Talk:Tularemia/Archive 1

Untitled

"Francisella tularensis is one of the most infective bacteria known. Fewer than ten organisms have been shown to lead to severe illness."

This statement is confusing to me. It seems to say both that the bacteria is widely distributed but also rare. Could someone clarify? --Kerowyn 01:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: This statement refers to infectivity in a host, not distribution in an environment. That is, it doesn't take many organsims to cause illness. Other pathogens require a much higher number (e.g. tens of thousands) of organisms to cause disease.--Elozares 20:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is tularemia related to plague? 71.194.8.121 04:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)ac[reply]

Not particularly, as far as I can see, other than both being bacterial. -- Mithent 17:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccines

Can anyone provide a citation for, or verify, the text "No vaccine is available to the general public." under the section "Treatment"? According to http://www.beaglesunlimited.net/rabbithunting_tularemia.htm (under section "Treatment of tularemia") there is a vaccine available for tularemia. Vulturejoe 04:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tularemia was identified as a potential bioterrorism agent after 9/11, at which time the only available vaccine was a live vaccine delivered by scarification, which has the potential of causing, as well as preventing, the disease, and which was not particularly successful in providing complete immunity. his could be used only for military personnel because FDA requirements have not been met. The use of current LVS vaccine outside the military would require FDA approval for an emergency-use IND. Development of an effective, safe, and practical vaccine is underway in several nations, but none has yet been produced. See [1] and [2]. [3]. - Nunh-huh 22:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use by Soviets in WWII as bioweapon is not confirmed by any true reference.

The reference to tabloid 'Pravda' can not be considered as serious. The referred article in 'Pravda' does not contain any reference to scientific source. Kokava 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use during WWII by Soviet troops is not substantiated, although infections have been reported and recorded. The source of infection is most likely of natural origin. The allegation contained in Pravda is a repeat of allegations made by Ken Alibek in his book 'Biohazard'. If Pravda is, or is not, a serious source is neither here nor there. See: Geissler, E (2005) Alibek, Tularaemia and The Battle of Stalingrad. CBW Conventions Bulletin. Vol 69+70, pp. 10

Rudolf 11:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudolf rudolf (talk • contribs)

Virulence

"it is highly virulent in humans and domestic rabbits. F. tularensis palaearctica (Type B) occurs mainly in aquatic rodents (beavers, muskrats) in North America and in hares and small rodents in northern Eurasia. It is less virulent for humans and rabbits."

As this talk page has already established that very few organisms are required to cause the disease, and virulence is in general related to the pathogenicity of an organism, I move to strike the "less virulent" sentence, despite the face-value reliability of 'Pearson A (1998). Zoonoses: biology, clinical practice, and public health control...Oxford University Press.' 108.56.237.27 (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

Hi, people, I've tried starting a discussion on the WT:MEDMOS#Naming page regarding the naming of articles such as this one. It is taking days for any reply as everyone seems uninterested in this topic. Now I understand people having their own type of English, but as the ICD-10 is meant to be our source for names according to WP:MEDMOS and it names tularemia as tularaemia I think we need to move this page accordingly. Please don't reply to me with WP:ENGVAR or w/e I am talking about the ICD-10's naming which we're meant to be following not American vs. British spelling! Fuse809 (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anorexia?

Ive never seen anorexia listed as a symptom of any disease. Is it really anorexia, the eating disorder, and not merely "loss of appetite" or something similar? —Soap— 05:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it for now, as I just remembered that "anorexia" can have multiple meanings besides its most common popular one. —Soap— 02:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of discovery

According to the Francisella article the bacteria was discovered by Edward Francis in 1922. The two articles are thus contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.236.97.127 (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Europe

Review in Lancet Infectious Diseases doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00355-2 JFW | T@lk 14:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]