Talk:Treatment of human lice

Head Shaving

Um, can't one just shave one's head? It's sort of fashionable anyway, especially among middle-age men. -Rolypolyman 07:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Article clean up

I've had a go at cleaning this up, mainly by cutting out some data and rearranging the rest but it really needs a good workout by someone with more time. 85.210.113.18 11:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Insects

Caught a few refereces to lice as insects. Lice are not insects! 85.2.197.196 15:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The article on lice seems to think they are. Josh Parris 05:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Lice are indeed insects, of the order Phthiaptera, and descended from winged ancestors. You may be confusing them with mites, which are arachnids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.30.138 (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

How to

This article reads more like a how-to rather than a discussion about the removal of lice from humans. 202.89.152.42 09:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. One of the drawbacks of collaborative editing is that articles can get worse over time as well as better. Two months ago the article was vastly better than it was when you saw it. I've reverted to that version and merged in more or less everything useful done since that date – Gurch 11:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Louse Buster

I've removed this for the same reasons I gvae on the main Head Lice page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Head_louseNBeddoe 12:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The advert for Louse Buster is back. The hot air reference seems valid enough but it should be rewritten in a way that prevents it being a blatant advert. "highly effective way to kill all stages of head lice – including lice eggs!" The exclamation mark speaks volumes. Anyone got a good reason why I should not rewrite this as a section about hot air instead of the 'louse buster'? Mtpaley (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Louse Buster is back again. At least this time there is a link which looks fairly reasonable. Is it a reasonable entry? Personally I would prefer to replace the second two sentences with ", such as the LouseBuster[ref]" Mtpaley (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_louse#Shaving_the_Head : "A completely shaven head is not necessary, the hair only needs to be cut to 1 inch or less." Yet still this article specifically states that "A completely shaven head is necessary, a mere buzz cut is not sufficient." This should probably be checked up... - 88.91.191.62 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The cited article agrees with this page. However, this page has some info directly copy-pasted from the source. "Shaving the head gives the lice little to grasp to stay attached to the head. In addition to head hair, lice may infest facial hair or eyebrows, and these may also need to be removed for effective treatment. While effective, some patients may find the hair removal aesthetically unappealing." [1] Fixedd 05:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'Treatment modalities not recommended' section contradicts directly with several of the methods described on the WikiHow link directly below the passage. hash 03:22, 24 June 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.84.46 (talk)

Overlap with Head Lice article

The overlap is huge and verbatim. I suggest everything before the Treatment section be removed, considering that that is the purpose of the entry. 81.23.48.101 (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The overlapping piece is transcluded using a template. This is why the information is identical in both articles. This is a somewhat common practice on Wikipedia. I would say that Epidemiology (including Vectorial capacity), Diagnosis, Clinical symptoms, Nit removal, and Prevention are definitely more applicable to this article than they are to the Head louse article. I think The "no-nit" policy could go either way, however I have no problem with this information being in both articles. Ursasapien (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I see a couple of issues here.

• What "lice" content should each of the three main articles related to lice, contain? (i.e., head louse, pediculosis, and Treatment of human head lice). This has been discussed at Talk:Head_louse#mergefrom_treatment_of_human_headlice, where consensus seemed to be that pathology, treatment, and epidemiology information be removed from head louse. This hasn't yet happened, in part because most of that article WAS pathology, treatment, and epidemiology. I've been slowly adding more insect biology information. Once the article is more filled out, I don't think transclusion of Template:Head louse pediculosis into Head louse will be necessary. Once that happens, I think your objection to the overlap between Treatment of human head lice and Head louse will be largely resolved. In truth, if Template:Head louse pediculosis is removed from headlouse, the template's content should probably be moved, because transclusion will no longer be useful.
• Should this article be merged into Pediculosis? I'm not sure I favor such a merge, but I think it's worth discussing. At the very least, I think a {{main}} tag should be placed at Pediculosis#Treatment directing readers to Treatment of human head lice.

-Noca2plus (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've "untranscluded" {{Head louse pediculosis}}, moving it over to Head louse and Pediculosis where I thought appropriate. There's now a {{main}} tag on Pediculosis to bring readers here. -Noca2plus (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Treatment schedule

• Because eggs hatch 6–9 days after oviposition, if a pediculicide is used, treatment is recommended to be repeated at least once and this after 10 days, when all lice have hatched from the eggs.[2] Between the two treatments i.e., days 2–9, the person will still be infested with lice, which hatch from eggs not killed by the anti-louse product. Therefore, with some products a third treatment on day 5 is recommended.

