Talk:Rabies

US human to human case?

The article claims that the '78 corneal transplant case is "currently known to be the only human to human case of rabies in the United States." But i don't think this is true; in '04, rabies caused several US deaths after an organ transplant. Unless I'm mistaken about the meaning of human to human. I've removed the claim for now, but wondering if there's something I missed.

See: https://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/07/01/rabies.organ.transplant/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/us/fourth-rabies-death-reported-from-a-single-organ-donor.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazylittlefrog (talk • contribs) 22:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Tragedy in Germany: six transplants have rabies

Terrible tragedy looms in Germany: more recent news say all six transplants have rabies now. Added to the article. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4271453.stm

Mentioned in FoxTrot

This article was mentioned in a FoxTrot comic strip (the image) about Wikipedia today (May 7 2005), though it obviously didn't get the same attention that Warthog did as a result [1]. Just thought I'd mention it. --Phoenix-forgotten 17:52, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Grammar and Spelling is Bad

The whole section, "Semi-Recent Unique Cases in Human Rabies" reads like a junior high school paper and is full of grammar and spelling errors Kptkrunch (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

You mean like this sentence: "This is through to be an extremely rare case in American medicine as human rabies has been eradicated for many years in the US, however it is thought that the treatment this man received wasn't through enough for doctors to treat him properly, without a blood sample they were unaware of how prevalent it was in his blood stream and gave him an insufficient amount of medication needed to halt the progression of the disease." I removed the section. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

2008 Brazil case

@Bon Courage I'm confused, the source provided is a WP:MEDRS source. It's a Brazilian medical journal reporting on previous reports of rabies in Brazil. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a primary source comparing two protocols. So far as I can see it's only been cited in one (poor quality) review article, PMID:38275970 which says:

The Recife protocol, first implemented in Brazil, is derived from the Milwaukee protocol but similarly failed to demonstrate a survival benefit

I don't propose we use this source either; Wikipedia needs to be exceptionally careful dealing with WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims. Bon courage (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't look into the source itself. I just didn't see how it wasn't a MEDRS. It meets MEDRS but there can be issues beyond simply meeting basic criteria of being a reliable source. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I just went by Crossref, which doesn't[2] mark it is a review/meta-analysis. The publisher just calls is a "major article" whatever that is supposed to mean. Bon courage (talk) 08:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

MEDRS just says secondary source not that it needs to be a review article. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out that Lacy (2024) appears to be citing Ledesma (2020) out of context when it says the Recife protocol "failed to demonstrate a survival benefit". Ledesma states that both patients who underwent the Recife protocol survived even though one of them experienced "moderate sequelae". Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed edit

To the end of the treatment section, after the paragraph about the Milwaukee Protocol:

Other potential treatments for rabies, such as the antiviral agent favipiravir and rabies virus glycoprotein (RVG-9R) have been suggested; it is also possible that immunotherapy or neuroprotective measures such as therapeutic hypothermia could have a positive effect. However, there is little research into this, and the most promising avenue for reducing the disease burden remains improving access to vaccination and post-exposure prophylaxis.

 Partly done: I didn't use your exact wording - and I didn't see where your source quite backs up the "most promising avenue" bit - but I included the source with a couple of sentences about antiviral therapy. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

References