Talk:Smallpox/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Unnecessary text at top

I feel that the entire blob on the top of the page is unnessary and should be removed --68.122.74.95 01:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is this concern still valid? The 'top blob' seems reasonable to me. 82.21.228.223 02:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice article!

I don't know who wrote this but I hope he or she sticks around! A very nice concise article! --LMS

Camelpox and immunity to smallpox

Am I crazy, or is it true that living with camelpox infected camels somehow transfers an immunity to smallpox to humans? -- zuzu

Smallpox and Native American mortality

Concise, but not entirely helpful. I think that 90% is an extreme estimate for a new encyclopedia looking to develop a reputation for accuracy. I don't want to revise the article myself (New World, demography, disease -- none of these are my field), but I did a quick google search and came up with these links. http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/PSci/Inst21/demography.htm --- helpful, and notice the chart labelled "contending views":

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/vircatas/virtab3.htm

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/vircatas/ ---- a LOOONG article which ends up deciding that the revisionists (the "yes, there was smallpox, but FEW died") are wrong, but that the over-50-percenters are wrong, too.

I am not a revisionist, I certainly understand that new European and African diseases ravaged the Americas, but please! A 90% death rate doesn't happen even with Ebola!

MichaelTinkler

---

We are not here claiming that one singular disease or epidemic carried off 90% of the Native Americans. But if one epidemic could kill half or even say only a quarter, it is easy to see how frequent epidemics over 300-400 years could reduce the vulnerable population. Several other diseases were also involved, as measles, however smallpox was probably the major one.

Also the initial 1976 Ebola epidemic had a fatality rate of 93% although subsequent rates have been lower and the most recent outbreak set a record low of only 43% dead! -rmhermen

---

"Smallpox was largely responsible for the death of perhaps 90% of the native population" That looks like one singular disease killing them. We need to sort out 'infection rate' and 'fatality rate', too. MichaelTinkler.yeppers

Picture of smallpox victim

I believe the picture distracts from the text and should be put on a separate page. Any objections? --Eloquence 10:35 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)

It is disturbing, but it is appropriate that it be so. Tannin 05:50 Dec 24, 2002 (UTC)

Why so, at this time? Hephaestos 05:57 Dec 24, 2002 (UTC)

I think the picture is informative and should stay, but a bit smaller would be nice. AxelBoldt 00:29 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

I too think the picture should stay, but a source should be attributed to it so that we know that a copyright violation is not occurring. Courtland 21:01, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

Deletion of contradictory statement: # of dead

Removed this:

An estimated 500,000,000 victims died of smallpox in the 20th century.

as it appears to contradict the figure of 2,000,000 per year given in the first paragraph. Somebody needs to verify. AxelBoldt 03:48 Dec 24, 2002 (UTC)

I've seen estimates of 300-500 million dead in the 20th century, but I'll have to check to see if I can find a citable source. The 2 million dead figure mentioned in the first paragraph should probably read "In 1967 smallpox caused about two million deaths", rather than "In the early years of the 20th century". The disease caused no deaths from 1978-2000. So the 20th century in question would be about 77 years long (1978 - 1901), with many more dying in the early years than in the latter. (There were 50 million CASES in 1950, and 10-15 million in 1967, and the DEATH rate would also be higher.) It's the difficulty of estimating the death rate in the EARLY years of the 20th century that make the figures inexact. One place to check for figures would be "Smallpox: A History of Its Rise and Fall", Radetsky M, Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 1999 Feb;18(2):85-93.-- Someone else 04:54 Dec 24, 2002 (UTC)

---

On the "90% of the native population" thing, as I understand it, the current generally accepted view is that 80 to 90% of the population were killed off (by one means or another), and that of that 80-90%, 80 or 90% of the deaths were from infectious diseases. Smallpox was, I gather, a very significant killer, but far from the only one. Here in Australia, where the history is very similar, I have not seen figures for the breakdown between different diseases (and in fact it is almost certainly impossible to do more than have a wild guess at the proportions, as the evidence is probably just not there anymore), but there seem to have been several major killers. From memory, amd not in any particular order, these were smallpox, influenza, chickenpox, and ... was it typhoid? Cholera? I'll try to look it up. Quite a few others played more minor roles. It seems unlikely that the overall pattern would be terribly different: populations where the particular killers are known (remote islands in particular) seem to fall victim to the same broad set of diseases.

One should also excercise care with assigning responsibility for disease-caused deaths to the disease directly. Changed living conditions, loss of traditional lands and consequent malnutrition all weaken people to the point that a disease can carry them off: many may well have been able to survive infection if their general health was better. (None of this is to say that smallpox was not a dreadful killer, of course, just trying to get some perspective on it.) Tannin

Removing one "vaccination" method

Removed:

Inoculation by rubbing fluid from smallpox sores into a scratch on an uninfected person reduced the severity of the disease.

This seems to be a somewhat dangerous method of vaccination... :-) AxelBoldt 00:29 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

Yep - that was the only method available until Jenner discovered the bit about milk maids. --mav

Monkeypox

'Monkeypox' (which wiki has no article for) has crept into the US. It has spread from African rats to prairie dogs in American pet stores where a few individuals have been affected. I may have time to work on this, but as always, any contributions would be appreciated. Usedbook 12:52 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Inoculation method: alternative medicine? appropriate?

This looks like alternative medicine. Should it be in the article?

Smallpox is described in the Ayurveda books. Treatment was done by inoculation with year-old smallpox matter. The inoculators would travel all across India pricking the skin of the arm with a small metal instrument using "variolous matter" taken from pustules produced by the previous year's inoculations. The effectiveness of this system was confirmed by the British doctor J.Z. Holwell in an account to the College of Physicians in London in 1767.

My Google searches have turned up very little information on this, and what I have found seems somewhat unreliable. I have removed until I hear from someone a bit authoritative. -- Gustavf 09:27, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Gustavf: It is not unreliable. See pages 71-72 of David Arnold, Science, Technology and Medicine in Colonial India, Cambridge University Press, 2000. I am therefore reinstating the paragraph. This was inoculation before Jenner. Here's another reference:

http://www.iisc.ernet.in/~currsci/nov102002/1055.pdf

Here's from encyclopedia.com on inoculation against smallpox in India and other countries before Jenner:

in medicine, introduction of a preparation into the tissues or fluids of the body for the purpose of preventing or curing certain diseases. The preparation is usually a weakened culture of the agent causing the disease, as in vaccination against smallpox; however, it may also be composed of antitoxins , which provide immunity themselves, or toxoids , which are proteins that stimulate the body to produce antitoxins (see immunity ). Various forms of inoculation were used from ancient times in China, India, and Persia, but it remained for the English physician Edward Jenner in the late 18th cent. to demonstrate its feasibility to the Western world. The term inoculation is used also to refer to the introduction of certain substances into plant tissues or to the placement of microorganisms into culture media (for experimental or diagnostic purposes) or into the soil.

It is a qualitative difference. Jenner's innovation was to demonstrate that immunity could be induced articially, by using a different organism. Variolation/inoculation was electively catching Smallpox, under favourable conditions, selecting a strain believed to be weaker but still the wild disease. Midgley

History section

I am taking a whack at wikifying and copyediting the ==History== sec. It's well written but the contributor is obviously not completely comfortable writing in English. Needs review for factual accuracy too. Ellsworth 17:44, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I wrote the history part of it. I am very sure that my information is at least 99% correct. You are entirely correct in saying that I am not too good at writing in english. And yes I am aware that that the section is typo filled.And yes you may fix it if you want.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that it was not accurate, just that I have no knowledge of this topic, and I'm only trying to make the prose flow more smoothly. BTW you're very good in English, better than 90% of the commercial/international sites out there. Ellsworth 16:21, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Smallpox in Europe

You write

The first recorded incidence of an epidemic is during the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC) between Athens and Sparta.

But later

Smallpox didn’t enter Europe until 581 A.D

This seems to need clarification. Thue 11:42, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dr. Ludlow?

When he explained his idea to Dr. Ludlow, he was told that his ideas were foolish. Who is Dr. Ludlow? No attempt at explaination is made. --Bletch 02:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From the Jenner Museum (which is in his house an hour North of here) "At the age of 14 he was apprenticed for seven years to Mr Daniel Ludlow, a surgeon of Chipping Sodbury" A note on the British: in a sort of reverse snobbery doctors who go on to specialise in surgery and obtain the Fellowship of the ROyal College of Surgeons stop calling themselves Doctor and start being Mr or Miss. Weird, I know, but very historical. I'd also like to see some definite attribution to the chattier bits of that passage - "...ideas were foolish..." etc

The area of the country would then have had lots of cows and people milking them. Dr Jenner was clearly a smart chap, and associated with others like Lister and Humphrey Davy (who sort of invented Anaesthesia with Nitrous Oxide but got busy doing other things and didn't follow through; meanwhile Lister was inventing _not dying of surgery_), and I favour the view that he heard from other people that if you had had cowpox you didn't die of Smallpox.

I'd tend to assume that Mr Jesty of Worth Matravers (3 hours drive East) would have been as reliable as most of us, if I have a chance I'll go and look on his grave and in the Parish records, but don't hold your breath.

Some anti-vacination sites describe Jenner as a charlatan and apothecary and Mr jesty as ignorant - these are just efforts to devalue their rather clever work in thinking and acting, and it is quite clear from here that Jenner was a successful General Practitioner and surgeon, appointed to be a magistrate and practicing in purpose built premises some of the time, in favour with the Royal Society (whose proceedings are available on the Web now, I'll have a look for him in them) and while they probably would have not instantly accepted early work, I think it owuld have been sent back for more science rather than rejected.

From the publications he turned out he seems to have been a careful scientist, and in the company he was keeping I think there would have been notice taken if he was not.

Adrian Midgley, GP Exeter UK. www.defoam.net

Smallpox. I need help for my high school project

Does any one know the earliest known case of smallpox was? Avd if it is completely gone from our planet? If anyone can answer these questions email me at: [angelgrl198816@yahoo.com] or [angelgrl198816@hotmail.com] thanks for you help.

Blessed Be, Alexandra

More work needed

All the text in the article following the table-of-contents box is rather poorly written. There are a bunch of niggling stylistic problems, but beyond that I think it should be rewritten. It reads too much like a high-school term paper, and is anything but succinct. I might get to this myself later, but in the meantime if anyone else is looking for a way to kill an hour, by all means assist. Jeeves 23:03, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely. --Lee1026 00:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Royal Society Proceedings on Web

They have not got to the years relating to Jenner's work yet.

Peloponesian War - good, but maybe move to another page?

I don't have a strong view, and I'm not sure which way is wikkiest, but I think the diversion into the history of a campaign lost through the disease might do at least as well on its own - as a side bar, diversion or further layer of detail. Opinions?

Two contradictory accounts!

Why are there two contradictory accounts of the history of inoculation--one toward the top of the page, and another two-thirds of the way down--and which is correct?

The use of infected blankets by Lord Amherst is controversial and may be impossible.

New information as of March 2004. Please see:^[details]

I am not an expert on this, but I don't see how Lord Amerst could have suspected that blankets from a smallpox ward would infect the Indians with smallpox. The date is 1763, but at that point, people believed in spontaneous generation of disease, or miasmas. Germ theory of disease wasn't developed until the mid-1800's, and even then, medical experts were very resistant to the idea that touch could spread disease, leading to a continuation of childbed fever by doctors who wouldn't wash their hands.

From what I have read on Internet, the idea that Amherst had this intent is controversial (http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html) but there are reports of letters that very strongly indicate he did this fully intent on extermination (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_066.html ). I just don't see how he could have known this might work.

