Talk:Zika virus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Mass of references

Unsure which actually supports the content in question:

"Studies of this and prior outbreaks have found Zika infection during pregnancy to be associated with early pregnancy loss and other pregnancy problems." —from this version of the article

It appears one that the text these three refs were behind was simply removed and two other refs added in front of it. Unable to verify which of the two new repeats refs support the "pregnancy loss" bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks as if the text was added by Chrisvls during this series of edits. He might be able to shed some light on your concern (although I see you've edited it out since you raised the issue).— Gorthian (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes if he states which ref supports the statement regarding "pregnancy loss" that would be a start. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Science news

Is not a sufficient source. We have better sources so really no need to use it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Pregnancy loss

Which refs supports this as asked above? Also why do we have 5 references? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

One is repeated, so it's really four.— Gorthian (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes you are correct the 5 references included one listed twice.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

What is this ref supporting?

What is this reference supporting exactly? [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Sorry for the mess!

Looks like some cutting and pasting of references got this good and messed up. My apologies, and sorry that you spent time on this instead of other things the article needs!

I think the goal of the original sentence was an overreach, I think also on my part, because the 'earlier outbreak' study did not include pregnancy loss. My source for pregnancy loss and other problems is the CDC, which writes "Increasing epidemiologic, clinical, laboratory, and pathologic evidence supports a link between Zika virus infection during pregnancy and adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes, including pregnancy loss, microcephaly, and brain and eye abnormalities" which cites five sources.

So, I think a sentence like "Studies of this outbreak have found Zika infection during pregnancy to be associated with pregnancy loss and other pregnancy problems." is supported. We could add that a study of a prior outbreak found an association with microcephaly. Thoughts?

References

-Chris vLS (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Chris that is really source overkill. We only cite secondary sources - please don't cite the sources that the secondary source cites - it is just clutter. Per WP:MEDRS we use high quality sources, which are reviews in the biomedical literature, or statements by major scientific/medical bodies. You are bringing the CDC and that is plenty (and all we need, especially if the CDC is saying the same thing as other high quality sources. If high quality sources say different things, then we say that and attribute.) Do you understand? thx Jytdog (talk) 06:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem, got it, thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Chrisvls that CDC source is excellent and I have added it to support the link to pregnancy loss. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2016

A new source of information has been provided to prove a link between Zika virus outbreak and microcephaly. Please update statement linked to reference 9 to show confirmation of link between Zika virus outbreak and microcephaly as of 4/13/2016. Source: CDC http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/s0413-zika-microcephaly.html updated and accessed 4/13/2016. The CDC's source referenced was the newest New England Journal of Medicine.

Thank you, unamigosuave Unamigosuave (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Source looks good. Will add it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

That release talks about a paper just published in NEJM, authored by CDC scientists, where they say Zika causes malformations in pregnancy:

• Rasmussen SA, et al. Special Report: Zika Virus and Birth Defects — Reviewing the Evidence for Causality. NEJM April 13, 2016. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsr1604338 Free full text.

On the strength of this and the accompanying CDC announcement cited above, shall we change this article and Zika fever and the outbreak article to be much more definitive? Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes have done somewhat. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

While the virus "may" spread from the mother to the baby during pregnancy I am not seeing evidence that this always occurs or that if it occurs it always results in severe problems. So toned it down a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Blood testing for transfusions in French Micronesia

I removed the following statement from the end of the blood-transfusion paragraph:

Since January 2014 nucleic acid testing of blood donors has been implemented in French Polynesia to prevent unintended transmission.

Neither of the references cited ([3] and [4]) support that statement, as far as I can tell. I'd be grateful if someone more familiar with medical language would check those references, especially the first one. — Gorthian (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your edit; the reference clearly states that the testing was done during the outbreak. Other references (e.g. WHO) also indicate the same. I see no evidence that the testing has continued - though it may have we don't have a RS for that. — soupvector (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

NEJM

doi:10.1056/NEJMra1602113 JFW | T@lk 10:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

... and now the Annals doi:10.7326/M16-0617 JFW | T@lk 14:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Tourism information

@J994m454: I appreciate the work and references you've put into the "culture" section; however, I feel that since this article is about the virus itself, that this content should really be moved to the article about the ongoing epidemic. Take a look at dengue virus and see what it covers, as an example. No, we don't know nearly as much about Zika–yet–but we will eventually. Something that helps me figure out what to put in which article: I picture myself in the future, maybe five or ten years on, and I read (and edit) the article as if it were documenting the past. It helps with perspective. — Gorthian (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

New pregnancy section

The content below was added here

First, should these "society and culture" matter be covered here, or in Zika fever, or in 2015–16 Zika virus epidemic? I am thinking the latter.

