Jump to content

Talk:2007 tuberculosis scare

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wife infected?

[edit]

It would be interesting to know if his newly-wed wife has been infected, since she is the person that has been most exposed. If not, then this isn't much of a scare.--200.14.108.1 20:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to a recent news article I read, his wife remains uninfected; I'd link to it if I could find it. --PeanutCheeseBar 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TB is not a sexually transmitted disease. The comment on the honeymoon should be removed. If the wife gets sick (TB latency period is extremely long, might be decades) it would be due to airborn infection.Kaoru.noemi (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main page

[edit]

Does this really belong on the Main Page? Even if the article were more than start class, I don't think it has enough world-wide interest to merit that. At the very least, the article needs to improve signficantly. If exposure on the main page for more than 24 hours does not allow that, then this topic should be taken off of ITN. --mav 03:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit it was very borderline when I posted this on ITN, especially if this guy might have infected some European passengers as well. Hopefully, it will give those who have been complaining on Template talk:In the news#Loosen up the rules something to think about. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Nonsense removed74.232.226.191 04:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is of worldwide interest since it underscores just how frail our( that is the global community) ability to contain a contagion is. He may have been an American, but if he had had a more contagious disease we would have had nearly no way to stop it.71.109.121.46 19:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too think that it is of worldwide interest; considering how many people may have been infected, it is quite an important event.

Bio

[edit]

His bio and photo at atlantadivorce.poweradvocates.com per wsbtv --195.78.245.135 10:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italians etc

[edit]

There's no current info on whether the Italian health authorities were informed of his presence and diagnosis and in any case, what reponse they have made to this crisis. If they hadn't been informed, I would presume they would be rather pissed off Nil Einne 10:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

according to the NYT, they (italian officials) learned the details on May 25, after Speaker had returned to the US.Mulp 03:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

[edit]

I think a timeline would be informative. Details are in the NYT in the article http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/06/02/health/02tick.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1181099188-1LqPLHpjgK15PPXsYft3ZA but I think I've seen a timeline sidebar show up in google. Mulp 03:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need the flights?

[edit]

The only reason we someone would like to know the exact flights is to see if they were on it, and I don't think tertiary sources like Wikipedia can be used as a source for information on something as serious as this. Maybe it should just be a reference to the website that provided the information, Jeffrey.Kleykamp 15:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had this same thought. I don't think it's incredibly relevant to see exactly where the flights were. Adding that information in as a reference is a good idea to remove this sort of information. In addition, the initial statements of where he was flying that were listed a few paragraphs before could be condensed to simply state that, while MDR TB was a scare during the flights, he had passed through various locations. Kaesonsevere (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting attitude of Andrew Speaker

[edit]

In a recent CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/06/01/tb.flight/index.html

This person has a strange habit of putting the blame on other people.

"I had one shot, and that was going to be in Denver," at the National Jewish Medical and Research Center, which specializes in treating drug-resistant forms of TB. If he was somewhere else and was not given the exact right mixture of drugs, he said, "That was it, they blew my last shot."

"I am very sorry for your fear, and putting you at risk. I don't expect those people to ever forgive me,"

Andrew Speaker should be in the cell next to Paris Hilton... indefinitely!!!!!! Most normal people would put off their wedding plans if they have a dangerous disease. Some people need to have it all at the expense of others. This is why we have laws.

Speaker's own actions should be addressed in the article, in addition to the failures of officials. — Emiellaiendiay 22:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a reaction section to this incident is definitely needed. The man's received rather negative feedback on his actions. --Madchester 22:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What has struck me is the seemingly contradictory attitude Speaker had towards the seriousness of his illness. On the one hand he says he was under the impression that he was not contagious and not in danger, yet, he also says he had already planned to go to get treatment in Denver after his trip because it was his "one shot" and that was his justification for disobeying the CDC and sneaking out of Italy back to the US. Maybe it's just me, but if you know your disease is one that requires treatment at one and only one facility as your "one shot" wouldn't that imply a serious condition? and one that would not encourage you to leave the country of your "one shot?" DejitaruMusouka

