, it will affect this page, in that this page should use summary style to includes an overview of the virus article. Making a separate article that has only information redundant to this article would seem pointless, no?YobMod 14:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

With the new content, duplication shouldn't be an issue. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've performed the move to Hepatitis B, and created a stub at Hepatitis B virus. I haven't removed anything from Hepatitis B (except the infobox). The virus article is currently small, but I will work at expanding it over time. --Arcadian (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Error in HBV acute serum diagram

The diagram contests that anti-HBs is produced immediately after HBsAg is eradicated. I do not believe this is correct. anti-HBs is detectable roughly 16 weeks after HBsAg is eradicated. This period is known as the window period. In this period, the only detectable markers of a Hep B infection are IgM-anti-HBc and total anti-HBc.

I am only a medical student so I could be wrong, but I refer the reader to the following 2 minute video describing acute Hep B. serolgy. It is from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, which is a US government site, reputable enough it has been refered to me by my lecturer: http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/Resources/Professionals/Training/Serology/training.htm#one M0rt (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, These diagrams are always generalisations, and you will have noticed that the commentator in the video constantly says "generally". But having said this, I agree with you in that the anti-HBs line needs shifting a little to the right. I will search for the original files that I used to make the diagram and upload a modified one. The window period is mentioned often enough to warrant inclusion. Thanks for spotting this. Best wishes. Graham Colm ^Talk 10:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, the new picture looks good M0rt (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

my B hepatitis

My B hepatitis

About 20 years ago, I was infected B hepatitis. I was in a very serious state. Three big positives. At the same time I was also infected D hepatitis. Chinese doctor told my wife that I was in a very dangerous state. But miracle happened, after three months, I was recovered from hepatitis( B and D). I am not only recovered but I have biggest antibody. It is about 50 times to normal antibody. Chinese doctor wanted many times my blood to research. They said it is possible that D hepatitis treated my B hepatitis. Now my antibody is still situated at very high level. it's about 53. I wonder who can tell me why. Is it useful to other people?

Anderson

MD. USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.33.163 (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Your experience of this infection is very common. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Layout

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.

---

I am challenging Jmh649's restructuring of the article.[8] The article has been restructured to fit more rigid with WP:MEDMOS, the English Wikipedia's Medical Manuel of Style. However, remember that this is a guideline, and under section "Stability of articles" from WP:MOS, I am holding the change was done without substantial reason.

WP:MEDMOS has (1) yet conduct an RFC to adequately assess and create a comprehensive guideline; (2) it states those headers are (subsection "Diseases/disorders/syndromes" WP:MEDMOS) are "suggestions", providing examples and ideas for how articles should be structured—not a recommendation mandating that articles within its scope to follow; (3) the section containing said guideline is under "expansion or major revamping" undermining its reliability. Therefore I am challenging those edits done by Jmh649 as holistic and reverting them to the stable version on 2009-06-12.

Topics such as "Structure", "Genome", and "Replication" should not be described to be under "Classification". Classification usually describes the taxonomy of the virus, where as the topic above describe either the "Microbiology" or "Virology" of the subject. The image of the woman with jaundice and the resizing of images, is kept in the compromise (WP:BRD). You may seek consensus stating that though a holistic proposal, or individually. I know you're doing this in good faith Jmh694. Such a drastic change entails that you must have something in mind. Do you mind explaining? ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

All aspects are sort of medical aspects. Having a number of subheading divided into medical and other not is a bit confusing IMO. I think most of the "Structure", "Genome", and "Replication" could go under pathophysiology or mechanism. The article could then be organized more inline with MD MOS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't reply sooner, wikibreak.[9] You mean WP:MEDMOS in "MD MOS", right? In the section "Diseases/disorders/syndromes" (MEDMOS) they're suggesting possible "top-level headers"; while this certainly suggests a "more inline" structure, it does not mandate against grouping those sections. Medicine has interest in most aspects. However, there comes a point where concepts become less relevant to a medical point of view and more to general research.

For example, in WP:VIRUS we discussed[10] dividing the article to two distinguishable areas: (1) the virus (well... "disease causing agent"), and (2) the disease. "Virology" was written to be about the virus (can be called Microbiology, it's also grown to have its own article[11]); "Pathenogensis"—which could be rewritten to "Pathophysiology/Mechanisms", it's the pathology side of virology—links the virus to a human-centered means of preventing, diagnoisng, and treating the disease. What I think it s confusing is policy: (1) WP:VIRUS is under WP:TREE[12], and (2) WP:MEDICINE and the manual of style can sometimes be an over generalization. What do you think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I still though it was an improvement.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:27, 20 September 2009 (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.