Both of those sources you cite make a strong case that Mr. Amherst intended to exterminate every man, woman and child. The germ theory of disease was a wives' tale believed by many long before Louis Pasteur constructed experiments to prove it and elevate to a theory. Zenyu 13:43, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

"On at least one occasion, germ warfare was used by the British Army under Jeffrey Amherst when smallpox-infected blankets were...." People keep putting the Amherst info back in. This time from a non-registered user on 3 March 2005. The story is recorded and reused in lots of sources, but also refuted in several. See Population history of American indigenous peoples for related discussion.

I restored this text 'was used by the British Army under Jeffrey Amherst when smallpox' on 2005 Mar 03. I don't have an opinion on the question; the text was deleted by the 2005 Feb 21 vandal, and the sentence was broken without it. Swmcd 03:50, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

Amherst infamously considered spreading smallpox to the surrounding forces. In a series of letters to his subordinate Henry Bouquet during the summer of 1764, Amherst discussed the idea of spreading smallpox to attacking forces via gifts of blankets that had been exposed to smallpox. This idea had already been tried a year previous: on 24 June 1763, infected blankets were given to the Delawares by the commander of Fort Pitt, perhaps on his own initiative. --from the Amherst article.

Maybe we should write a distinct article (included or related to Pontiac's Rebellion)or at least a paragraph discussing both pros and cons and break this cycle. Opinions? WBardwin 22:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed at length on a number of pages ----See: Talk:Population history of American indigenous peoples and the accompanying article. If we get around to writing an article about this very small event, the facts support the following: people thought about it, one lower level officer tried it, but the Amherst letter was after the fact. There is no evidence that any epidemic came from the incident. I'm moving the dispute notice here -- I'm sure it will end up on the front page again. Maybe the article will have to become a priority. WBardwin 00:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism 21st Feb 2005

The smallpox article was hit by a vandal 212.135.1.83 on 21 Feb 2005. The vandalism was evidently generally undiscovered by subsequent users, including myself. However, I finally read all the way through it today and caught the problems. Rather than simply revert, as others had made additions, I printed a copy dated Feb 12th and blocked the information back in, with some copy editing. If you edited the article since that date, please look it over and make any appropriate changes. Thank you. WBardwin 05:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Was the vandal responsible for the glaring inacuracies such as Abe Lincolns death from Smallpox in 1863? Instead of April 15 1865 by assasination? This article has many of these. Most college courses refuse to accept Wikipedia as a reference due to these types of inacuracies. Thought I would mention this.

Please note that the article says Lincoln had the disease (as did many of his generation) but recovered from it. Other issues/inaccuracies you noted? WBardwin 18:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyedited History - Eurasia section

I copyedited the History - Eurasia section
- retitled Europe -> Eurasia, because it includes a paragraph on India
- changed from BC/AD to BCE/CE
- reorganized the paragraph on India
-- put the headline statements at the top
-- dropped some characterizations that looked like editorializing to me. If they can be supported by references, we should restore them and cite the references.

The Peloponnesian War--Maybe not Smallpox

If anyone has read The History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides, they know that this is where the description of the plague in ancient Athens was written down. Reading this account, you should notice that Thucydides describes the epidemic as not only affecting humans, but as also infecting and killing nearly all of the domestic and livestock animals in the city and some nearby areas. You should also notice that the Wikipedia smallpox page states (correctly) that smallpox is "unique to humans." So, if this is true, then it seems as if the epidemic in ancient Athens could not possibly have been smallpox. In fact, many of the symptoms, except for its ability to spread from person to person, sound more like symptoms of anthrax, which, by the way, is capable of infecting animals other than humans. Before I make any edits to the part of the smallpox page about the Athenian epidemic, I'd like to find out if anyone else here has further information or insights in this direction.

For centuries, historians considered this epidemic to have been caused by bubonic plague - and that is still the first choice for many scholars as it would account for the death of animals as well. Although anthrax is currently fashionable as a cause for historic plagues (see the arguments in bubonic and Black death), it doesn't have an effective person to person transmission and dies out once the animals do or the infected flesh is consumed. Thucydides' description of the rash and/or pustules leads many modern physicians to believe the epidemic was smallpox, with measles or a variety of scarlett fever coming in at second or third. I've even read one MD who thinks this is an account of Fifth Disease - a minor childhood illness today, but one that causes a significant number of miscarriages as it crosses the placental barrier.

Historic accounts of disease almost always lead to mysteries -- as they are generally from the viewpoint of one person, with secondary reports and rumours gathered from others. Sometimes the reporter is even displaced in time and/or place from the event. "Pay your money -- take your choice." Perhaps we should do a separate article on the P. Plague (--this idea is becoming a trend of mine. See the blanket controversy above.), with all possibilities explored. Thanks for your interest. WBardwin 23:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Add information on the Antonine Plague of the Roman Empire in 165-180?

The section on historical outbreaks needs to be much less definite. It's only a guess that the Athenian plague, or the Antonine plague, or the Indian plague, were smallpox. The documentary medical record just isn't detailed enough to make an accurate diagnosis at this distance. Some historians claim smallpox, others bubonic plague, measles, and other epidemic diseases. Or it may be a wholly unknown disease. So this article needs to be much more tentative. I will edit. Gdr 10:03, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

I recently read a work, produced prior to WWII, which preferred typhus as the cause of the Athen's plague. Will try and include that information in related articles and provide the reference. WBardwin 16:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe I already commented on this in the Typhoid Fever page. Right now every article on a deadly, infectious disease appears to state that disease was the cause of this particular epidemic, even though there was clearly only one disease responsible. This kind of inconsistency from article to article makes the encyclopedia look bad. I believe that if the cause of the disease is is not known, this fact should be cited in the articles Plague of Athens and epidemic, and that references to the cause of this plague should be removed from the articles on each specific disease. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.220.146 (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Conservation Status

Would it be considered appropriate if I put "Conservation Status: Critical" ({{StatusCritical}}) in the infobox? It is a hated disease and all, but technically, it is a critically endangered species, and I think it should be listed for the sake of uniformity. -- Natalinasmpf 21:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason not to list smallpox as endangered -- although it's a living species we are trying to exterminate. Might be a bit jarring for the average reader however. I say go ahead! WBardwin 05:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that's going a bit far, as if someone were trying to be funny but not quite getting there. "Endangered species" implies one that should be kept around (according to some anyway). You would also then need to list many other kinds of bacteria (some of which are genetically-engineered) and the extinction lists would also become huge, "for the sake of uniformity". Jeeves 07:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But if it wasn't meant to be kept around, why isn't it destroyed? The idea is that as a once successful species, it bears useful information (in its DNA and encoding and concepts of behaviour) - if those two labs have something wrong (like a power failure, or a fire, or a bomb), the information and concepts of the species dies forever. As for the other bacteria, yes in fact they should get conservation statuses (based on their relative presence), but it depends on how notable they are. -- Natalinasmpf 19:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Critical" is not the appropriate categorization. If you need to categorize the smallpox virus, the appropriate category is "Extinct in the wild". The fact is, "conservation status" categorizations all begin with the implicit point of view that all species should be "conserved". Clearly smallpox is at least one species for which this point of view is not universally agreed to. I don't think adding the category would in any way enhance the article. - Nunh-huh 02:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Forms of smallpox

Added more detail to the forms that smallpox may take (replacing the simplistic "route A" and "route B" description).

Too many links

This article has tooooo many links !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--AllDefeater 03:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/

maybe it should be mentioned somewhere, that the grid has found 44 smallpox treatment candidates.

Can you tell us more about this? It sounds mildly interesting. JFW | T@lk 22:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Lady Wortley Montagu & innoculation

According to this article

"The process spread to Turkey, where an American doctor learned of it. He then told the Royal Society in England, where Lady Mary Wortley Montagu learned of it."

But according to the undergrad lecture I had on smallpox in 18th C England, yesterday, Lady Wortley learned of innoculation while in Turkey as wife of a British diplomat, and brought it to the attention of the Royal Society herself. This seems to agree with the wikipedia article on her. The unnamed American doctor isn't mentioned. Anyone got a reliable source for this?

My textbook (in Slovenian) has the same. That should be corrected (probably). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Innoculation/variolation and arm-to-arm vaccination

Perhaps someone could explain the exact difference between variolation and arm to arm vaccination (75% of vaccination as late as 1890)? john 13:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

good review article --JWSchmidt 17:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A lot on Jenner - who has a page

Jenner is worth a biography - for teh Cuckoo and being FRS if nothing else. WOuld it be reasonable to thin down the section on him here, moving it into his biog? Midgley 04:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Modern Vaccination

IE the process and complication rate in say 1974.

Either here or in Vaccination a specific section on that may be useful. Midgley 04:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Dr Thomas Mack's NEJM paper seems useful. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/348/5/460 stopping spread. He is against prophylactic immunisation on rational grounds and the figures look good. Midgley 23:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Royal Commission (source document access)

http://www.bopcris.ac.uk/cgi-bin/displayrec.pl?searchtext=vaccination+Royal+commission&record=/bopall/ref5885.html UK government documents as images. Midgley 01:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Origins?

Is it just me or there is no mention of the actual origins of Smallpox?How it is believed to have first developed, how did it pass from domestic animals(cows I believe) to humans? I believe I read about it in Jared Diamond's "Guns Germs and Steel".Could be mentioned,even if uncertain and disputed.--Radufan 16:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Cows seem possible, but I'm not aware of any hard speculation that they were the last intermediate step, and I wonder if that is a conflation with Vaccinia - and the Cowpox virus which is of the same family (big complex poxviruses) but was used for immunisation against Smallpox by and after Jenner (and Benjamin Jesty of Yetminster.) There is a mention of when Smallpox was first noticed, and that is long enough ago that the only way to imporve on that would be to import a diagram of the cladistic relationship of Smallpox, Monkeypox and Camelpox from the Dept of Virology at Uni. Leicester or elsewhere and add an estimate of the evolutionary timescale for the sparation of those clades. Not a bad idea... Midgley 16:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11907336&dopt=Abstract sequencing Camelpox suggested in 2002 it is Variola's closest relative. THere has been some argument around the exact order of the clades but the 2004 paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14718625&dopt=Abstract seems to have the same order in mind.

This is a good source, although one might argue a point or two: http://www-micro.msb.le.ac.uk/3035/Poxviruses.html

The clade diagram I linked into a BMJ response has gone away - I think it was overtaken by the 2004 paper, and I can't finda new version. We may have to draw our own. Midgley 23:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added th line about inoculation practiced in India in the Inoculation paragraph and also the reference to it.Bharatveer 04:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Eradication

This paragraph is written in a very haphazard manner. It needs to be rewritten .Bharatveer 03:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Added citation needed tag to the Eurasian Paragraph. I feel there should be a thorough rewriting of this article in toto Bharatveer 14:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Added one citation tag to the sentence containing "poorer countries such as Somalia and India " .? Any sources for showing similar poverty exists in India And Somalia Bharatveer 18:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Take out the examples. I expect one could find some evidence that the sub-continental countries and Somalia are less rich than England and the USA, but actually giving examples doesn't help that much. Midgley 18:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have taken out the examples. Bharatveer 03:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

DR.LARRY BRILLIANT says his WHO team "created a circle of immunity" around smallpox to eradicate it in India. How was this done exactly? What was the process?--Showmethedata 21:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Why no mention of Dr. Campbell's research?

Dr. A.R. Campbell, M.D. concluded that smallpox was spread not by human contact, but by the common bedbug. The invention of washing machines and the general rise of personal hygene was the reason for the eradication of this disease, not innoculation. This amazing research at least deserves a mention on the page...let the reader get a balanced point of view.