It does sound a bit selfish on his part, but unless the media calls attention to his selfishness (or unless he willingly admits to it), there's nothing we can do to put it in the article and maintain an NPOV balance. --PeanutCheeseBar 19:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's a personal-injury lawyer who is the son of a personal-injury lawyer. If he does not know how to make the blame stick to everyone but himself, I don't know who does! Frankly, I hope all the passengers on those flights band together in a class-action lawsuit against him. And I also hope Homeland Security has him on their "no-fly" list! BeeTea 16:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a blog. Only comments about the article may be posted here, not opinions about the subject or wishes about what might happen to him. Edison 17:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is the "discussion" page. Sorry if you disagree.

Transport from Italy

[edit]

I made a change that includes Speakers claim that he was not offered transport back from Italy. The article had previously stated simply that he "declined transport back from Italy," but this is only according to the CDC. Speaker says that he was never offered any such transport, and that if offered, he would have taken it.

Interesting - the paragraph on Speaker and his father playing the taped interviews (which had "NO PLANES" in all caps and a few other attitude-laden words/phrases) was inserted by an anonymous user with IP address 24.99.112.30. An ARIN WHOIS lookup shows that that's a Comcast cable user -- in Atlanta. Coincidence, perhaps....? (Personally - Speaker seems, and acts, like a selfish, immature jerk who panicked, and is now playing CYA and blaming everyone else. Then again - let's think about the character traits it takes to choose a career as a divorce lawyer .... >;-) A Doon 14:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1963

[edit]

Can we get more info, either here or on the CDC article, about the quarantine situation in 1963? --Golbez 21:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Why so important?

[edit]

As the article on extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis describes fairly well, this disease has been spreading unchecked throughout the world. For every one traveller picked out for special quarantine there must be a thousand who are undiagnosed. Even this person apparently has been wandering around with the infection since January, and while I don't doubt the horrors of recirculated air I have a hard time imagining he was all that many times more dangerous on the plane than on the ground. So why are the television news outlets giving more time to this guy than to the Iraq War? Mike Serfas 23:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's less that he had TB, and more that he effortlessly foiled the border patrol, I think. They latch on to the "he endangered passengers" bit to draw people in, but the real meat of the story is the absolute failure of the border patrol. --Golbez 10:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why so important? (A) In 1900, TB was THE LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH in the U.S. (B) A doctor recently treating 50% TB cases in South Africa has reported a 98% mortality rate. (C) Treating a single case of XDR-TB averages US$500,000 and can cost $2 MILLION. (Source for all, CNN.com, 6-15-07). I'd say that's "important". A Doon 15:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TB was certainly not the leading cause of death in the US in 1900. The US public health service has statistics on causes of death by decade and TB was a leading cause but not even close to the top cause (cardiovascular disease was #1 then and now).

Potentially innacurate statement -- CDC has not confirmed XDR-TB

[edit]

Another user wrote, "See refs. CDC tests confirmed XDR-TB." Read the transcript. Nowhere does the CDC say the man has XDR-TB. The media, in its questions, says this. Dr. Geberding never says the patient has XDR-TB and also notes specifically, "I can't comment on the particulars of this patient's medical condition." The opening statement from Geberding also notes, "an individual with drug resistant tuberculosis may have served as a source of exposure." The CDC statements are conditional; they're not conclusive.

To conclude here that the man has XDR-TB is potentially libelous -- worse, it's libel per se, which could subject Wikipedia to greater damages. To say that "the media has reported he has XDR-TB" or that "he allegedly has XDR-TB" is not libelous. But the CDC reference most specifically does not say he has XDR-TB.71.246.1.193 23:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple references to the patient being infected with XDR TB in the CDC transcript (not to mention the title) from Wednesday, May 30, 2007 (Update on CDC Investigation Into People Potentially Exposed to Patient With Extensively Drug-Resistant TB), if you read down a few lines further: "Isolation as a public health tool is used when we ask for the restricted movement of an individual who's already sick with a communicable disease, and in this case, XDR tuberculosis, who already has evidence of disease, and as Dr. Gerberding indicated yesterday, this patient has clinical evidence of pulmonary tuberculosis with extremely drug resistant strain."
From the original CDC ref (Flight Itinerary of U.S. Traveler with Extensively Drug–Resistant Tuberculosis (XDR TB)): "Provided below is the complete flight itinerary of the U.S. traveler with extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR TB) who traveled between North America and Europe from May 12-24..." We're not concluding anything, reliable sources have all indicated that he is indeed infected with XDR TB. -Loren 03:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