Layout 2

I still feel consistency between articles is important. It is not as if epidemiology is not a medical aspect. Epidemiology is a part of public health and epidemiology which is a medical specialty. The virology can occur in the beginning but the rest of it should be level two heads.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You're an MD, and I expect better from you. Facts not feelings should be the focus of your comment. So please explain, I won't revert, but you're being ambiguous. Why should all heads except Virology and Epidemiology be level two? ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Please AGF. This is the only page on Wikipedia that I have seen that was organized like this. Wikipedia needs consistency of format between pages. That somehow epidemiology and virology are not medical aspects is a false division.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Looked around at some of the other articles that pertain to both medicine and virology. It seems that the discussion to reorganize the articles took place without the involvement of many of the stack-holders. Articles such as Hepatitis A were organized from WP:MEDMOS by separating out "medical aspects" Will bring this discussion to WP:MED and WP:V.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I much prefer the current layout and thought that "medical aspects" was an inappropriate heading and did not like the implication that epidemiology and pathogenesis were not. I would not like to see the current arrangement reverted without significant input from WP:MED. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 13:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I found it condescending that for the better part of year, all I got was a statement of opinion, and a rather short one for the changes it was to justify. AGF is mutual, and I held you to higher expectations, wondering whether you'll take the time to describe what you had in mind. Thanks for posting a link to WP:MEDMOS,[13] we'll move discussion there if no one objects. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I was busy with other topics. We both left a long time between comment. Please join in the discussion as posted below.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Organization of articles pertaining to both a virus and a disease

Have started a discussion pertaining to the organization of articles to address a conflict between WP:VIRUS and WP:MED. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Organization_of_articles_pertaining_to_both_a_virus_and_a_disease Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Tranmission isn't Pathogenesis

Doc James, Transmission isn't Pathogenesis, I think you're confusing it with the Mechanisms of transmission, which is quite different from transmission in epidemiological terms. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Have made changes. They are both part of the mechanisms yes?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, better, Influenza model. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Diphtheria

Confused, why does the article has a heat map for Diphtheria? Doc James, you added it.[14] ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about this. I have added about 50 maps like this based on WHO data and forgot to change the link. Fixed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Great. :) ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Stacking

Do not like the image staking as it does not allow the default thumb to be used. I have my thumb size set to 200. Thumb size may also be changing in the near future. see WT:Image use policy#Proposal to increase the default thumbnail dimensions Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't need two images conveying the same thing, removed the top, "Epidemiology" is now using thumbs again. Although the top image is more recent, 2005 as to 2002, the measure was qualitative rather than quantitative. Yeah, read about thumb sizes on the Signpost, although it's yet to be the default. I can't think of a method using {{double image stack}} that would default to your default thumb size, 200px. However, when thumb sizes do change, I have a proposal that would allow stacking to follow the new default thumb size. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Will be coming out with a map based on 2004 data that was published by the WHO in 2009 soon. Age standardized DALYs and prevalence are slightly different however. DALYs takes into account the quality of health care.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

So which image, or both, do you think should be in the article? Scratch the previous about qualitative and quantitative, found the scale for the currently removed image. ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that the DALY map depicts global impact, suggests significance of the page topic overall, and could replace the image of the virions in the lead section. The electron micrograph is already in use at the Hepatitis B virus article. Then, the prevalence map could go in Epidemiology. -- Scray (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge

I do not have any problems with having two pages one about the disease and one about the virus. Maybe summarize the virus section further and move more of it to its page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Or delete the other page because the initial split was misguided and introduced only two paragraphs more of new information. See Talk:Hepatitis B/Archive 1#Cancelling split + GAR. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Page move

I'm not so sure I agree with this page being moved to Hepatitis B disease. We wouldn't say cold disease or influenza disease. I think it is assumed that we mean the disease; if we are talking about the virus, we say HBV, influenza virus, etc. PDCook (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it is not a good move. We have Rabies, Smallpox, Rubella, Hepatitis C and more. We don't have "Rabies disease" and so forth. Besides it is not idiomatic as pointed out by above. I suggest reverting this move. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done - I just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing something. If someone can give a compelling reason why it should be moved to Hepatitis B disease, please discuss it here. PDCook (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Since multiple IPs are continuously re-adding a promotional external link without discussion, I've requested a short period of semi-protection to stop edit-warring. If this fails, the next step will be to request that the site be blacklisted at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. --RexxS (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} I don't know how to use Wikipedia but there are some heavily outdated material on this protected page; this is unfortunate for those undergraduates looking for up-to-date information on hepatitis B and being mislead. Everyday, research is discovering new things about Hep. B. Semi-locking this page is pitiful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.99.66 (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes if IP were improving this page the vandalism would be tolerated. This however was not the case so it is semiprotected. If you have edits you wish added please post them here and I am sure someone will add it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone with a confirmed account can edit the page, so it's not a major restriction. The real restriction, of course, is our policy of requiring claims to be verified by citing a reliable source that has been peer-reviewed. It means that medical articles don't get updated with every piece of speculation that hits the news, but perhaps that's not such a big disservice to all those undergrads looking for reliable information on hepatitis B. --RexxS (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Since there is not a specific edit being requested by the IP user, I'm "linking out" the editsemiprotected template. The IP user (or any other non-confirmed user) should feel free to re-add the template with any specific editorial requests. If you want the semi-protection lifted, visit WP:RUP and place your request there. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)