Please sign comments with 4 tildes. Did anyone else think that? Midgley 20:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Transmission of Smallpox: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol5no4/henderson.htm Midgley 20:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well our government also tells you 9-11 was carried out by 19 Arabs who were incompetent pilots. Also, the WHO involuntarily sterilized women in third world countries by telling them they were being vaccinated.

http://www.reformation.org/campbell.html Compare this guy's research with Jenner's. Jenner injected the cowpox into his son, who subsequently died. To my knowledge, Campbell's research has never been refuted. 07:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Falls apart when you consider that smallpox was wipped out in africa as well as the west.Geni 15:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Alexander the Great conquered much of the world, and subsequently died - all historic figures have died. I'll assume that the reference to jenner's son is something picked up and quoted, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. (One of Jenner's sons died of Tuberculosis, none of Smallpox, and not shortly after being vaccinated.) You did notice that the reformation site looks mad as a ferret didn't you? Not WP:RS at all. Midgley 15:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Mad as a ferrett! Good one. So Martin Luther and the other reformers were mad as ferrets for exposing the corruptions of the Catholic church?71.132.212.11 16:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That does not follow in the slightest, nor does Luther nailing a proclamation to the door mean that therefore GW Bush is president of Cabotia. Midgley 17:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Also falls apart unless you can find bedbugs in the Birmingham university virology lab. Midgley 15:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. We're looking for method of transmission, not the existence of a virus. Is anyone familiar with Dr. Campbell's research or anyone else that has really researched the transmission process? 71.132.212.11 16:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Jenner, Plotkin, Henderson. And rather a lot of other people. Have a look at the university of Leicester Virology dept, or even read the references of these articles. Midgley 16:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"the WHO involuntarily sterilized women in third world countries by telling them they were being vaccinated."

Is there any liklihood of anything even remotely like a citation, such as the names of some of the countries, date, who said it, or for that matter, why gynaecologists spend so much time doing laparoscopic sterilisations if you can produce that effect with an injection? I realise this risks descending into a paranoid spin - but that particular bit of disinformation would be interesting to track to source. (Kano?) Apropos the other bit of conspiracy theory a commercial jet pilot of my peripheral acquaintance remarked on that - he said that it was the easiest piloting task possible - keep th target int eh centre of the windshield. That seems credible to me. Midgley 18:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I have modified the sentence "After the battle, the Aztecs evidently looked on the invaders' bodies for riches and contracted the virus" to "After the battle, the Aztecs contracted the virus from the invaders' bodies".Bharatveer 10:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Aztecs

According to Discover.com, it is not smallpox, but the hemorrhagic fever, that killed 20 million in South America when Cortèz Arrived. Here it's said the the Aztecs were familiar with smallpox, except it was called "zahuatl"[1]

Smallpox and BCE/BC

Re: Kizor's recent edit. So, what exactly is the reasoning for the change? Wiki accepts both styles, and allows the editors of each article to establish the standard and enforce it. Most academic articles dealing with the history of disease, and with history itself, use the BCE/CE standard, and that is what this article has used for some time. Religious content should not, in my mind, be the sole criteria for choosing the common era standard. I am posting this note on the article's talk page for discussion and a possible poll. Best wishes. WBardwin 04:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Poll: Should the article be returned to BCE/CE dating style, and retain that style as the article standard?

• Agree - WBardwin 04:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Agree .Bharatveer 05:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Eh, go right ahead. I saw no standard, and was (am) under the impression that BC/AD is prominent. --Kizor 17:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• It should give dates as the number of seconds from (after/before) the Unix epoch. Oh all right, lets leave religion out of it and go with BCE/CE Midgley 21:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A biased article?

Is this article biased? It glosses over hundreds of negative experiences with the smallpox vaccine, dissenting doctors (past and present)etc. Jenners story ommits many facts and shows him in a more benign light than he perhaps deserves. readers should not rely solely on this article for info on smallpox but should search wider on the internet.Timmymallet

This article is biased towards the consensus of the scientific/medical community, and that’s a good thing. (For those who would rather have something different, there’s still Usenet…)

By the way, if you are the same person as User:Freddiebear, please stick to one account. —xyzzy_n 17:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Then it is a good thing that wikipedia has not existed for the past 500 years or so or it would have promoted countless examples of established Medical orthodoxy that turned out, with the passing of time, to be nothing more than the erroneous beliefs of the majority. There was a time when the great majority of educated men laughed at the idea that animals could feel pain and that eating fruit could ward off scurvey. Further back in time, we see that sacrificing children to the Gods in order to ensure a good harvest is promoted by the wise majority. If seeking information on the history of Northern Ireland, it is probably best not to totally rely on either the IRA nor the British Government and should one side have more voices than the other then one would be foolish to conclude that the loudest voice is correct by virtue of it's greater numbers. The official version of the "eradication" of Smallpox via the Smallpox vaccine was disputed by a minority from the very beginning. Thankfully, one need not bother with Usenet...a few Google searches will provide a springboard for the curious/inquisitive. Sorry for this second account...I am not a regular user of Wikipedia and can not remember my password Timmymallet2

Was vs. Is

I'm wondering why the article says that "Smallpox was a highly contagious viral disease..." and that it "...was caused by two viral variants..." Doesn't it still exist? The viruses are still around, right (even if they are kept in labs)? Shouldn't we refer to it in the present tense? For example, the CDC's website refers to smallbox in the present tense: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/overview/disease-facts.asp.

--66.31.1.141 13:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• You do have a point. Just because humans are all vaccinated against it now doesn't mean that it no longer exists. In fact a number of scientists speculate that it could break out again (I'm citing a Discovery Channel special here) in the form of a weapon or naturally. If no one objects, I'll change it (but of course, I'll give everyone several days to respond). Srose (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that humans are no longer vaccinated for the disease, at least in the United States, makes it a real threat for an accidental or intentional outbreak. WBardwin 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Lead section reorganized and condensed.

I edited the lead section to provide a more consise summary of the article. Almost no content was actually deleted, instead I moved much of the detailed text to other sections of the article. The lead section needs better sourcing.

In general, I feel that much of the text I relocated deserves a careful look to determine whether it should be included, and if so, how to best organize it. I'll continue to contribute as time allows.

dpotter 15:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

contradictions

There seem to be contradictions within the article having to do with how contagious smallpox is, and also the mortality rates for the different types.Amity150 06:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There has also been a little confusion over grammatical tenses. I've corrected "smallpox was…" to "smallpox is…" at the beginning, but there may be more instances. Even though smallpox has been eradicated in the wild, it still exists, and will likely continue to exist even when (or if) the publicly acknowledged stocks are destroyed. Ireneshusband 07:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Links to Years

I would like to remove most of the links to years. They don't seem to me to add much value to the article. I agree with AllDefeater's comment that there are too many wiki links in the article and I find it harder to read. I will wait to make this change to see what the consensus is. You may want to check out Wikipedia's Manual of Style. JeremyBicha 00:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh my :)

I am Norwegian and was looking up Vannkopper (Norwegian for ChickenPox) I wanted the English site for the same disease and lo and behold... I got SmallPox. SmallPox and ChickenPox are not the same. The link from Norwegian to English is unfortunately wrong :) Pretty fun if you do not suffer from the disease... :) The Latin word for the disease would give the right link :)

Hope this gets corrected :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.164.53.75 (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Carriers

I'm removing the part in the Vaccine section that says "A recent study by the Center of Disease Control in Atlanta (CDC) has found that every 1 in a million people are carriers of smallpox and could infect many others with the disease." This statement makes no sense, doesn't list a source, and I was uanble to find the study mentioned. 70.21.157.163 02:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Smallpox Blankets

There is no credible evidence for this, source was an article about modern use of smallpox as a weapon, not a historical source. So I deleted it.

The source is the Journal of the American Medical Association, which is a pretty credible source, in my opinion. And the quote specifically says, Smallpox was probably first used as a weapon during the French and Indian Wars (1754-1767). Soldiers distributed blankets that had been used by smallpox patients with the intent of initiating outbreaks among American Indians. I don't know how much more reliable you can get. Corvus cornix_talk 00:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

like i said in your talk page, it is a paper on modern use of smallpox as a weapon, they are making passing reference to that. Follow their source it is again the same thing (an un-cited reference in a 1945 paper on the benefits of vaccines).

JAMA is peer reviewed. Corvus cornix_talk 00:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The section under biological warfare gives reference to the use of smallpox blankets. William Trent wrote in his diaries about the use of small pox blankets as a biological weapon. Various websources exist that provide citing references to the use of smallpox blankets as a historical, biological weapon. I think it is in some high school history textbooks as well. Legis Nuntius (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Article needs reorganization

The section on "infection" includes a great deal of history. Infection should cover clinical descriptions of the diagnosis, progress and prognosis for the disease. The effect of smallpox on history is significant and should be included but in a separate coordinated and integrated section. The history section should be confined to the affect of smallpox on history rather than the history of the discovery of its treatment. The history of its treatment (innoculation and then vaccination) should be a separate, integrated and coordinated section.--Blue Tie 13:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Jan Ingenhousz 1730 - 1799

217.38.64.124 14:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Dr. Jan Ingen Housz was born in Breda in the Netherlands in 1730: he came to England in 1764. In 1765 Ingen Housz was appointed Doctor at the London Foundling Hospital where he vaccinated all the children there. in the mid 1760s he became friends with Lord Shelburne (later Prime Minister of Britain), through Lord Shelburne he became a life long friend of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Lord Shelburne invited Ingen Housz and Franklin to stay at his country estate Bowood near Calne in Wiltshire.In 1767 he assisted Dr. Thomas Dimsdale in vaccinating over 600 people in Hertfordshire and prevented a mass outbreak of smallpox. In 1769 following a mass outbreak of smallpox in the Austrian Empire Ingen House became the court physician to the imperial family and personally vaccinated the emperor and empress. Ingen Housz travelled widely in Europe and eventually became part of the house hold of Lord Shelburne at Bowood where he was able to meet up again for a time with Benjamin Franklin. Ingen Housz died in 1799 and is buried in the church yard of St. Mary's Church' Calne, Wiltshire. In 1955 a tablet was erected in St. Mary's Parish Church in his memory. The service of dedication was attended by the ambassadors of Holland and Austria in his memory as the one person who had done the most to pioneer vaccination against smallpox.

Pericles

• The epidemiology behind the Plague of Athens is (and probably will remain) uncertain. Thus, including Pericles as a smallpox victim is not terribly supportable. -- MarcoTolo 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln?

Didn't Abraham Lincoln get shot in the head? How can he be a victim of smallpox? or are you going to list all the known people that contracted the disease and got better? Vicco Lizcano 23:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed "victims of smallpox" to "historical figures who contracted smallpox." Fullobeans (talk) 07:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions

1. What type of organism causes smallpox?
2. What does the organism do to make someone sick?
3. what part of the population does smallpox primarily affect?
4. What is the disease's historical importance?

HELP ME!! I can't find the info anywhere else! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.122.72.187 (talk)

Well, I could just say "read the Smallpox article", since your questions are answered there, or "Go ask at the Help Desk , but I'm feeling extra-helpful tonight.