why is this article called a "scare"? It should be a "crisis" or something to that effect, a "scare" leads one to believe there was no real danger, and there definitely was. Judgesurreal777 05:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Crisis" is a little strong, though. Personally, one reason I'd call it a "scare" is that no-one's been infected for certain, so it's not a crisis yet. --Dandelions 19:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did he get it?

[edit]

Is there any word on how he happened to contract TB? I've seen no reference to that in the various articles I've seen. Thanks --Jolomo 20:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article title too vague?

[edit]

It's not as if this is the only TB scare worldwide in 2007.Loganberry (Talk) 11:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

background?

[edit]

Should we add anything about his background (family, professional)? Seems appropriate now that his father-in-law is also in the news (is there a separate article for the father-in-law). I wanted to add that he is a graduate of the University of Georgia and other professional information but wasn't sure if it was appropriate. 76.198.144.137 16:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be an Andrew Speaker article

[edit]

Those who like to lump things into catch-all articles like this are hurting Wikipedia. For instance, I was trying to find Mr. Speaker's age earlier today and came to Wikipedia knowing this type of basic info is usually here. But no, someone thought notability wasn't high enough for this guy to have his own article, and made Andrew Speaker a redir to here. The result: I had to trawl about 10 newspaper articles before finding his age... Wikipedia's strength is its ability to be a compendium of everything. Let's play to our strength. Forget these "notability" requirements. If it's notable enough for somebody to want to type it up, it's notable enough. JDG 17:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BLP#Articles about living people notable only for one event. Not having articles on nonnotable living people is Wikipedia policy. —Angr 18:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, according to BBC News, he's 31. —Angr 18:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does "infamy" count as "notable"? He has certainly experienced public reproach. This is notable. And there's nothing stopping you from writing an article yourself. Articles don't write themselves.

contradiction with Andrew Speaker article

[edit]

This page says Speaker is the second person detained since 1963, whereas the other one says first. Which is correct?

Depends if you include the person in 1963. But yes, that needs some clarification. Anyone up for it?Lilac Soul 06:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Violations

[edit]

I find the following to appear highly POV and prejudice:

"Speaker should be noted as an extremely selfish and malicious man that willingly put thousands of innoncent men, women, and children at risk of dying for his own personal comfort. Speaker's step-father, a prominent member of the CDC, was well informed of the definite threat this episode posed and advised his son to seek medical attention immediately, however, Speaker decided to kill thousands of innocent people to possibly save his own life."

Such accusations and labeling is ridiculous. We don't even make such blanket statements against serial killers for godsakes. Spudst3r 07:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was an anon vandal who added it. -- RattleMan 08:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That comment doesn't really even make sense. How would Speaker's choice to evade health officals serve to "possibly save his own life"? I can see if you replaced that with "save his own wedding" but his life? Not getting prompt treatment was rather the opposite of trying to save his life... -- Tuffsnake 6/6/2007

Contradiction

[edit]

In this article, it says that he is the second to be detained by the CRC since 1963. However, in the article that bares his name, it says he is the first to be detained. --205.133.240.254 14:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Speaker

[edit]

According to the wikipedia policy WP:BLP#Articles_about_living_people_notable_only_for_one_event, The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry.But the fact is,he is notable because he is the first man quarantined by the United States since 1963, and that he has a rare form of drug resistant tuberculosis,not just because people talked about him.Wikipedia is full of articles of people who are tied to just single events, and so it did not even make sense to target the Andrew Speaker article anyways. Rodrigue 15:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Speaker himself has not been the subject of significant coverage. He has been covered only in connection with this incident. The incident, not the man, is notable.