Second, the content below has a few issues:

• needs to be tweaked per WP:RELTIME (the stuff about "at the moment", "last year", etc)
• There is some WP:NOTHOWTO stuff giving advice
• Most imporantly, there is a bunch of nonencyclopedic, colorful language (generally not good) and unsourced editorializing. This "All the while the millions of women who are dealing first hand with Zika, pregnancy, or raising children with microcephaly or other complications related to Zika are for the most part left unheard while more powerful voices take center stage in the news and media." for example is unsourced; the editor's opinion. I moved this here for discussion.

Text from article

Culture Tourism Travel has not yet been banned or restricted as a result of Zika. However, the CDC has released a travel notice informing travelers on how to practice enhanced precautions. These precautions include: visiting with your healthcare provider, purchasing travel health and medical evacuation insurance, packing a travel health kit, constant monitoring of the US Department of State travel warnings and alerts, enrolling in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP), and leaving a copy of all of your travel documentation and travel plans with someone from your home country. These precautions are intended for women planning to become pregnant or are already expecting. This is because of the high risk of the child being born with microcephaly. However, men should be cautious as well because Zika has proven to be sexually transmitted and subsequently can lead to dangerous pregnancies as well. The decision to warn people instead of ban travel is primarily due to the virus being mosquito-transmitted and not contagious through exterior human contact. It is assumed that people who do decide to travel to already Zika-confirmed locations will take the necessary precautions to avoid infection. These countries are continuously targeted as vacation hotspots because of their inviting climates and beautiful geography. Many of these vacation countries are less developed and depend on the tourism industry to build capital. This ultimately causes an issue when travelers avoid these locations, out of fear of becoming infected with Zika. The 2016 Summer Olympics, which are being held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, are facing such struggles. The most recent, and current, outbreak of Zika was found in Brazil early last year and has since only caused more global anxiety. Since the confirmation of the outbreak and the nearing Olympic games, Rio de Janeiro has been worried about the possible cancellation of their expected 480,000 tourists. In fact, Rio has spent close to $1 trillion dollars on new stadiums and hotels in preparation of the predicted influx of sports fans. And in the unfortunate event of the Olympics being cancelled or relocated, Brazil would not only lose all of the potential revenue from tourism but the investments made years in advance, as well. Pregnancy With the Zika virus having its most profound effect on the unborn children of pregnant women in Central and South America at the moment, opinions have poured in from religious and political institutions as well as the UN, WHO, and human rights groups. This has resulted in a crossfire of large scale actors pressing the options which they think appropriate. All the while the millions of women who are dealing first hand with Zika, pregnancy, or raising children with microcephaly or other complications related to Zika are for the most part left unheard while more powerful voices take center stage in the news and media. The deputy health minister of El Salvador issued a statement that women should avoid getting pregnant before the year 2018. The stance can be understood against the backdrop of what is becoming such a widespread health issue. Such a stance is easier talked about than enacted, however. This is particularly true in Central America where the majority of the population is Roman Catholic, and with that, is heavily influenced by the church’s perspectives on birth control and abortion. With the government telling women not to get pregnant while church dogma stigmatizes birth control and abortion, the responsibility of controlling the consequences of Zika are placed entirely on the shoulders of women trapped between culture and structure. The church advocates natural family planning in place of contraception, leaving women to rely on monitoring their bodies in order to avoid sex during times of increased fertility. Under the surface this suggestion is not entirely helpful. It leaves out the fact that sexual violence is a rampant problem in Central America. This reduces the control women have over their own bodies even when closely following church doctrine. Additionally, contraceptives and sex education are sparse or difficult to obtain for Central American women. Adding weight to the issue is the fact that abortion is not only stigmatized, but it is illegal for the most part.  While some countries will allow abortion in the cases of sexual assault, risk to mother, or sometimes fetal development issues, others like El Salvador have banned abortion entirely . In a report put together by the Center for Reproductive Rights and Inter-American Dialogue, while acknowledging the difficulty in obtaining accurate statistics, it is estimated that 35,000 clandestine abortions take place in El Salvador alone. Further, El Salvador has in place harsh penalties for those who administer abortions and for the women who have the procedure. Women can be charged with homicide which can result in decades in prison. Even with such harsh penalties in place, this report indicates that large numbers of women are willing to risk having an abortion rather than having a child. While a number of factors could influence this decision, bans on abortion most prominently take a toll on the young, poor, and uneducated women who may have enough trouble taking care of themselves. As many as 70 suicides, mostly adolescents, are reported to have taken place as a result of pregnancy While the pope has suggested that contraceptives might be morally acceptable in the fight against Zika , this somewhat vague statement has left many debating whether birth control is permissible at all. Archbishop Bernardito Auza has stated that a diagnosis of microcephaly is not a death sentence and that children born with it should be raised and taken care of just as any other child. This raises the question of what kind of resources are going to be provided for women who do give birth to babies with microcephaly. Human rights groups are asking that restrictions on abortions and contraceptives be socially and legally reduced as a step towards helping women through the difficult process of dealing with Zika, microcephaly, and pregnancy . References

- Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree with concerns raised. This is about the disease so should be summarized and placed in the disease article once properly reference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: You're right, the editorializing is not appropriate. But, as I pointed out in the section above, I think these subjects belong in 2015–16 Zika virus epidemic. The tourism stuff definitely, because it's particular to this year. But I think any content related to the women's rights discussion is dynamic, and specific to this new situation. Five years from now, it will be part of the history of this pandemic, while the article about the disease will be descriptive of the disease itself (with maybe a short blurb in its history section mentioning the current furor).— Gorthian (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's see what others say.. Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Ref for image?

@Dcrjsr: Your edit summary said "added image and ref", but I think you forgot the ref...? — Gorthian (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've added the ref per the guidelines here. — soupvector (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that prompt response! The original ref I meant was what is now #23, at the end of the paragraph about the virology -- previously, that had a "citation needed" template. But as well, it's certainly good to cite the Goodsell Molecule of the Month here as well as with the full image info on Wiki Commons. Dcrjsr (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

That image doesn't appear in the Pierson article - so I think the ref I've added is more appropriate. — soupvector (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the PM & PMC ids for the Pierson ref! It was never meant as a ref for the image (which I apologize for not including) -- the Pierson review was a response to the former "citation needed" template after the middle paragraph in Virology. Dcrjsr (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

More solutions coverage?

There's a Vaccine section, but other ideas are being pursued. Wolbachia propagation, and killing off all mosquitoes (e.g. with a 'gene drive') are two ideas that the New York Times recently reported hold promise... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/05/science/zika-virus-moquitoes-microbe.html --Elvey^(t•c) 20:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Elvey, some text and references to these ideas have recently been added at Zika fever#Research. — Gorthian (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

CMR review

doi:10.1128/CMR.00072-15 JFW | T@lk 13:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Historical review

Lancet Infect Dis doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30010-X JFW | T@lk 10:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Details of transmissions

I made this edit because the content was too detailed and not encyclopedic anymore - the encyclopedic message is that Zika can be sexually transmitted at least by men. Assembling the person by person story of how we came to understand that Zika can be trasnmitted sexually by stringing together content based on primary sources was also a work of WP:OR or better WP:SYN - we don't do that in WP. That edit was reverted by User:Wnt in this dif with the question "Why would you delete detail on what kinds of transmission when? This seems pretty central.". There is your answer. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Some of the flowery text ("first case, second case") and so forth was over the top and I've edited it, but the individual research reports are still enlightening. We want people to understand the kind of data the CDC guidances are based on, to understand that there are a few "smoking gun" cases and not just a theoretical possibility.