1. Smallpox "....is a highly contagious viral disease unique to humans. It is caused by either of two virus variants named Variola major and Variola minor."
2. "The initial or prodromal symptoms are essentially similar to other viral diseases such as influenza and the common cold—fevers, muscle pain, stomach aches, etc. The digestive tract is commonly involved, leading to vomiting. Most cases are prostrated. Smallpox virus preferentially attacks skin cells and by days 12–15, smallpox infection becomes obvious. The attack on skin cells causes the characteristic pimples associated with the disease. The pimples tend to erupt first in the mouth, then the arms and the hands, and later the rest of the body. At that point the pimples, called macules, should still be fairly small. This is the stage at which the victim is most contagious."
3. Smallpox isn't particularly choosy about who it infects. As usual, those who are immunocompromised are at higher risk.
4. Start with Smallpox#Eurasia.

-- MarcoTolo 01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Contradict

Same as my edit summary:

Europe in 165 or 581? No subtleties can be obtained from footnote because there are none. Ufwuct 22:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll add a ref (Hopkins, 1983). I think the confusion may lie in the definition of "Western Europe" (the purported 581 AD date). I would have included Italy in that category, but apparently the UN considers it to be in Southern Europe, reserving "Western" for countries north of the Alps and east of the Pyrenees. Or, perhaps the author of that section was just confused... <grin>. -- MarcoTolo 21:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I actually used the 2002 reprint of Hopkins, 1982. -- MarcoTolo 21:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Editing/Revision needed on 1754 small pox blankets note

Contemporary findings appear to make the actual "small pox blanket" incident rather unlikely. Also, you're quoting a source of source, the actual original note is from a 1945 book (quoted in the footnotes of the 1999 article currently listed.)

I haven't changed the article itself due to the controversial nature of the event, I leave that to registered users.

Dr. Thomas Dimsdale

I just read an article about how Dr. Thomas Dimsdale from England introduced inoculations for smallpox to Russia in 1768. Catherine the Great made him a baron for his work. Yet, I can find nothing about him throughout Wikipedia.

The publication was the March 24-30, 2007 edition of New Scientist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayavarman1 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC). peanuts

Dr.Thomas Dimsdale first set up practice in the town (Hertford, England) in 1734. He had a strong interest in the prevention of smallpox and in 1767 he published a book on the subject. In the following year he travelled to Russia, where he innoculated Catherine The Great, for which he was handsomely rewarded with a title and wealth. He died in 1800 at the age of 90. from web site [2]. Anyone have access to info on this fellow? WBardwin 00:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Smallpox transmission

The article describes smallpox as "highly contagious," yet "less so than other infectious diseases." What, if anything, is this supposed to mean? My understanding is that smallpox is only moderately contagious, requiring reasonably prolonged face-to-face contact for transmission. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robinfrost (talk • contribs) 13:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Concur, that sentence at least jars and is uninformative. I don't have a handy measure of contagiousness, but one thing is I suppose that it is among the more contagious - by touch - diseases in the poxy stage, but less infectious - by walking into a room and breathing - than chickenpox in th prodromal stage. When I feel stronger I may attempt to repair that bit. Midgley 11:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Variola major smallpox

Other than ordinary virus there is modified virus which occurs in previously vaccinated patients. The Hemorrhagic and the Flat virus are very rare and very severe according to the CDC. All four of these viruses are part of the Variola major virus.

Resurgence

Is there any reason the recent resurgence in Bangladesh, and its neighboring areas are left out of this article? --soum (0_o) 13:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

according to User:Klparrot's 1 June 2007 note on the article the Indian smallpox alert was false alarm. Klparrot provided this link [3] as a reference. Best wishes. WBardwin 01:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Gauthier: Fear factor", MetroWest Daily News, October 21, 2004

That URL/site isn't there anymore!! awww =( somebody fix it!!

Link does not appear to exist at the Internet Archive.... -- MarcoTolo 22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

List of "Species extinct in the wild"

This page has a category marker of "species extinct in the wild" this is utter stupidity, that list is of the IUCN, which only deals with Eukarya. I really can't find the category marker associated with this in the edit page. Could somebody please delete this maker because it is wrong! Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snelleeddy (talk • contribs)

Fixed. -- MarcoTolo 20:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I suspect we could find stupidity more utter than that, actually. Is it possible that the fault is in the list used or selected, which deals only with the Eukarya? As an example of a species deliberately made extinct Variola may be a good one. The Thylacine was said to be another, but the Yangtse river dolphin is unintentional and Cod will be against our intentions if it goes. Polio is another deliberate target...Midgley 11:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that smallpox should be put on the "species extinct in the wild" thing.66.159.69.132 18:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Transition to Eurasia

I have not edited in Wikipedia before but I feel that the transition from 2.1 Hemorrhagic smallpox to 2.2 Eurasia is abrupt and confusing. If they are both under the heading of Infection in the Contents outline then the heading of Eurasia seems even more out of place. Oxenmantim 02:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Smallpox in Fiction

The ring trilogy of horror novels feature smallpox as being the virus spread by the video tape that kills people in one week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.245.115 (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The book Code Orange by Caroline B. Cooney features a teenage boy who finds two smallpox scabs in an envelope in an old medical textbook. He begins researching the disease for his school project, at the same time desperately trying to find out if, when he inhaled the smallpox scab dust, he contracted the virus. As a terrorist groups finds out about his situation, things go from bad to worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RiotMonday (talk • contribs) 17:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Eradication of Smallpox

The Soviet Union contribution to the world to ged rid of smallpox is a well known fact. Each year of eradication program USSR contribute more that twenty million bottles of vaccine a year. And also send out a lot of volunteer and equipments. Why this fact become untolerable to someone here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.233.237 (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No facts are intolerable to Wikipedia, but they must be sourced and verifiable. If you have sources, we can craft suitable text for the article--—G716 <^T·_C> 12:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand how the virus can be considered eradicated or extinct as we never discovered the natural reservoir. I thought what we had actually accomplished was herd immunity. Still, the WHO says eradicated, so eradicated it will be. Can anyone comment pro or con? (Marianware (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

As far as we know there is no natural reservoir; unlike, say, plague (which has reservoirs among many rodents), smallpox only existed in humans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyzbaraschuk (talk • contribs) 22:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

1982 serbian film link

I added a dissambiguation link to a film titled Variola Vera. Typing Variola vera in the search box brings a user to the disease page. A user that is interested in finding the movie would have to know to type in Vera in uppercase letters or to add (film) at the end. This just makes things easier for those looking for the movie even though most people typing in Variola vera will be looking for the disease article. I will reciprocate a link from the movie article. Is everyone OK with this? SWik78 18:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

New article: "Eradication of infectious diseases"

I created a new article, Eradication of infectious diseases, which could use a lot of work if anyone is interested. There is a small section on smallpox that could be significantly expanded. --Ginkgo100^talk 17:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In 1520 another group of Spanish came from Cuba and landed in Mexico. Among them was an African slave who had smallpox

I smell racism in this sentence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.27.13.152 (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? I certainly don't. - Hayaku (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, it's anecdotal until sourced. A quick googling brought up one reference to an infected slave and another to an infected soldier, but nothing usable. It's too minor a detail to leave in unsubstantiated, in my opinion, so I deleted it. Meanwhile, that whole section seems heavily anecdotal and filled with facts which would be interesting if they were, indeed, facts. I may try to source them on a rainy day (but wouldn't be heartbroken if somebody else did it first). Fullobeans (talk) 06:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on one point

Natural events also impeded the vaccination team’s efforts. The monsoon rains burst dams and dikes. The rain and flooding forced people to flee, once again allowing smallpox to spread. This outbreak took the team a whole year to stop.

There is no antecedent to this outbreak in the text. Can someone who knows what it refers to please add text to make it clear what outbreak is being referred to? I presume one in Indiana and Bangladesh, but that is not entirely clear since the previous paragraph also talks about Sudan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenevad (talk • contribs) 15:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

John Adams

Removed a section of John Adams trivia from the "Famous sufferers and survivors" section. Adams and his immediately family were all (at different times) inoculated against smallpox and suffered the effects of inoculation to varying degrees, but none suffered or died as a result of a contracted infection. If anyone's interested, the Adams material could be reworked into the inoculation page as well as into the North American smallpox epidemic stub. Fullobeans (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Adams and his family would have been inoculated with a different strain of smallpox in order for it to work: variola minor. Jenner's vaccine would not be available publicly for another twenty or thirty years, so the method of inoculation suggested by Boylston and Mather would have been inoculation with variola minor. The trouble with this practice was that not everyone survived it: up to a third would have died and furthermore in 1770's America there would have been a few things working against them: 1) fewer trained physicians than in Europe available 2) lack of knowledge about pathogens at the time (Leeuvonhoek was just about the discover microorganisms under his microscope at this time) 3) Complete lack of understanding of how medicine for children and medicine for adults was different (children during this period were treated like miniature adults.) Adams's son Thomas in particular had a very nasty case of it because the doctor treated him like he would a grown man: a dangerous thing when you are only about six years old.

Perhaps a small subsection briefly discussing these practices would be wiser: technically, the Adams family DID suffer from smallpox.--Shadowkittie5460 (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be splitting hairs, but my opinion on this is that if you shoot yourself in the foot to avoid the draft, then you're not a war casualty. You make a perfectly valid point, though, and if the general consensus is that the Adams family should be included, all I'd suggest is that the mention of them be in proportion to the rest of the article. A brief mention of the family's inoculation and resultant difficulties would be sufficient to direct interested parties to the John Adams, Abigail Adams, or Inoculation pages... except that they'll find no further information once they're there. This is an interesting and illuminating bit of biography, and it would be great if somebody who's knowledgeable on the topic could write a comprehensive and well-sourced summary of it for one of the aforementioned articles. Fullobeans (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Up to a third" (above) seems high for innoculation, more consistent with variola major. The point of innoculation was that the risk of death was notably less than of risking natural infection. There is at least one article about it nearby. Midgley (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not wiped out. people keep it in biowarheads. Apollo81001 (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Natural immunity

I've known a couple of people whose attempts at obtaining a vaccination that "took," failed. Their assumptions were that they had a natural immunity to smallpox. I've read some writers who contend there is no such thing as natural immunity, whereas others say that it does exist, but that it is rare. I'd be interested in seeing something with more weight behind this, one way or the other. Brian Pearson (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There are numerous reasons for vaccine failure (i.e. lack of an appropriately elevated immune response), ranging from errors in administration to poor patient immune activation: That I am aware of, "having a natural immunity to X" is not one of them. (If you already have "immunity" to a particular pathogenic process, how would you know if a given vaccination "failed"?) In any case, if you have any reliable sources regarding this concept, I'd suggest the Vaccination page is probably a better place for such information to appear. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if transgenerational epigenetic changes could be a factor. Brian Pearson (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably - though given how much we don't know about the process of immunological activation and maintenance, perhaps that's not so surprising. I'm certainly no expert in epigenetics, but it appears that conceptually-similar mechanisms have been described recently in plants (see here, for example). -- MarcoTolo (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

First sentence

shouldnt it be "Smallpox was a disease, unique to humans" since it no longer exists as a human disease? 129.100.195.87 (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, since it still exists in 2 laboratories in the world, this would mean that there is still the chance of the virus being reintroduced back to the human race. So to answer your question, it still exists, so a "was" wouldn't be applicable.--GundamMerc (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)208.102.46.86 (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The 1933 smallpox joke that keeps getting deleted

It should be perfectly obvious that my point is not to add a joke to the page. The point is: What is the context for the joke? Why is a hit Broadway play expecting thousands to laugh at a smallpox letter bomb gag in 1933? What is the real-life scenario or legal case that Noel Coward is wittily alluding to in his inimitable way in the oft-deleted joke? There is nothing currently in this article that provides any sort of context. Audiences were clearly not remembering back to the Revolutionary War. So what is the audience reacting to?

