Talk:List of infectious diseases

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reason

Reason why botulism was removed:
Botulism is almost always not an infection. It is caused by a toxin that poisons the body - no live C. botulinum bacteria required. There are relatively rare cases of young infants becoming infected due to their fragile and naive immune systems. This is commonly called "Floppy baby syndrome" or "infant botulism". However, I am not sure what current pediatricians call the ailment, so I have not listed it yet. See here for more info. --maveric149

Reason why food poisoning was removed:
Most cases of food poisoning are in fact true poisonings (hence the name) that are caused by bacteria produced toxins. The only major exception is Salmonellosis, which is a true infection and is already listed (pray you never get this one, it is nasty). --maveric149

I notice that Typhus redirects to Typhoid fever. Are they in fact the same disease? If so, please move Typhus to the bacterial section, since Typhoid fever is bacterial in origin. Also, the thought occurs to me that perhaps we should have a section on diseases/maladies caused by microbial agents, with no infection necessary (perhaps call the secion "toxiflora" or somesuch?). That way, we could list botulism, food poisoning, mycotoxins, etc... Just an idea... Pgdudda

Typhoid fever and Typhus are completely different diseases. Typhoid fever is caused by various strains of Salmonella: Typhus is caused by various Rickettsiae and can be further divided into epidemic (louse-borne) typhus, endemic typhus (flea-borne or murine) and scrub typhus (chigger-borne). I'm about to attempt unredirection... Someone else 12:14 Sep 5, 2002 (PDT)

MRSA is methicillin-resistant 'Staphylococcus aureus', a bacterium, not a disease. I've changed it to MRSA infection, since it can cause so many different infections. Someone else 14:16 Sep 5, 2002 (PDT)

What about Monkeypox? Where should that go? I'm not sure where to put it. --DanielCD 21:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

These lists are incomplete and not really that helpful. Looks like people have noticed this before. Also removed explodicitis from the viral section. Dionisio23 01:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of them?

So is that all the human infectious diseases? The list seems quite small. Thanks. Randomblue (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was a day over a decade ago and still hasn't been answered. I'm sure it isn't as far as undiscovered diseases go, and many of the diseases are actually families of diseases, but going to their pages tends to deal with them. Otherwise, I'be been trying for some while (months, on and off) to come across even quite obscure known infectious diseases that aren't listed, with no luck. The CDC's list on their website is in fact smaller. So far I am surprised too. Harsimaja (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remodeling

I am planning on doing quite a bit of work on this. First, I will get rid of the page's organization by causative agent because it may just as well have been organized by portal of entry or mode of transmission. Next, I will use a table format. Then, we can build it up from there. Let me know if you have any qualms or suggestions. Thank you. LittleT889 (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-I have finished remodeling the list. It's far from complete, but it is a significant improvement to the previous list. Please continue to add on. LittleT889 (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's great work indeed and many thanks from all us readers. However, perhaps the list should be separated in some sort of subcategories, because it is far too long and not many people search a disease by name actually. What do you have against categorisation by causative agent? If you believe it doesn't convey an important information, use any categorising method you see fit. But one is certainly needed and I think that causative agent is a nice one.
I hope that you still read the discussion for this page!
--79.103.252.33 (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HIV Final Rule

Anyone have any ideas about putting this into a footnote in the HIV entry? That's where I originally put it, but an editor removed it, commenting that the information is "AIDS denialist nonsense; this doesn't mean HIV is not an infectious disease."

If I thought HIV wasn't infectious I would have removed the entry itself based on the new ruling. As it is, I think the CDC ruling is informative in its own right and appropriate for the article. It seems almost like censorship to remove it. Comments? BruceSwanson (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to portray Peter Duesberg as anything but an AIDS denialist is probably responsible for burning through any good faith you may have otherwise received. HIV is still an infectious disease, that it's no longer a reason to bar immigration isn't appropriate for a list-style article. Though your comment is accurate (HIV is no longer a "communicable diseases of public health significance"), it is irrelevant for this page as it is still seen as infectious (and that wording, if not read carefully, can appear as a statement that it is no longer infectious). It is appropriate for the HIV in the US article, but again not here. I support its removal, and believe that once User:Keepcalmandcarryon reviews it a bit better, s/he will support its inclusion on the HIV in the US page. I would also suggest you not add it indiscriminately to any page. That is a bit of information of only local interest, and is essentially irrelevant for most pages that aren't related to the US specifically. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose in mentioning Peter Duesberg you have the article Inventing the AIDS Virus, which I started and expanded, in mind. May I remind you that that article was accepted through the usual procedure of posting a notice on the appropriate Wikipedia page. It was then accepted and posted.

