| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Whooping cough article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Whooping cough.
|
 | The contents of the Mythology Concerning Whooping Cough page were merged into Whooping cough on 3 June 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 | Medicine: Translation B‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A recording of this sound would definitely add to this article. Cburnett 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the obvious rubbish "The Aztec Indians used rum in large quantities to ward off the cough". Distillation was unknown in the New World before contact with Europeans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwcowan (talk • contribs) 18:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is largely focussed on the USA.
BBC article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7288459.stm may be of general interest and may provide some non-USA content. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the fact that the DTaP vacine was introduced in the US in 1991 and changed it to reflect that the vaccine was developed in Japan in 1981. If there is a requirement to show the adoption rate of DTaP internationally a tabular format of County Vaccine introduction date would be more appropriate.
It has been claimed that Dr Denmark was a co-developer of the pertussis vaccine. Anyone have more information on this?Ryoung122 23:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the introduction in this article, the mortality rate of untreated pertussis cases is 90%. Can someone please correct this obvious mistake? A mortality rate of 90% is unheard of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethuroff (talk • contribs) 20:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does Pertussis affect people who have never been vaccinated more serious than people who only had their immunization wearing off? Or do those mortality rates only cover non vaccinated infants? 62.47.233.64 (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are also still short of figures for other countries. KoolerStill (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that Canada is the only wealthy nation with a high incidence is plain wrong. The also-mentioned Australia has had a higher number of reported cases over many years, for a 50% smaller population....and is currently having an epidemic, with more cases reported this year to date than Canada's total cases last year. While official figures only give TOTALS, to make the statistics meaningful they must be calculated to X per 100,000 of population (even is this is done as "original work" by the editor). The WHO figures are in a not very accessible format, but are available to 2007. I will try to unscramble them and add figures for other parts of the world.KoolerStill (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can add to this that the Dutch article mentions a couple of thousand diagnosed infections every year in the Netherlands. Also, it says that the real number of infections is undoubtedly much greater; antibody research shows that 1-4 % of the population (!) has an infection of bordetella pertussis per year. Seems exagerated to me, but that's what is says and a source is given (though I have no access to it, so I can't verify). Dex Stewart (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also the statement about 7,000 cases in canada per year cites an article that only mentions the slightly odd statistic "About 2,000 to 10,000 cases a year have been reported in Canada over the last 10 years" How did up to 10,000 in TEN years become 7,000 EACH year?
As per an article in today's (Australian) Daily Telegraph, the NSW Department of Health believes that the actual number of child pertussis cases in this state is significantly under-reported in the areas in which there are large numbers of anti-vaxxers. The thought is that when the children get pertussis, it is not reported, because such parents are more likely to seek "alternative" medicine practitioners (instead of real doctors), who are less likely to report it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.57.4 (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about fitting in some words about how and at what clinical stages pertussis can be transmitted? AFAIK the catarrhal and paroxysmal stages are infective. Regards, -- Paunaro (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be revised to be accessible to ordinary readers. Medical jargon like "posttussive emesis" should be avoided, or at least explained immediately. It doesn't matter if a slight reduction of precision results, since Wikipedia is not supposed to be a medical textbook. See WP:MEDMOS for a clear description of the relevant guidelines. Astarabadi (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This section is obviously slated in favor of the position of the medical hierarchy and against anyone who questions them. Loaded adjectives such as "unscientific" have no place in a neutral encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Doctors and public health officals do not have a monopoly on the truth, and they certainly are not infallible. This section adopts the medical establishment's tactics of belittling, marginalising and dismissing victims of vacination injury. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.188.107 (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that most people who claim *vaccine injury* are not injured by vaccines but by other causes. The true numbers are much lower than what the anti-vaccinationists claim. It isn't the *medical hierarchy* against you, but basic science. You can have your own feelings, but you can't have your own facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.136.102 (talk) 06:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the wording in last sentence in the "Society and Culture" section. In 2009 the wording was changed by an IP user (difference) so the word "safe" became "safer." The study cited does not make this claim. It clearly states "overall safety profile similar to that of a licensed Td vaccine" (emphasis mine). Also, it is important to note that the study did not compare DTaP to DTP. The previous wording vaguely suggested that it was a DTaP/DTP study but did not say so explicitly. --Officiallyover (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that I am one of the few people competent to talk about clinical whooping cough, which is what interests most people. I am referenced in the main article on pertussis as number 2, where there is a link to my website on whooping cough for lay people. The same site also has some of the raw data of the study that I have made in a village community in England since 1977. I have studied a total of 730 cases at the last count. All are thoroughly documented, and there are numerous publications. There are sound files there of whooping cough that I am willing to share with Wikipedia, and if it were thought appropriate a paragraph of the findings of the still ongoing Keyworth Study might be useful. The study, by myself, a family doctor, shows the true characteristics and incidence in various ages over the years. The main observation I can make at the present time is that the current upsurge in cases that has caused so much concern, is possibly mostly due to the ability of adults (who are the main group to get it numerically) to diagnose themselves on my website (www.whoopingcough.net), and the availability of a quite recently developed blood test that can now confirm it easily. Adults are diagnosing themselves, demanding a blood test, finding it positive, and consequently raising the doctor's awareness of the disease in adults and the means of testing for it. Nevertheless, this late realisation that adults get it, and are possibly now the main source of infection for their infants, who have a high mortality rate (1-2%), has focussed attention on ways of reducing the relatively high incidence in infants too young to be immunised. The USA has taken a lead on this and recommends a 10 yearly booster for adults with TdaP. This has yet to happen in the UK where this study is conducted, and whose findings are bound to differ quantitatively from other countries --Dougjenkinson (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC) [1][reply]