I really wish you'd focus more on improving our description of the CDC guidance, which is a mess and probably out of date. There are a huge number of contingencies in there, including a massive flowchart ... that's not an easy one to cover. But the way we had it covered just now was so inaccurate it made it sound like the CDC was advising *male* partners to use condoms to avoid being infected, even though the guideline appears written mostly if not entirely toward the protection of pregnant women. Wnt (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes there is too much in the weeds content. If we clear that out it will be easier to focus on the public health message, which is not complicated. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Wnt will you agree to cut this way back and just focus this on the simple message from CDC, which you can see here? Jytdog (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmmm, that last paragraph didn't look like so much a case for trimming as just ... changing ... somehow. But that other reference looks like a good stable link that we can showcase that won't go out of date so quickly as the bulletins, and it does provide a simpler introduction. I think we'll have to try some more edits before we can decide what we think of them. Wnt (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

ok, maybe we are good? thanks for tolerating... Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Rats. I thought you were talking about the last paragraph there ... I thought the simplifications I'd made with the other sentences might be enough. The thing is, I want to keep details. To be honest, the thing that made me look at this article recently is I was wondering if male-male transmission had been documented, in light of the debate over Red Cross blood donation restrictions. I was thinking it's a useful "reality check" to look up a couple of random viruses that have a sexual transmission and see if the male-male is known to be more likely, just to get a sense of what the overall risk would be if you assume HIV screening is done competently. The information available isn't really enough to tell that, but it's definitely better than nothing. All the other little biological snippets we have can be the same way. We're not writing this for patients; we're writing this for anybody who might think up a way to brainstorm with it. Wnt (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not agree with these wholesale deletions of WP:RS content Jytdog has been making, since he came to this page I might add. First it was about mother to child transmission, which is basically empty now, and now it is happening to sexual transmission. A skeleton with undated CDC refs. WP is an encyclopedia and I am all for succinctness, but what is gone is the history of discovery. Unless and UNTIL you have a dated review with the detailed history of discoveries you are not doing readers a favor. I will restore the status quo. you can do better by writing yourself. Please dont delete and revert all the time.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Zika and Miami

Hi BatteryIncluded. I reverted the removal of the Miami area travel advisory from the Zika fever article. The CDC has never issued a travel advisory in the United States before, it's unique and notable, I think. It didn't seem right to not mention at all... But I agree that the section needs work to be an appropriately weighted summary of the outbreak . . . will try to get to tonight. Cheers. Chris vLS (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Chrisvls, The edit in question was at Zika virus, NOT Zika fever nor the outbreak article. Miami's woes have little to do with the description of the Zika viral genomics, proteomics or even immunity. Perhaps a better target article would be something like "tourism at Miami", Miami public health" or something in that line. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

2015–16 Zika virus epidemic is where this sort of information should go. — Gorthian (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yup should go at the epidemic page IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Zika in semen

"Zika found to remain in sperm for record six months". BBC News. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

New information and acronyms

On a topic so heavily in the news it needs to be updated that there have now been cases in the United States. There are also many studies about Zika and pregnancy. This section is severely lacking considering you can easily find this information from the CDC. For such an important topic one sentence does not cover this well.

There are many acronyms without any description of what they are. These include: RNA, WHO, CDC, FDA, UTMB. Stew2Stew (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your suggestions, which are very constructive - but please note that we're all peers and volunteers here, so if the article is lacking then please feel free to pitch in. I've provided some info on your "user talk" page, but there are a couple of points I'll highlight here relevant to your suggestions. First, this Zika virus page is about the virus, and the Zika fever page (you can click on it) is about the disease - I think the latter covers some of the info you were looking for. Also, note that the Zika fever page is linked at the very top of the Zika virus page, for easy access. Similar, acronyms like RNA, WHO, etc tend to be wiki-linked (on first use they have embedded links and are click-able) to make the text easier to read while making the details accessible (I've just fixed this for WHO, which had been overlooked). Hope this helps, and thanks again! — soupvector (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The anon is correct that most acronyms should be expanded upon first mention; see MOS:ABBR. It is not sufficient that the terms be wikilinked, since WP content can be WP:REUSEd by anyone in any format, including on paper or via copy-paste without links; our content has to make sense in the absence of linking. Some acronyms that are almost always encountered by the general public in acronym form (e.g. "DNA" and "NATO") do not need expansion on first mention. "WHO" does, because a screen reader or may mistake it for the word "who" if it is not marked up with {{Abbr}}, and this organization is almost always referred to as the World Health Organization on first mention by mainstream news organizations (contrast this with "UNICEF" which is rarely given in full). RNA is a toss-up; the general public mostly don't know what it is, only that it has "something" to do with genes, so it is often explained in brief on first mention, but also fairly often not expanded in name and just left as "RNA", and not ambiguous with anything else the public is likely to hear of. It's probably safe to leave it as an acronym here, but linked on first occurrence.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Unless I missed one, all the acronyms in the article are compliant with MOS:ABBR now (if likely to be unfamiliar or ambiguous, expanded and with a link; if likely to be familiar and not ambiguous, just linked).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Puerto Rico Naled controversy