In some cases, we keep articles even about non-notable subjects if there is a consensus to ignore notability. But in the case of a living person, WP:BLP, a policy, is paramount. I invite you or someone else to re-redirect Andrew Speaker to this page. (I don't want to do it because I've already done it once.) Pan Dan 17:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quarantine

[edit]

The phrase "involuntary isolation" in the introduction was followed by the word and wikilink quarantine. This word was removed, with the edit comment "not quarantine". The Merriam-Webster dictionary online defines "quarantine" as

3 a : a restraint upon the activities or communication of persons or the transport of goods designed to prevent the spread of disease or pests b : a place in which those under quarantine are kept
4 : a state of enforced isolation

which seems to me to describe the situation. If there are no objections within 24 hours, I will re-add the word. BrainyBabe 16:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead uses the term in the technical sense that the CDC uses it. The CDC differentiates between quarantines (common usage definition) of infected (their term "isolation") vs exposed (their term "quarantine") individuals. So - we need to figure a succinct way to confer the above in the lead if we add 'quarantine'. --mav 23:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we just say "(similar to quarantine)" and let the pedants add distinct definitions further down? Yours pedantically BrainyBabe 16:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV?

[edit]

This statement sounds highly POV to me, especially given the lack of citations.

One strong opinion in the public is that Andrew Speaker is a selfish individual who does not care about the rest of society because he could have infected thousands of others around the world at the airport and on the several commercial planes he was on with a nearly untreatable, deadly form of tuberculosis.

Any thoughts/inputs? --PeanutCheeseBar 19:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It sounds very POV and smacks of Weasel Words. I believe the following sentence should be rewritten as well. It sounds like a rebuttal to this quoted segment; that also seems POV to me. --Firefeather 03:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is extremely biased. The last paragraph sounds like a rant against the CDC. Further, it does not discuss his fathers role as a researcher in drug resistant TB (and therefore knowledgable of it transmissability), or his motivations for recording tape recordings of other indiciduals.

Question

[edit]

Nobody ever mentioned how he get from Thira island to Mykonos island. If he went with the local boats then we are talking about 3 hours trip with more than 300 people... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.148.89 (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major Edit 03.28.09: Restored version prior to 6 February 2009 edit

[edit]

I have removed User:Lawdwg's edit of 04:35, 6 February 2009.
The text added to the article in that edit and removed by me was completely un-sourced, biased and appeared to have been copied verbatim from Speaker's lawsuit against the CDC et. al.:

  • From the content of the edit and the fact that this is the user accounts sole edit (User:Lawdwg Contributions), it seems reasonable to assume Lawdwg is either Speaker himself or a lawyer hired by Speaker. (WP:COI)
  • The text added in the Feb. 09 edit almost doubled the article size but contained no citations, and nothing was added to the article's reference section (WP:SOURCE)
  • Text's origination in lawsuit supported by recurrent use of phrase "On or about" when referring to dates, recurrent notation "(See timeline, Dr. Metchock, CDC)" of material not posted here (WP:OR)
  • Line #52 of added text reads (emphasis added): "Speaker was subsequently transferred, via non-commercial transportation ordered by Defendant Cohen and Defendant Gerberding" (WP:NPOV)

Deleted edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_tuberculosis_scare&oldid=268854279

Thanks- Snozzwanger (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...bloody hell. Having reviewed the policies listed, and the reasoning here, I have to agree with Snozzwanger's action. *kicks self* DeMatt (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal: unsubstantiated claim

[edit]

Have removed this phrase "Drug-resistant tuberculosis is typically much less contagious than wild strains that have not evolved multiple drug resistance" as there is no evidence for that. dev. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.227.112 (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2007 tuberculosis scare. 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:

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) 00:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

overall article evaluation

[edit]

Lead section- I thought this section was a good overview of the topic that is addressed throughout the paper. The introductory sentence clearly described the topic and the subsequent sentences gave a brief description of some of the major details of the process for the 2007 tuberculosis scare. I did notice, however, that the lead was the only place in which you stated that "The incident sparked a debate in Congress on the failure of federal customs agents to stop him." Though you addressed this idea in other methods, you did not mention anywhere else the debate in Congress itself. I thought this is something that should either be removed if there isn't a lot of supporting evidence, or it should be stated elsewhere in the paper.