I asked the opinion of an eminent academic, born in 1932, who is cited quite a number of times in Wikipedia. He was startled by this, and had no idea what circumstances would have made this a funny joke when he was a boy. I told him the joke, and he guessed it dated from the past decade, since the anthrax attack, as anyone would.

So, what's the joke actually about then, eh?

Varlaam (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC) (in Toronto)

Ahhh, thank you for providing some clarification. The main issue is that there is no context for this joke, but just adding that the notion was current in the 1930s, and mentioning the film doesn't really solve the problem. It doesn't provide context and just reads like some random factoid. The article certainly needs a lot more general information on the use of smallpox as a biological warfare. I'd be happy to provide assistance if you are interested in doing so. Cheers --DO11.10 (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Mistranslation in current article

"Kitab fi al-jadari wa-al-hasbah" should be translated (The Book of Smallpox and salmonelosis) rather than (The Book of Smallpox and Measles) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.70.153 (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No. It's Measles.--DO11.10 (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth I and smallpox

Hi. Can I ask what source you have which states that Elizabeth Tudor usd makeup to hide pockmarks. Several books I have state clearly that Elizabeth had no pockmarks on her face? Also a recent televised study Inside the Body of Henry VIII which aired several weeks ago in England examined documents pertaining to the health of the king and there is strong evidence that Henry VIII himself was a sufferer. Danny (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary biological weapon

Preston, in his extensively researched nonfiction work "The Demon in the Freezer", reviews in some detail the world's known and suspected stocks of smallpox. Among other things, he discusses the fact that, post-"eradication", Russia's military acknowledged having accumulated many tons of smallpox, and also having converted long-range nuclear missile warheads to smallpox warheads. He sees reason to believe that Russia hasn't reduced its stock of smallpox, and may have even increased it in post-Soviet years.

Preston also states that Russian scientists acknowledge that some twenty tons of Russian genetically altered "supervirus" smallpox are now unaccounted for. Some of these same researchers believe that the missing superpox may have gone to North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. Preston's position is that it's virtually certain that rogue states y/o terrorist organizations are seeking, have obtained, or will obtain sufficient (perhaps genetically engineered) smallpox to launch an attack.

Though I'm not an authority on smallpox, Preston's conclusions would indicate that smallpox has not been eradicated at all--it's just in a human-assisted dormancy. In fact, one might argue that there is now more smallpox on earth than there has ever been, and that smallpox is now more dangerous than ever.

I believe that the current genuine potential for smallpox as a biological warfare agent should be part of almost any conversation about smallpox (especially discussions that posit or assume smallpox's eradication), and I'd like to see this article expanded to include it. If I had sufficient knowledge and expertise, I'd write that section myself. Instead, I've written this short bit as the first step in adding accurate content about the current status of smallpox.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.109.77 (talk • contribs)

It is important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we must report on the facts, not opinions. While I am sure that Preston extensively researched his book, I don't feel that his book is, in itself, a reliable source for this material. (Much the same way Wikipedia is not, in itself, a reliable source.) Thus, addition of this type of material would require numerous, reliable, primary or secondary sources that directly support the facts. I'm not sure how prevalent or accessible these sources are, but the skeptic in me thinks "not very".--DO11.10 (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ken Alibek, former head of the USSR's bioweapons program has written a book about his research career detailing, among other things, many of the claims that Preston makes in "The Demon In the Freezer." In the book, titled "Biohazard," Alibek confirms the development of a GM strain of Smallpox called "India-1" and the mass production of smallpox virus for use in warheads. This would seem to constitute a reliable primary source on the topic. --Killfile —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killfile (talk • contribs) 19:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Just removed a sentence from the middle of the 'Transmission' section which announced, apropos of nothing, "as of lately the us military has been infecting the personel and using them as biological weapons". It was added by 66.91.130.162 earlier today - might be worth keeping an eye out for other such edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.64.20 (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I think it would be a good idea to collapse or at least lower the picture, as it seeing it pop up like that might shock some people. (no really, this picture is nightmare fuel unleaded !) AllFactsPlease (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. While it might be accurate, and I'm a pretty tough guy, it's a horribly shocking image to just throw at someone. 99.67.64.169 (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

While I don't really have a problem with this picture (it is quite accurate) perhaps you would like to suggest an alternate image from the group here.--DO11.10 (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with changing the image. I'm not exactly a sensible person, but I totally screamed when I saw it.. it's really scary, despite being accurate. Maybe an image with someone with a lighter infection would be more appropriate, especially given all kinds of people access wikipedia, not only medicine professionals. 200.142.58.18 (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This photo is as far as I know highly representative of a smallpox patient. I oppose changing it. --Kjetil_r 20:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd change it to this one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reeve48135_smallpox.jpg It adequately represents the effects, and is a little less shocking. Thedarxide (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, i was shocked too. i'm for lowering it at least after the introduction, showing something less disturbing or putting a schema —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.132.255.168 (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I got totally freaked when i saw this picture, and when my mum came in the room she gave a little groany noise, although it is accurate of how severe it is, can we change it!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.16.151 (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Remove or put lower the bloody picture, it's freaking people out!! This is wikipedia, not rotten.com 79.103.117.149 (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Fallen Angel

I agree. At the end of the day, the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to inform people. If they're driven away by an image on the page, any benefit is lost. I came to this article as I know next to nothing about Smallpox, and thought it I'd increase my knowledge. Five seconds into the article and I'd already fast-scrolled down as I really don't like being shocked by images on websites. A microscope photo of the smallbox strain, for example, would suffice, is an image of an infected person really necessary to make the article complete? The article about murder doesn't have a shock photograph of a murder victim at the top, why should this be any different? 94.169.109.112 (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead claim

"To this day, smallpox is the only human infectious disease to have been completely eradicated." This sentence has a reference that is 8 years old! 'To this day' is a bit out of date. 92.149.145.5 (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Catch-all phrasing in early disease

Regarding Edward VI of England and smallpox: Contemporaries attributed Edward's early death to "consumption" - but tuberculosis as a distinct disease was unknown at the time. During this period in Europe, consumption, or "Phthisis", was a name attributed to various diseases with symptoms such as emaciation (serious loss of weight), debility, cough, hectic fever, and purulent expectoration. Edward's personal journal, as well as several court accounts, note that he had recovered from an apparently mild case of smallpox only weeks before his death. He resumed his regular activities, including travel, but relapsed suddenly and died. Although he was only of modest size and weight, Edward's health had been considered good until his last illnesses, i.e. no long term evidence of a history of tuberculosis. Will look for a source I read not long ago. WBardwin (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is something from the web: There are varying schools of thought about the cause of Edward's death -- like many young Tudors before him, he wasted away prior to his death, and his final illness has been traditionally believed to be tuberculosis. However, he had also contracted either smallpox or measles in the year before he died, and his wasting could also be attributed to diabetes, which frequently becomes severe during the growth spurts of adolescence. It is known that he was treated with medicines that contained arsenic, and that he had many of the symptoms of arsenic poisoning while on his deathbed (his hair and nails had fallen out, he was covered with ulcers, and there was a peculiar smell, similar to garlic, on his breath). Many medicines used at the time contained arsenic, and it was sometimes added to wine as well, so whether Edward's death was hastened by deliberate poisoning or not is questionable. [4] But I read quite a comprehensive discussion of Tudor health in hardcopy. Somewhere............WBardwin (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

A map

This is an interesting map [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy Box

When the subject is a horrible virus that has no ecological niche other than to cause pain, suffering, and death, is the taxo box a thing that is really useful to have? It's not like the life form (if a virus can be considered "life") contributed to biodiversity or the functioning of the ecosystem. It is thus unlike other species that humans have eradicated. The genocide committed against the smallpox virus was undeniably beneficial to humanity, with no effect on the biosphere - unlike the Dodo, the Scimitar Oryx, the Guam Rail, and the Mason River Myrtle. Is there a property of the taxobox (or could there become one) to show an intentional, humanitarian eradication of plagues? This would also fit in the box for polio, where it would read something like "Critically endangered - but not yet accomplished." ☯ Z.S. ☠ ......(talk) 02:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jdselbin, 28 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I can provide the citation needed for the following:

If successful, a red and itchy bump develops at the vaccine site in three or four days. In the first week, the bump becomes a large blister (called a “Jennerian vesicle”) which fills with pus, and begins to drain. During the second week, the blister begins to dry up and a scab forms. The scab falls off in the third week, leaving a small scar.[citation needed]

It can be found at:

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/faq.asp

If the vaccination is successful, a red and itchy bump develops at the vaccination site in three or four days. In the first week after vaccination, the bump becomes a large blister, fills with pus, and begins to drain. During week two, the blister begins to dry up and a scab forms. The scab falls off in the third week, leaving a small scar.

Jdselbin (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Smallpox no longer in PinkBook

It would seem that Smallpox or Variola are no longer in the latest edition (12) of the Pink Book Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases. [CDC Pink Book] The references to PinkBook are no longer valid. Any suggestion as to references? Jim1138 (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Arrg, darn CDC, I do not know why they insist on perpetuating linkrot. Added an archived link of the previous version, as it would seem that they are not planning on updating the information anyway.--DO11.10 (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This paragraph is confusing or contradictory

"The earliest procedure used to prevent smallpox was inoculation (also known as variolation). Inoculation was possibly practiced in India as early as 1000 BC,[31] and involved either nasal insufflation of powdered smallpox scabs, or scratching material from a smallpox lesion into the skin. However, this idea has been challenged as few of the ancient Sanskrit medical texts of India described the process of inoculation.[32] "

Does this mean that the fact of inoculation for smallpox may be in error, or the methods used to inoculate may be in error, or the description of the methods may be in error. This paragraph is a good poster child for the need to reread and rewrite submissions before they are submitted...

Avram Primack (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

These dates must be wrong

From the article.... "Human history The earliest credible clinical evidence of smallpox is found in the Egyptian mummies of persons who died some 3000 years ago. Historical records from Asia describe evidence of smallpox-like disease in medical writings from ancient India (as early as 1500 BC) and China (1122 BC).[43] Small pox inoculation was first used by Hindu physicians since 1500 BCE.[44] As with other medical customs, the inoculation was associated with a Hindu.... "

First.... should be consistent.... has BC, and BCE... which are the same but mean different things to different people.... Second.... 3,000 years ago was 900 BCE, so the first sentence sets a date of discovery in Egypt after the reputed development of the Indian vaccine in 1500BC or BCE, which is 3600 years ago.... someone who knows what the dates should be should fix this confusion....I suspect that the 3000 years ago really means 3000 BCE (my preferred notation). Avram Primack (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the BC/BCE issue for now, but I am sure many editors with drive by to change to these back and forth (thus the rampant inconsistency). As for the other issue, while there are other earlier written descriptions of a smallpox-like disease (India 3600 years ago and China ~3200 years ago), we can only speculate that these are actually smallpox cases. The mummy smallpox case (from ~3100 years ago, he died in 1145 BCE) is the first case that is clinically evident (i.e. we can still see the disease on the mummy and identify it as definitely smallpox today). I hope that helps clarify things. If you have suggestions as to wording that will more clearly describe this in the article, then by all means add it in --DO11.10 (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Smallpox

How Did all of this affect the peop;e who had smallpox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.129.253.102 (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Presence in Europe

The assertion that "the arrival of smallpox in Europe and south-western Asia is less clear. Smallpox is not described in either the Old or New Testaments of the Bible, or in literature of the Greeks and Romans" seems contradicted by the consensus that both the [[6]] and [[7]] plagues were smallpox, unless these were of the 'isolated incursion' type ascribed in the article to having occured during the "middle ages." Is it likely that the disease was well-established in Europe by late antiquity, but with less historical evidence corroborating such than in the more thoroughly-documented outbreaks of the middle ages? If so, should the history section of the article reflect this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.251.247 (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 June 2012

Among the list of U.S. presidents who suffered from smallpox, it might be interesting to include the fact that John Adams, as a young man in 1764, was inoculated against smallpox in Boston. He wrote a series of fascinating letters about the experience to his future wife, Abigail Smith:

http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=L17640407aa

http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=L17640407ja&archive=&hi=&mode=&noimages=&numrecs=&query=&queryid=&rec=&start=1&tag=

http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=L17640413ja&archive=&hi=&mode=&noimages=&numrecs=&query=&queryid=&rec=&start=1&tag=

http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=L17640417ja&archive=&hi=&mode=&noimages=&numrecs=&query=&queryid=&rec=&start=1&tag=

76.102.66.215 (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Not done: That section is for deaths, not for anything else. Mdann52 (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

The above edit request suggests there may be problems in this article with close paraphrasing. The changes that would convert text in this source to text from the current article are superficial:

If the vaccination is successful, a red and itchy bump develops at the vaccination vaccine site in three or four days. In the first week after vaccination, the bump becomes a large blister (comma removed) (called a “Jennerian vesicle”) which fills with pus, and begins to drain. During week two the second week, the blister begins to dry up and a scab forms. The scab falls off in the third week, leaving a small scar.