I think that controversy should be added in this article.1 Seriesphile (talk · ctb) 06:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Not a news outlet. BatteryIncluded (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, when did I say this was a news outlet? Seriesphile (talk · ctb) 08:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Manual of style: WP:NOTNEWS. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a policy, not part of the Manual of Style guideline (so your point is actually stronger :-).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Resolved

 – It's been moved to end of fist paragraph of lead section, after no opposition to complaint about it being in first sentence.

I am not convinced this is needed in the first sentence. It is not the most important thing about the condition. Was at the end of the lead which IMO is better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

We are not a dictionary and thus stuff like pronunciation should be given less weight here. We need to have a first sentence that says what the topic is about in easy to understand language. Trying to push more and more stuff into the first sentence makes it less understandable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Unpublished yet

Some startling results reported by the CDC. Keep an eye out for the study. — Gorthian (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE IS TRANSPHOBIC

I AM A PROUD TRANS MAN AND I JUST LEARNED I WAS PREGNANT LAST WEEK. THERE IS *NO* EXCUSE FOR THE TRANSPHOBIC, BIGOTED, AND HARMFUL MISINFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS ARTICLE. IF I WASN'T THIS INTELLIGENT, PERHAPS I WOULDN'T REALISE THAT I WOULD BE AT RISK IF TRAVELLING TO A COUNTRY WITH A HIGH ZIKA RISK. THIS ARTICLE IS DAMAGING TO PEOPLE WHO CAN BEAR CHILDREN AND I WILL MAKE A HUGE FUSS ABOUT THIS.

As far as I can tell, the existing data on Zika and pregnancy has only examined subjects who are pregnant women. If you're up for listening or calmly asking questions about our sourcing policies, I would love that. Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Here is one article that is conclusive proof that gender is a societal construct: https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/52379132/GENDER_AS_A_SOCIAL_STRUCTURE.pdf?1490860274=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DGender_As_a_Social_Structure_Theory_Wres.pdf&Expires=1604980908&Signature=P6syLQEFXfhxkSuQlKNQwzDB6uSqFh1o1kbuzVFGo7AqOBto5hKmz4Qcn-nlC1l8CwqXsZaivmKwYzkD7xqUXbvddCyVQBCw44iopmNjqq60Iin-lT7OUaWDZUEI5iUHBb6hocbTKcgkdY60wI~csx47hwagL6H-Zt1ZxlkijeSRFKJEflqPzRHxBfAdTz95aEGPZrnGT0ThjO9mmjaF~kh5I1FnHNhcH~R4oOCH1gLWdMVFXgphfqXXiihAMLXj-HiKV~k-n21CncQpk05CYHlK4Vgo7Tpn840WDWdKynW8nyJPZSL12e9zlNYpDHaG7uGvxn2qDSan0oGDYv07zQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

The URL just leads me to an error message, but accepting as true that gender is just a societal construct, we are still missing data to say how Zika affects pregnant people who are not women. Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Protection of Article

With Zika rapidly spreading across the world, this article will be shooting into prominence. Hence I feel a need to include some form of protection for it before it is defaced or has hoaxes and half-truths added to it. Jiale8331 (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Zika Test via MIT and Harvard

The recent edit was reverted:

"Presently, an inexpensive paper screen test developed by MIT exists to screen a person for the Zika virus in less than 3 hours at the price of $1 per test."

It is mentioned at MIT, Harvard University, and Popular Science Magazine that the previous is correct and accurate. I am seeking others to assist in the repair of this issue, as this information should be on the article page.

References

-- Twillisjr (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:PROMO, WP:MEDRS (especially the WP:MEDREV section), and WP:MEDMOS - the content and source fail all three. You might also find it useful to read the lead of WP:Why MEDRS?. As an aside, these paper-based diagnostic tests have been worked on by academics for years - back to 2009 at least. There is nothing new here except the application for Zika and the inclusion of CRISPR technology, and it remains as unclear as ever when, or even if, these paper-based tests will actually be used in the field. To the best of my knowledge these are not actually used anywhere. Would love to be shown wrong on that. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)