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8836751. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentencesorphrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators willbeblocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. 50.153.113.5 (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Epidemiology and Infection journal published the following in February 2013: "Pertussis or whooping cough has persisted and resurged in the face of vaccination and has become one of the most prevalent vaccine-preventable diseases in Western countries." Wikipedia editor User:Tobus added the following here: "...pertussis has persisted in vaccinated populations and is today one of the most prevalent vaccine-preventable diseases in Western countries." I have notified the editor that I would make this report. - 50.153.113.5 (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
| The contents of the Mythology Concerning Whooping Cough page were merged into Whooping cough on 3 June 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I'm not especially pleased with where the old article is now placed in this one as the new "Folk remdies" section, but the merger needed doing. The section, like the original article, still needs references, though. Scrawlspacer (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it just should have been removed altogether, as it doesn't really bring anything useful or interesting to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.148.70 (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was a good case in NEJM 372:775 about a 16yo boy who got pertussis despite being vaccinated with the acellular vaccine, and a good well-documented discussion about acellular vs. whole cell vaccine. Summarized in NOW@NEJM: http://blogs.nejm.org/now/index.php/a-boy-with-coughing-spells/2015/02/20/ --Nbauman (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: reverted my edits without explanation. That's not good form. What's up? Lfstevens (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So two main points 1) the lead is laid out to follow the body of the text 2) the lead is 4 paragraphs per WP:LEAD Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zad68 13:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]doi:10.1128/CMR.00031-15 Review in CMR. JFW | T@lk 14:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "For most adults and adolescents, who often do not seek medical care until several weeks into their illness, serology may be used to determine whether antibody against pertussis toxin or another component of B. pertussis is present at high levels in the blood of the person." had no citation and seemed to plagiarize this article http://www.eurodiagnostica.com/index.php?headId=4&pageId=4&langId=1&diseaseId=8#nr2-tab , so I cited it and changed up the wording. ChaKeSeLiAl (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added information on the shift of affected age group , a reason for the shift, and a citation to a scientific journal in the Vaccine section. ChaKeSeLiAl (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced inaccurate death statistic and citation in the Epidemiology section. I attempted to search for the previous numbers in the citation, but was unable to find them. ChaKeSeLiAl (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilinked "zoonotic disease" in cause to the Zoonosis page. ChaKeSeLiAl (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the article states that whooping cough is more prevalent in the developed world, I think it might be worth discussing the effectiveness - or lack thereof - of common cough remedies that most people in Canada, US, etc might turn to in lieu of seeing a doctor or getting any other remedy. Are cough syrups such as Buckley's (I mention that one as it's supposed to be the strongest non-prescription remedy) at all effective or are they perhaps even dangerous? 68.146.233.86 (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
doi:10.1128/CMR.00083-15 JFW | T@lk 13:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have self-reverted a recent edit, since an identical edit to Pertussis vaccine was challenged. I have started a discussion there.
The article's 'history' section opens with the discovery of B. pertussis in 1906 but the following source can be used to add some earlier history:
Rennie, Claire (2016), "The Treatment of Whooping Cough in Eighteenth-Century England" (PDF), Ex Historia, 8: 1–33
Richard Nevell (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the move request was: moved per consensus. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pertussis → Whooping cough – "Whooping cough" is the WP:COMMONNAME, especially in English-speaking countries: [3]. Note that the Mayo Clinic, WebMD, and Medline Plus also title their articles "Whooping cough" rather than "Pertussis". Kaldari (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I created Category:Pertussis. At the time, this article had the title "Pertussis", so i used said category title. However, now that the article title has been moved, i think the category should also be retitled "Whooping cough", for consistency.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Goals:
1. Addition of global statistics of pertussis outbreaks
2. Addition of the difference between clinical presentation of pertussis in "Signs and Symptoms" portion.
3. Find information regarding the use of counter medication such as cough suppressants/lozenges with whooping cough in "Treatment"
Respond to peer review prompts on the ARTICLE talk page, following the statement made the group about its planned edits.
1. All group members should respond to the following prompts, with specific examples:
· Do the group’s edits improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
-- Yes, Kim's addition of statistics about India and other countries helps to add validity and expands on the gravity and prevalence of whooping cough in the world despite the fact that there is an existing vaccine. --Dannymrowr (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
-- The group's edits improve the article by providing more recent and accurate information about the prevalence of whooping cough in several countries.--Mparagas18 (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
-- Improved article by adding in statistics for Germany, China, and India from a reliable secondary source. Language is neutral and edits are balanced with respect to the overall structure of the article. --Alexuang (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
· Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
-- Yes, I believe group 3c's goal of adding statistics to the page was achieved --Dannymrowr (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
-- Yes, the group achieved their goal of adding accurate, relevant statistics about whooping cough prevalence.--Mparagas18 (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
-- Global statistics added in for three countries. U.S. statistics already present in the article. Treatment section only contains information on prescription medications. --Alexuang (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Each group should divide up the prompts below so that a different person responds to each question. Please sign your comments with your name and account name so that you receive credit.
· Person A: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…
-- Yes it does, the statistics are cited and straightforward with no opinion attached. It is simply the statistic of the prevalence of whooping cough. --Dannymrowr (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
· Person B: Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify…
--Overall yes. Fixed statistic for China (10340 -> 10390). Good review article. --Alexuang (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
· Person C. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify… -- Yes, the edits are formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style.-- Brendado425 (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
· Person D. Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify…
-- No, the statistics Kim added are appropriately cited and do not show any evidence of plagiarism or copyright.--Mparagas18 (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3501154/ may be airborne. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tetanus meanning transletion to khasi 2409:4066:113:DF2E:8518:718F:AEBB:D55B (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