I haven't checked whether the source has a Wikipedia-compatible license, but at the very least the source should have been cited. I've little time to follow this up now... Just a heads-up for contributors and future FA reviewers. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe CDC content is in the public domain.--Garrondo (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

By law, all works of the federal government of the United States of America are in the public domain. No license is required. A citation may be appropriate, but there is no copyright issue.71.109.153.121 (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Error Correction Please, Date of Introduction to New World

In the history section, the date of introduction from West Africa to South America is erroneously given as 19th century. Actually, it arrived in Mexico in 1520 or so, which is the 16th century. 2001:470:7:A2D:0:0:0:2 (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to the last sentence in this section Smallpox#History? The variola virus was transferred from West Africa to South America in the 19th century. Might be a specific strain. I requested clarification at the end of the sentence. Jim1138 (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I think it's a typo or transposition. The rest of the article details the introduction as 16th century. 2001:470:7:A2D:0:0:0:2 (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on 22 October: simple grammatical error

In the Religion and mythology section, I believe that the 'too' of the sentence 'These shrines were worshipped and made offerings too while the victim was sick' should be 'to'. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:7:A2D:0:0:0:2 (talk • contribs)

Edit made by User talk:GrahamColm Jim1138 (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Biological warfare

The article cautiously indicates that "the British at least considered using smallpox" when literature about the French and Indian War asserts that Jeffery Amherst consciously and wilfully transmitted smallpox to Indians. I am no specialist of the subject, is there a debate on the issue? 62.62.170.136 (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The quote given in the article is a little out of context. The parley with the Delawares were to end the siege of Fort Pitt. The talks ended with the Delawares reaffirming their friendship with the British, there was no reason to infect them. Why would they try and infect a group they have peaceful relations with? The correspondence these claims are based on is extremely vague and there is no concrete evidence that they actually did intentionally infect the native population. The only concrete thing we know is that some commanders discussed doing it.

--24.202.0.118 (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

IUCN Red List Extinct in the Wild

I am removing this category, because while smallpox may be eradicated, it is not on any of the IUCN red lists! Try searching for it here if you don't believe me. 71.188.115.167 (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Now the table says "extinct", which is false. It may have no official IUCN status, but it is "extinct in the wild", not "extinct". Samples of the virus still exist, and it may be (maliciously or by accident) reintroduced to the wild.--Azarien (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Virus is not completely eradicated, there were cases of Smallpox in India, in a town called Uta Pesh sometime between 2002 and 2003, National Geographic published an article about it in its monthly magazines sometime around this time.

Also if you check this link, posted earlier this year, India is the last refuge for the virus. Smallpox Jitters India After 28 years —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.21.147.129 (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Save that there have been zero confirmed smallpox cases since shortly before it was announced globally eradicated. Zero. None. At all. Every case turned out to be some other pox virus.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Recreation of the virus, from scratch, using its genome

I wonder if someone with expertise in the field could comment on the possibility that the virus could be recreated, even if it was globally extinct (all stockpiles destroyed), using knowledge of the genome.

A Wikipedia search shows that the viruses genome consists of only 186000 base pairs. I presume it's been sequenced on more then one occasion, and that sequence is in the public domain.

Doesn't this mean that, knowing the genome, anyone with the right equipment could re-create smallpox from scratch? I know the technology exists to generate custom DNA sequences and the 186000 base pairs would easily fit on an old floppy-disk. If you insert the custom DNA into an appropriate host cell, it would start spitting out smallpox. Right?

Am I missing something that makes the above scenario implausible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JefeMixtli (talk • contribs) 01:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In theory, yes, one COULD build it from the sequenced data. However, you have to consider, "from scratch", you're putting together 186000 base pairs. Individually. "Letter" by "letter".Wzrd1 (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hilda Whitcomb

It appears Hilda Whitcomb was the last person to be infected with smallpox. She was Janet Parker's mother, and contracted the disease after Janet, but Hilda survived. Janet's father died of a heart attack while watching Janet die, and never developed any signs of infection before he died. I don't know of any other publicly documented cases of smallpox after Janet Parker.

I'm not sure accidents with the military stocks in the USA or Russia would necessarily be made public, especially if they were the result of illegal bio-weapons research, like what happened in the Sverdlovsk anthrax leak. So, there may be others who have contracted it, but for now, the last known documented victim was Hilda Whitcomb, who survived.

Badon (talk) 09:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The disease is HIGHLY contagious. So, if there were some accidental release from the secure labs, it would quickly be apparent, as it would rapidly escape any containment attempts easily. It comes down to ease of transmission (quite easy) and length of time for incubation before becoming both ill AND contagious (a contagious person who is not feeling ill successfully spreads the disease far further than a person who is ill and contagious). The last biowarfare estimate for smallpox was on the order of it breaking out of a "sealed" state/province in two weeks at a maximum, with nine days being a mean anticipated breach of quarantined region, but that data is a bit old.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Information on Life cycle

I was looking for information on the life cycle of this disease. I remember from school (a long time ago) that humans were part of the life cycle of the disease it is briefly mentioned but not explictly described ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.74.105 (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The disease is a human specific pathogen. While other mammals, especially primates may contract the disease after being inoculated in the lab, "in the wild", the disease was 100% human specific. No secondary hosts, no secondary infectious path. Strictly human to human, either directly, respiratory aerosol or fomite.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Mortality in Introduction

In the second paragraph of the introduction, the article states that V. major has a 30-35% mortality rate, and that V. minor has a 1% mortality rate. In the third paragraph, it says of all those infected, 20-60% are killed. These quotes are inconsistent (omitting unstated and very strange error bars in the data presented in paragraph 2) and ought to be fixed by a knowledgeable editor. DAID (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Mortality numbers discuss only European history. As I understand, smallpox was largely responsible for the literal decimation (i.e., reduction by 90%) of native immunologically naive populations in North and South America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.82.145.139 (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Decimation means reduction by 10%. Graham Colm (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

300-500 million sounds excessive. The references themselves say "some estimates" and therefore are not to be trusted. Can we have some real reference for this or take it out altogether? Chengiz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Redundant articles on variolation/inoculation

This article (especially the Prevention section) may contain content identical or similar to another topic. Please see Talk:History of smallpox
Mathglot (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. This is not a paper encyclopedia and there is no shortage of space. Content is duplicated across many articles. One of the advantages of Wikipedia is that, to some extent, we can avoid cross-referencing. I like to see different approaches to the same subject. Clearly, some stubs should be merged with more established articles, but this is not the case here. Graham Colm (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Smallpox still exists and why it should

I think it would be worthwhile to mention in the main paragraph of this article that smallpox has not been completely eradicated, and that it still exists in laboratories. The reason smallpox is kept is mainly study- and research related. People reading the main paragraph will end up feeling that humanity has completely "wiped out" this virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.82.155 (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Post-eradication New Mexico discovery of scabs

The article says the scabs were discovered in March 2004. However, the footnoted source, a "USA Today" story, says the date was December 2003. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.241.240 (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

A similar incident occurred in 2011 when the CDC recovered a scab on public display at the Virginia Historical Society: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704681904576319723384755958.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.241.240 (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Info boxes and Sick Child image

I moved the info boxes to the beginning of the article per WP:IBX. The boxes are a good summary for the reader at the beginning of the article, which helps with understanding for non-medical readers. Also, it helps to keep the medical articles on infectious diseases consistent. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed [8] this discussion higher up on the talk page about the sick child image. I think the image should stay in the article in that it clearly shows the lesions with the classic dimple. But it apparently, by the comments above, does upset some editors/readers. This seems a good reason to keep the info boxes at the beginning of the article where they are meant to be anyway. In this way, readers learn something from the info boxes and see other images first. This allows them to gradually come to the more graphic image. If a reader then decides the image is upsetting and leaves the article, he/she will have at least gained some information about smallpox before leaving. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the disease. Thus the disease info box should go first. I oppose attempts to hide the pictures of this disease. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not an attempt to hide the pictures. I made it clear when I moved the infobox the first time. The infoboxes serve a purpose. Also, it might be that some readers are upset by the image because it depicts a child. It does seem to upset some readers. I think it's reasonable to put the image further down and put the infoboxes at the beginning where they are meant to be. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that {{Infobox disease}} serves a purpose. I also agree that an article about a disease ought to have {{Infobox disease}} first (and that an article primarily about a virus ought to have {{Infobox virus}} first).

When you moved {{Infobox disease}} to a lower position on the page, why did you remove the image from it? Why not leave the image in the infobox that you moved to a lower position? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Moving the image of smallpox so that it does not appear in the first screen is an attempt to suppress the image and is not something I support. There have been many attempts to suppress this image because it is disturbing. Smallpox is a disturbing disease. While it may not have existed in the wild for more than 30 years there are still at least two countries that have weaponized versions sitting in laboratories. These could get out either via terrorize, accident or incompetence so people still need to know what it looks like. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I came by, moved the infoboxes per WP:IBX, kept the image in the article, and left. You reverted. I then went to the talk page and left a note and put the edit back. Then I looked over the talk page and saw the concerns of other editors that the image might be disturbing. This prompted me to mention that I had no problem with the image but that keeping my edit, which put the image further down, might solve the problem. I don't see any editors trying to suppress anything other than an edit that is more in keeping with the MOS which other medical articles follow. And as for the claim that the article must have the image in the lead in case there is a BSL-4 event, that's not the policy at Wikipedia. And note, a Google image search solves the question of what smallpox looks like, since the image in question is readily available there. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes agree many people have concerns about this image. I guess we should have a RfC regarding if and where we place it. I am happy to abide by whatever is community consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should we have the photo of the girl with smallpox in the lead (or in the article at all)

The photo in question is this one. As there is ongoing concerns about the image I think a wider community consensus would be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Support