Content- The content throughout the article is relevant to the topic for the most part. I noticed in the references that there was some additions to this in with a paper from 2016, so there have been more recent and up-to-date (for the most part) contributions to this paper. I did feel that the exact details and flight information wasn't necessary to the overall message of the paper. Yes, all of the individuals on those flights were exposed to the infection, but the flight information itself is not relative to the overall message of the paper. I think it is just as good without it as it is with the information, therefore it isn't relevant to keep in the paper. Something more useful could be the timeline breakdown in table format instead of the overall flight schedule for Speaker.

Tone and Balance- This article is pretty neutral. I didn't feel that there was too much of a biased opinion being shared throughout. The viewpoint of some of the government officials seems underrepresented, however. For example, when discussing the customs and border protection officer, the way it was addressed made it seem like the officer was in the wrong but did not provide any of his perspective of the incident. All in all, I don't think the article is trying to favor one position or another, I just think there could be more of balanced information from both sides of the incident.

Sources and References- A lot of the sources for this article are from the news in relation to the back and forth of this topic and the debate in law for what happened. I do think that additional sources could have been added outside of news articles. Potentially at the time of this paper there wasn't a whole lot available, but news articles are usually pretty biased in one direction or another, so they may not be the most reliable. Obviously they are going to be pretty relevant in some cases, but with the majority of the sources being from the news, I think others should be considered and examined as well. Most of the sources are outdated with the exception of a few of them. I think peer-reviewed articles and other reliable sources on the topic of MDR TB would be beneficial to include in this paper. Some of the sources are outdated and/or no longer available, such as " "The Legal Questions Behind the TB Case"" Source 23. It doesn't go directly to that article, only the website that it came from initially. There is some improvement that could be made with more relative, current and non-biased sources.

Organization and writing quality- This is the area that I thought could be improved on the most. I think that the organization was a little messy, especially when it came to the closing remarks and closing points of the article. There are comments and adjustments that were made to help it flow easier, but the travel sequence and background sections seemed really choppy and difficult to read in some sentences. I think an overall read through and adjustments from the talk section could help to make things more clear. There were a couple of grammatical errors, one of which I fixed in the background section. As mentioned above, I don't think the detailed flight itinerary was necessary, but something more useful instead could've been a timeline. After this section of the paper I thought things just seemed random. There wasn't as much of a flow of the article. The tuberculosis case notes was listed before the aftermath of the case. Also in the aftermath, it stated that the "earlier diagnosis" was incorrect, but I think this is something that could've been clarified and stated more clearly that it was improperly diagnosed throughout the paper itself, rather than just in one place at the start. Something like copyeditor could be used to better the flow of this paper and make any grammatical changes to improve the readers understanding.

images and media- N/A

talk page discussion- The talk page asks questions and clarifies some of the material that is contained in the paper itself. I did notice a couple of good discussions back and forth about some of the topics wording and providing clarification when needed. Some discussions and comments have not been addressed, but I feel could be good contributions to the paper if they were looked over.

overall impressions- I thought the article was relevant and serves good intentions, but there are some adjustments that could be made to make it better. I liked how the beginning was clearly organized and within a few sentences the reader can understand what the topic is about. The situation has lots of information presented that backs up the article topic. That being said, I think the biggest improvements can be made with organization and clarification in some areas to ease the readers understanding. More current and reliable sources would also benefit this article. I would say this is an underdeveloped article, but with the right adjustments it could improve significantly. Kaesonsevere (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_tuberculosis_scare&oldid=1256556106"