As for the information being unacceptable for a list-format article, the list-format is exactly why I put the information in the form of a footnote. Any other form would be unacceptable, and in fact I reverted someone's attempt to make it a kind of news bulletin (see history). And the information could be highly useful for someone with HIV who is contemplating immigrating to the U.S. The footnote is not of course visually distracting. It's just there. It does seem as if you are actively trying to keep the dissemination of the new ruling as limited as possible in the guise of a concern for public health. BruceSwanson (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also your advocacy for Duesberg's hypothesis being taken seriously, which is nonsense since he has been seen as promoting pseudoscience on the topic for decades now. A footnote is to be used to insert citations to verify the text, not insert commentary. Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, if someone has HIV and wants to emigrate, they should contact the relevant immigration authority. I'm applying the policies and guidelines in a way that is appropriate, across all pages I edit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: Also your advocacy for Duesberg's hypothesis be taken seriously . . . . To what are you actually referring? Please be specific.

You also wrote: A footnote is to be used to insert citations to verify the text, not insert commentary. That's exactly right. If you'll take a look at my footnote, you see that its language is taken directly from the identified source, in this case a CDC website. I'll say again that it does seem as if you are actively trying to keep the dissemination of the new ruling as limited as possible in the guise of a concern for public health. BruceSwanson (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments that indicate you think Duesberg's hypothesis on the causes of AIDS has merit. It doesn't. It's bullshit nonsense repeatedly debunked but promoted by AIDS denialists who wish to piggy back his formerly stellar reputation to make it appear as if there were scientific merit to their beliefs. Which there isn't. Edits like this, this, this, this, this and this show a propensity towards reducing and eliminating criticisms of Duesberg's incorrect and dishonest statements about AIDS, in opposition to wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. Understand "neutral" doesn't mean faux-neutral, news source "tell both sides" neutral. It means actually neutral. Is there a controversy in the scientific community about HIV/AIDS? No, there is not. There is a manufactroversy, in which a group of motivated, ignorant amateurs attempt to present the idea that there is doubt about HIV (akin to creationists who try to create controversy over evolution, and anti-vaccinationists attempt to create controversy over vaccines, when none exists among the actual experts). Neutral means we treat the scientific majority seriously, and if we discuss the nonsense fake alternative at all, we do so by demonstrating how false, erroneous, and utterly baseless they are.

This is a list type article. It is meant to list diseases, not comment on them. The fact that the CDC removed it a disease of public health significance is irrelevant to this page (particularly since the issue is that it is not of public health significance, not that it is no longer significant - a fact that makes it irrelevant to many pages actually, but also a fact that if not properly worded can give it the impression that it's not an infectious disease, which it is). I'm formatting the page in keeping with the policies and guidelines, with due weight to the appropriate opinion and the scholarly majority. Before casting aspersions, familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines. I'm pretty much done here - there is no consensus for your change, they are not in keeping with the policies and guidelines, they're inappropriate per WP:LIST, and there's no point discussing further. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccines

Hi,

I've added a category for vaccines, in which I have categorized them into 3 categories: "No" vaccine, vaccine "Under research" and licensed vaccine exists ("Yes"). However I still hesitate on whether COVID-19 vaccines should be classified as approved or under research. I am open for discussion.

!Nsadqa (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zeaspora

Is there any reliable source that says zeaspora infects humans? The article on zeaspora is a text and says it infects rotifers. Looking online all I see is a suspect book called ‘Reversing Zeaspora’ that claims to consult the ‘teachings of many natural healers’ for vegan diet-based medicine, and a throwaway, oddly written and possibly machine generated paragraph that claims it infects humans, dogs and ravens (?). Nothing mainstream.

If it only infects rotifers, it doesn’t belong here. Harsimaja (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]