• Support in the infobox Smallpox still exists in a few laboratories around the world. It is a horrible disease and this is a featured picture showing it. The image is both educational and would be very important if the infection was ever to occur again (thus important from a public health perspective). The dimple in the middle of the bumps are an important part of the diagnosis and this image is the only one that shows it clearly. I prefer the non cropped image but I am also happy with the image with the eyes blacked out or the cropped one just showing the shoulder. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Would additionally be happy with the image suggested by Axl, however fell this image should still stay in the article however to be placed lower. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support somewhere in the article, but see possible option in the discussion section. Sasata (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support in the article (and quite frankly don't have an issue with the infobox). Prefer no crop. Victoria (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support as is in the infobox, no crop. Smallpox is a horrific disease and mere words can not underscore what the image does. IMO, the image is ghastly, but its removal would extenuate the disease. Jim1138 (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support - in the infobox with no cropping, as per my comments last year. (See above). Graham Colm (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Changed my mind, see below. Graham Colm (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support, preferably in the lead. This is a terrible image for a terrible disease. I don't think it is disproportionate, based on Graham's earlier comments. It is worth noting that the great majority of other-language versions of this article also use this image (37 in total, with 29 having it as the lead image). The picture of the boy is next most common but I think its encyclopaedic value is lower. I'm not keen on the crop and hate the one with the black bars on the eyes. This is a Featured Picture on Commons as well as on three Wikipedia's including the English Wikipedia where its "encyclopaedic value" to the article determines its featured status. Colin°^Talk 19:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support as is in the infobox, no crop. Kjetil_r 17:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support in the infobox, no crop. It is a horrible infectious disease of historic significance. Shocking or not, it is a textbook example of the visible aspects of the disease.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support in the infobox, no crop. No removal unless there is a more horrifying picture, more realistic, more diagnostically informative, more typical of the disease, more evocative and of greater impact. Complaints along the lines of "It's the child's distress that is so disturbing" are far more disturbing; its OK is it, as long as we don't disturb anyone? As long as the child's distress is invisible to us we can sweep her under the carpet? As long as we do not have to believe that the child and her family don't enjoy it? How clinical! If you don't like to see suffering and disfigurement, don't consult medical articles. Such are the things that medical topics deal with. And as for blacking out her eyes, that is still worse; why not draw a nice black moustache on her and add a few giggles to an otherwise stolid and tedious article? If some of our more delicate readers can't stand the sight of her, let them follow the example of the prissy spirits who nagged for removal of pictures dealing with pregnancy, finally compromising on having them moved off the lede in favour of less informative pictures. JonRichfield (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support in the infobox, as is (uncropped). -- Brangifer (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Support cropping image

• Support. It's the child's distress that is so disturbing. Previous talk page comments should be considered here:[9]; here: [10]; here: [11]; and here: [12] Malke 2010 (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support for the infobox either of the two images cropped to show just the arm, either File:Child with Smallpox BangladeshCropped.jpg or File:Child_with_Smallpox_Bangladesh_-_arm_detail.jpg. The important diagnostic detail of the dimpled bumps is preserved (even highlighted) without having the distracting emotional distress visible in the full image, which is an appropriate consideration for the infobox image, especially when we're at GA or better. The image descriptions themselves can be linked to the full original image. I think either of these images is better than the black-bar image. Zad68 19:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I support using the cropped image. There is no loss of educational value and it is considerably more neutral. The afflicted ones age, ethnicity, and gender are superfluous distractions. "A picture is worth 1000 words", but the 1000 words need to be relevant prose. Our focus ought to be the unique characteristics of the disease and its impact on an infected person. Instead, we see a little girl—a child from Bangladesh. There's much more "educational value" in showing these blisters on someone's palm, or sole—although much less shock value. When I see an image like this, I assume the author meant to invoke emotional stress. It's misguided artistic liberty—I do not recommend or condone. :) John Cline (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. Although I am too young to have ever seen a case, I don't think that the picture is representative of smallpox. The vesicles are more confluent with very little normal skin between, especially on the face—more suggestive of "malignant" smallpox, or the confluent variant of ordinary smallpox.

This image (right) is a better representation of smallpox. Regarding the child's distress in the original image: that is a common (and unfortunate) feature of smallpox. As such, that feature is representative of the disease. WP:LEADIMAGE states "Lead images should be selected to be of least shock value; if an alternative image exists that still is an accurate representation of the topic but without shock value, it should always be preferred.... Sometimes it is impossible to avoid the use of a lead image with perceived shock value if the topic itself is of that nature." I think that my suggestion has an appropriate level of "shock value", lower than that of the original picture. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: I must agree with Axl here. He's raised an important question. The image of the little girl might well be malignant smallpox. That was my impression when I first saw the image and compared it to others. Her lesions seem to be merging which is a feature of malignant smallpox. Also, I noticed that the image of the little boy does seem far less disturbing and has previously been in the article. I'd support putting that as the lead image and placing a smaller image of the girl into the malignant subsection. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose and agree with Axl's alternative image and rationale. Excellent points. -- Scray (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Axl's rationale is strong. I am old enough to have seen cases of smallpox – the last one I saw was Janet Parker. I would not contest the use of this other image; it's a good example of the lesions as I remember them, and, more importantly, the context is not lost. But I would object to the use of the original image as a example of malignant smallpox because this would be speculation on our part. If you check the source and history of the original image you will see that at some stage it has been changed by editing software which has made the girl's eyes much darker. This has made the image, in my humble opinion, more disturbing to those who perceive it as such. Here is a lesson - we should be careful when "improving" images. Graham Colm (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This girl does not appear to have Malignant Smallpox. The geometry of the lesions does not appear to fit the description. medscape.com "A severe variety of smallpox in which lesions do not project above the skin surface". Also WHO pg 272: "Malignant smallpox is characterized by lesions that do not develop to the pustular stage but remain soft and flat." ndif.org A synonym of "malignant smallpox" is "flat smallpox". A search of CDC Public Health Image Library of "malignant smallpox" returns five images of three patients. The lesions, imo, bear no resemblance to the girl above. While her lesions appear more severe than most, they do not appear to be those of malignant smallpox. Another note: the three CDC malignant smallpox patients are laying down as if incapacitated, the girl is sitting up. Appearance of the lesions seems to depend heavily on the stage and severity of the disease. Jim1138 (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The flat appearance could also be due to the available lighting. These are old photos taken with film SLR's. The lesions do become this marked at around 7 to 10 days with periorbital swelling as she appears to have. The thing is most editors here are too young to have seen a real case. There hasn't been a case in the U.S. since 1949, and the last case in the world was Somalia in October, 1977. What we could really use is a series of photos that show the various stages from day 1 to around day 25. Also, I just noticed Graham Colm's comment. He's actually seen smallpox so his assessment of the photos will be more accurate. He's correct, we can't guess about them. I agree with him, I'd support the use of the other child's photo for the lead. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  While I have great respect for GrahamColm, I don't think we should be using personal experience as a guide here (we've got to live by our own standards). I'm not disagreeing with the conclusion - just the reliance on an editor's reported RL experience. (retracted per Colin's correction following) -- Scray (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry If I gave that impression. It was not intentional. We have to go by the provenance of the photographs alone. That's why we cannot use our judgement to decide whether a case is the maligant form or not. That was my only point. Graham Colm (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Scray, I think you are wrong wrt policy on personal experience and editor judgement. For original images, we utterly rely on the uploader (and anyone else who offers to help) in identifying and describing the subject. Think of all the birds and butterflies we have. For non-original images, we'd need of course to be careful about disagreeing with what was published with the image, but there's still a level where we need and accept Wikipedian help in identifying things. For example, if Graham had taken and uploaded this photo and attached a detailed description of the case, we'd trust him. We are right, of course, to not present speculation as fact. Colin°^Talk 19:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for setting me straight. I see that is the reality in which we must work on images. Pictures are so powerful, and this is so far from the way we source text, that it really has the potential to undermine our work - but this is not the forum to address that issue. -- Scray (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It might be nice to have a display of photos that show the various phases like the Dept of Health, State of Illinois has here: [13]. Comparison of it with chickenpox might be a good idea too. If the argument is that the photos are necessary to help readers with recognition, then we ought to have really functional ones. Don't know if we can get permission for these, but it's worth a try. They might already be in the public domain. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Malignant smallpox is notable by its subcutaneous nature, whereas non-malignant smallpox is essentially cutaneous in nature. In short, the virus spreads beyond the skin and into the deeper structures of the body in an eventual systemic infection that is typically lethal.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per all above. PumpkinSky talk 22:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - After scanning through the arguments, the main OPPOSE argument appears to be "Picture not representative of typical smallpox cases". Granted I'm no medical expert, and have little background in virology/pathology, but after glancing at a couple dozen other images of smallpox cases, my impression is that the "not representative" position seems accurate. NickCT (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - As per Axl, Malke 2010, and NickCT. --JustBerry (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose While I wouldn't outright oppose the use of this photo, there does seem to be a better alternative. The girl seems to have an extreme case. Given that her situation may be an outlier, and that WP:LEADIMAGE suggests a photo with less shock value if possible, the photo of the boy is probably more appropriate . But whatever the case, please do not use one of those censored versions... --SubSeven (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose An informative photo demonstrating the effects of the disease is certainly an asset to the article and should be placed prominently, so the infobox is as good a place as any. However, the image in question does seem to have a severity and dermatopathological expression that is at least a little atypical. I think the alternative image proposed by Axl may therefore be the better option for a lead or infobox image, though the image of the girl, with its great detail and effective representation of an advanced case should certainly be retained somewhere in the article. Snow (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with Snow, it might be a good compromise to have the little girl's photo somewhere in the article, perhaps create a photo gallery or add in a section that discusses progression of the lesions from first outbreak to resolution. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed alternatives

Proposed images to use in infobox

• 
  File:Child_with_Smallpox_Bangladesh_-_arm_detail.jpg
• 
  File:Child with Smallpox BangladeshCropped.jpg
• 
  File:Child with Smallpox Bangladesheyesblacked.jpg

Discussion

• One option to perhaps alleviate the concerns of people who find the photo too disturbing would be to crop off the top two-thirds, leaving only the shoulders and arms visible. This way, the characteristic pustule morphology will be still be seen clearly (even more so, as they will be somewhat larger in a cropped version. Sasata (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, agree with Sasata. Cropping would solve it. It's the child's obvious distress that is so disturbing to others. We are talking about lay editors and readers and this is something that even medical professionals find hard to see. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The greater area shows more of the distribution of lesions which is important when distinguishing between chickenpoxs, it however is a reasonable compromise..Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Another option: a black bar over the eyes, like used in many medical textbooks. Sasata (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes would be supportive of that. The eyes in this condition add no useful information. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Strongly oppose the version with black bars over the eyes. This was done in the past in the mistaken belief that it protected identity. Such images have no place in 2013. Colin°^Talk 10:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have uploaded a cropped image showing just the detail of the dimpled arm bumps. This should address the issue of how disturbing the original image is without losing the valuable information regarding the dimpled bumps. Zad68 19:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Have uploaded another cropped version and one with the eyes black out.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The second image seems to work the best. They can always click on it to enlarge it. Best to remember the lay readers and editors and not overwhelm. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Argh so many edit conflicts... thanks for that final fix Doc, I think we're on the path to a good consensus now. Zad68 19:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The second one does best at defining the arm, so the readers know what part of the body they're looking at straight away. Might lessen the shock. Well done Zad68 and Doc James. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Have switched the lead image as per the discussion/consensus above. Have moved the full image lower. I guess the question is should we have it at all? I have no strong feelings either way and if someone wishes to remove it altogether I would have no concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd leave it off. The prior discussions regarding it seem to support eliminating it. And since the image does show the lesions well, the poor kid can be put to rest. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless the reader has followed this discussion, it is not possible to tell what part of the body is shown in the cropped image. To some, it might not look human. The sense of scale has been lost and the size of the lesions is no longer discernible. Take another look, and try to forget what the original image looks like. Graham Colm (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The second image makes it clear that it's an arm. That's the image in the article now. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the lead image alone, it could be finger. Graham Colm (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Have added what body part this is to the caption but yes good point one does sort of lose the context a bit. Maybe the image with the eyes blackout would be better? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