This is just confusing: Treatment 2 at 10 days and treatment 3 at 5 days?? - Dutchdavey 18/9/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.241.248.37 (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's confusing. If you would, please be bold and change it to be more clear. The third treatment sentence is also vague. "some products"? What products? Give an example, and back it up with a reference citation. Noca2plus (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That said, I think I understand the point of the statement. Lice poisons typically do not kill the lice eggs. Say, for example, you poison an established lice population on day 1. Let's assume all the juvenile and adult lice die. But all the eggs survive, some of which were laid several days earlier. On day 2, some of those eggs hatch. Unless the day 1 poison is particularly persistent, those newly hatched lice could conceivably lay new eggs before day 10 (lice grow to sexual maturity in eight to nine days). And those new eggs would allow the lice population to persist beyond the day 10 treatment. The point of the day 5 treatment is to kill any juvenile lice that hatched after day 1. It's also worth noting that insecticides are not always 100% effective adults, so the recommended day 5 treatment could be a hedge to kill and juveniles/adults that survived the day 1 treatment. Noca2plus (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Confusing: "One to three days after the last treatment, i.e., days 11, 12 and 13, hair should be checked with a louse comb. If no living lice are found, the treatment was successful, even if nits/eggs are visible on the hair. If living lice are still present, the treatment should be repeated using an anti-louse product with a different active ingredient."

Why is it alright if there are still nits present on the hair after the second treatment? Aren't they going to hatch, since most of the treatments don't actually kill the nits? Hence the whole process of "nitpicking"? 67.193.50.101 (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Tina

Treatment modalities not recommended

The statement "Food-grade oils, hair gels, Vaseline and mayonnaise as well as formulations meant only for parasitic insects on pets or free-living insects in the household (e.g., ants and cockroaches) are not recommended for head lice treatment.[23]" is not supported by the article Footnote 23 purports to cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.62.89 (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph in the ref that talks about these substances says that they are effective without actually recommending that they be used or not. So I took this out of the article. Rees11 (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

New tags (8 Feb 09)

Mainly to address the fact that the article at the moment is a how-to rather than a commentary. An article on ... say religiously-motivated "terrorism" does not include the methods of making bombs; rather, it talks about why people do various things.

After culling the actual treatment information, the actual commentary probably will make up only a few paragraphs.

The OR tag is to indicate that the information is from people's own experiences of the subject of the article.

118.90.28.56 (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Robicomb

It may seem that I have something against the Robicomb, but I don't. I would welcome the addition of properly sourced material. The only thing I could find with a cursory search is the IHA book recommending against its use, so I added that. Opposing viewpoints welcome as long as they are reliably sourced. Rees11 (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The section of Electric Comb, citing that it is effective (footnote 10), (i.e. the Robi comb, which is specifically mentioned in the original document), is suspect, considering it's a published "Letter to the Editor," not a link to an actual research paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.45.222 (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

non pesticide treatment

"Summers Laboratories is developing a non pesticide lice treatment that kills by asphyxiation". This does not make sense, compare it to the definition of pesticide in wikipedia "A pesticide is any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any pest". Mtpaley (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Impartiality and Explanation of Effects of Gasoline/Petrol Use

Hi,

I don't believe the subheading on the use of Gasoline is particularly impartial. It speaks of the risks of potential burns and dermatitis but say nothing of it's effectiveness. If someone can list some examples of this stuff working would be a good inclusion. (and it does work, believe me I tried everything before gas, except the Dimethicone treatment... looks good) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.51.116 (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to wonder about the comment that a lit cigarette can set fire to gasoline. Sorry, but a lit cigarette will not start gas on fire (it will go out when dropped in gas) I think that that part should be removed.

Bmillham (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)bmillham

Lice with knowledge about economics

"However, head lice are known to be resistant of commercial products.". How do the lice know if the product is commercial or not? --93.216.69.201 (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Radiation / X-rays as a historical treatment

Something might be missing from this article, but I don't know how to find out. A late relative of mine was a youth in the 1940s-50s in Ontario, Canada, around Muskoka or Windsor. He often claimed that he was subjected to either radiation or x-ray treatment to the head, as a treatment for lice. I think he said it was long and/or repeated enough to cause his hair to temporarily fall out, and he was glad that there were no other apparent negative results in his life. I'm trying to uncover any facts of such a treatment for lice in history, but have come up empty. Is there evidence one way or the other? Could he have been lied to about the purpose of the treatment? 24.55.241.136 (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)