How about a wikilink in the caption to the larger image with torso and face, with a warning that some people may find the full image disturbing? This seems far better to me that duplicating the full image farther down the page. -- Scray (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The image with the eyes blacked out is not a good idea. And a smaller version of the photo is still in the article in the photo gallery. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

@Scary, if you find the full photo disturbing, we could delete it from the page. It's not needed any longer as the point is to show the lesions which the current cropped photo does very well. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I was unclear. I don't find the original version to be disturbing in the least, and also feel that the cropped version loses important context. In that context, perhaps my prior comment will make more sense - a link in the caption of the cropped version providing access to the original with a warning, would serve all stated purposes without duplication on the page. (btw, I agree that blacking out eyes is not helpful - it just looks like an inadequate attempt at de-identification, and is widely viewed as inadequate for that purpose) -- Scray (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've been seeing this on my watchlist all day and finally looking in at the discussion I have to agree with GrahamColm. It's hard to discern the anatomy of the crop. More importantly, however, this is a horrific disease, a disease that was all too common not that long ago, and in my view it's important to show the image. Victoria (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes we can let this run for a couple of weeks and after that point in time switch to whichever the majority of the community feels is best.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion II

As it stands the comments show a need for a compromise here. I don't think it wise to simply decide this on one's own and put the old photo back. It would likely be best to add the little girl's photo farther down in the article perhaps in a photo gallery. But the cropped image in the info box shows the lesions well. And as I suggested earlier, showing the progression of the lesions would be more informative for the reader. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I rather disagree as to the tight cropping, as it neglects the generality of the lesions over the entire body. That said, there are other images that are equally usable:

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/images/PHIL_131_lores.jpg

http://www.who.int/emc/diseases/smallpox/slideset/images/spox_009.jpg

http://www.who.int/emc/diseases/smallpox/slideset/images/spox_015.jpg

http://www.who.int/emc/diseases/smallpox/slideset/images/spox_032.jpg

I included the URL rather than uploading the imagery to provide the source of the imagery. I suspect that the last image would be considered objectionable due to it showing a child's genitalia, the first being "too shocking", but shock value aside, the disease was indeed a terror of nature. It should be reflected as such, lest a reader not comprehend the severity of the disease and the disfigurement of surviving victims.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the second image is a good one and could be cropped a bit more. Well done finding them. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There was no consensus for my change of the image which is why I changed it back. Usually one needs a consensus to make a change. Will leave this to others. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say that most of us are 'voting' based on very little information. Most of the opinions seem to be more on how one feels (myself included) about the picture rather than the statistics. How should one select a photo for the lede? Should it portray what smallpox is in terms of appearance or emotional impact on the infected? On one hand the severity of the symptoms that the Bangladesh child appears to be a extreme. The other photos, imo, do not convey the severity of the disease. The emotional impact of viewing the Bangladesh child image would not begin to compare to the emotional impact that of one familiar with the disease seeing family members and friends with smallpox.

Is there any data on the appearance of the size, shape, quantity, and distribution of the blisters on cases from mild to severe? What would be considered 'average'. What should the lede photo present? Jim1138 (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at google images there appears to be some cases worse than this one and some that are not as bad. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Editors suggesting changing the image, cropping it or changing to another image, are well-informed on this topic and make cogent points about the real utility of the image. Clearly, there is concern about this image and a compromise is needed as I've suggested. The little girl's image can be farther down in the article and as I've said, if the goal is to present a clear picture of the lesions, then a gallery with the stages would be in order. The cropped image in the infobox does show the full bloom of lesions that appear somewhere around days 7 to 10, depending on incubation period. It's not necessary for the full image of the child to be in the infobox to convey that. As a physician, Doc James, you are aware of that. And as an admin, you are also aware that concerns by editors, especially this amount of opposition, must be addressed. As I said, compromise is in order here. This is an encyclopedia, not a medical journal. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Usually one need a consensus to make a change. I made a change to the article without consensus and thus changed it back to how it was before when the fact that their is no consensus become clear. This is my understanding of Wikipedia policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

So whoever makes the first edit always has first mover advantage? Whomever disagrees with Doc J is wrong? I see no consensus here at all, it's roughly a 50/50 split. As to the issue at hand, find a pic more people agree on.PumpkinSky talk 02:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes so the original version dose have the advantage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard that before. That the image that is there has an advantage? If anything it is problematic because it's drawing this much comment against it. As I said, a compromise is indicated and as an administrator you should recognize that. I've always understood that serious concerns must be taken into consideration, not dismissed. The compromise solution is needed here. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Have dealt with some fairly controversial image discussions including those at Rorschach test and Pregnancy. For the image to change at pregnancy a super majority was required as was gained here [14]. The image was not changed until a super majority was obtained. Pumpkinsky was part of that discussion so I image is aware of this general requirement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Doc, as an admin should know wiki works on consensus model, not super majority. There is no consensus to keep this image so it should be changed. The real problem here is that you want to keep it and you expect everyone to go along with you come hell or high water.PumpkinSky talk 10:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Strange because that was not how people felt it worked on the pregnancy article. Anyway I assume that we will have to agree to disagree regarding this one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Show me one official policy where "super majority" is used. Even better, where it's defined.PumpkinSky talk 11:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

How often do we have consensus and then a month later, a dispute arises? A case in point is a dispute that is currently ongoing on the second amendment article. Consensus was arrived at three times, now it's up on the dispute resolution noticeboard. I suspect that is why Doc James wishes for a supermajority, to avoid subsequent rehashing of the same tired subject.Wzrd1 (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

This article, nor any article for that matter, is up to "what Doc J wishes for". THANK YOU FOR CONFIRMING DOC J THINKS AND ACTS LIKE HE WP:OWNS medical article. What Doc wants is not the issue here.PumpkinSky talk 20:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

@Wzrd1: that's the nature of Wikipedia. Content and images can change at any time. A supermajority can't prevent that. And in this case, there is genuine concern and it should be addressed. There is no Wikipedia policy that requires a 'supermajority.' And note well, in the past, Doc James changed the image when just one person complained. Now he's got 10 editors saying no, and a talk page history with lots of others commenting about it. What's the problem? Why not address the concerns of others and strike a compromise? The image of the girl moved farther down into the article, perhaps a gallery, while the cropped image is in the infobox. That solution adequately addresses all concerns. The image could include a caption that explains it is an arm and shoulder. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

@PumpkinSky : You are welcome. Though, I never implied any such thing. I simply suggested a reason that Doc James wanted a larger majority over a smaller majority, such as a 51% majority. It's been a pleasure discussing how to improve this article with you! @Malke, I seem to recall Doc James mentioning that he changed the image, then reverted it when called on it, as is proper. That said, I've read comments from readers and editors who wanted all illustrations removed because they were emotionally distressing. What is germane now is what is the current count for and against? I honestly didn't count, as things have been hectic here. To be honest, I fail to see what the problem is with a picture of a smallpox victim. This disease is ugly and horrific, it's extremely difficult to find images of the lesions that are not upsetting to people unacquainted with the disease. That said, I gave a few other image links above that illustrate the disease and its lesions global nature, though I mentioned that some would be upset at seeing a baby's genitals in the one image that was quite representative. What we do need is consensus, flinging scat about ownership is not conducive to consensus, nor is bringing up one change from the past at this time. So, what is the current vote for each view? I do believe that an image is useful for the infobox that gives the viewer insight into the disease.Wzrd1 (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

@Wzrd1, yes, those are good points. As for consensus, I believe the count is 10 for change, 9 for no change. As for an image that gives insight into the disease, a cropped image showing the lesions is fine. And with that, it might also be possible to remove the protection level as currently it's at indefinite. The cause of vandalism may well have been this image. Remember, this is an encyclopedia and not a medical journal. When editors, over time especially, voice distress at the image, it really is a concern that must be addressed. The other images are fine, demonstrate the lesions more than adequately and are far less upsetting. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I simply reverted my change to the lead image as I do not see a consensus for it. We could try another RfC with possibly more option. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

We could also just drop it and move onto other things. Jim1138 (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Malke 2010, you have repeatedly tried to change the lead image on this article over the last few months. Please don't change it again. You are not an impartial editor wrt that change and compromises need to be agreed not imposed by one side. PumpkinSky, please do not post any more personal attacks here, as I will remove them and report your behaviour. You are experienced enough to know that when you use UPPERCASE to make your point, you have lost bigtime and should go find something else to do. If there is still a desire to change the image then some kind of mediation seems necessary. In the mean time, I suggest nobody edits the lead image or else page protection will be required. Colin°^Talk 11:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll say whatever I want. I'm not afraid of you, anyone else, nor anything else.PumpkinSky talk 12:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It is always a pleasure to deal with people who discuss things in a calm, rational and adult manner and do not consider chiding a threat that requires a defiant response.Wzrd1 (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It's always a pleasure to deal with people who have backhanded condescending, holier-than-thou attitudes towards others. What I said before wasn't a PA anyway, it is the truth, so the whole "chiding" as you call it is baseless. And yes, that was a threat from Colin. With that, I'm leaving this. You all have fun here.PumpkinSky talk 20:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The chiding was from Colin regarding personal attacks and use of caps. From what I read, it was far from baseless and quite on point, as well as rather mild when one considers your length of experience on Wikipedia. Please feel free to rejoin the discussion when you can discuss the matter rationally, without interjecting emotional baggage that ill suits discussion on improving the article. Now, on to the article, perhaps an RfC on which image is preferred for the infobox, with a group of images suggested? Anyone who could help get that together would find great appreciation, as I've little time to devote to it due to my father's sudden hospitalization.Wzrd1 (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Do we mention the conspiracy theory about how smallpox is a lie made by the pro-vaccination group here, or do you think that there should be a new page for it? 180.200.150.41 (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite certain that such a wild conspiracy theory, that would believe that three thousand years of history was falsified in the recent past just to sell smallpox vaccines that are no longer in common use would qualify as WP:notable.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Case fatality rate

The claim "over 80% of infected children—died from the disease" is a vast overstatement. The paper cited is referring to a specific time and place. The true case fatality rate among children has been estimated at 20-30%

Bernoulli, D. and Blower, S. (2004), An attempt at a new analysis of the mortality caused by smallpox and of the advantages of inoculation to prevent it. Rev. Med. Virol., 14: 275–288. doi: 10.1002/rmv.443 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.79.153 (talk) 08:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Picture again

The leading picture is absolutely inappropriate! I liking watching horror movies and blood doesn't creep me out, but I am trypophobic and I'm still shivering after looking at that picture. If you read this today, go to the front page of the Turkish Wikipedia. They have it as "today's picture"! They have gone way too far. Sorry for my bad English. --77.0.104.38 (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Child with Smallpox Bangladesh.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Child with Smallpox Bangladesh.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 26, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-10-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A Bangladeshi child infected with smallpox, 1973. In ordinary type smallpox the bumps are filled with a thick, opaque fluid and often have a depression or dimple in the center. This is a major distinguishing characteristic of smallpox. The last naturally occurring case of smallpox was diagnosed on 26 October 1977, and in 1979 the World Health Organization declared the disease eradicated.Photo: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

• Please note previous discussion here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• Who is the girl? Did she live? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• The source offers nothing on the subject's fate or identity. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

An amazing picture of a horrible disease. It was also the leading cause of death globally for a while if I remember correctly. National Geo says 300 million in the 20th century alone [15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)