This article is within the scope of WikiProject Diptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of flies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DipteraWikipedia:WikiProject DipteraTemplate:WikiProject DipteraDiptera articles
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
Unsubstantiated(?) claim of some attacking living tissue[edit]
Issue: Article introduction states that sources say "... new literature has questioned that belief" (cites 2009 bmj study "responses" tab) and "non-selectivity of maggot action as wound surface increased over treatment" (cites 2011 archderm study.)
I examined these sources and did not find such statements. The 2009 study "response" mentioning this is not a scholarly article, just an "electronic letter" responding to the study. The letter, which does not seem to exist as a standalone publication, has 35+ citations but the living tissue cites are German or not applicable. My search for studies mentioning living tissue attacks by necrosis-eating maggots has been inconclusive.
The 2011 study found that wound surface increased at one stage, but does not state what this increase implies, nor identify it as an attack on living tissue.
There may or may not be an issue of necrosis-eating maggots also attacking living tissue, but these citations do not specify this? (it's also mentioned in another wiki article, regarding the secondary screwfly C. macellaria, but with no citation.)
I cbf to search all the other references for this possibility. Leaving "as is" for now, but hopefully someone will either find a source or delete these statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukrpickaxe (talk • contribs) 19:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The debridement section makes little sense; the first line claims there is no medical benefit from debrideing a wound, with or without maggots. This is simply untrue, as debridement of wounds resulting from burns and some reactions to venom is an important and necessary treatment for these conditions. Excising a tumor or removing necrotic, gangrene tissue without amputation is also embridement, and is required to prevent metastization, death, or serious injury. Perhaps whoever created that section misunderstood the article they were referencing, but I cannot decode the meaning as the references are broken links. As I almost never edit Wikipedia, I'm not comfortable editing the article myself, I just felt I should point that out. 2601:9:5D80:962:C474:6039:6E66:A989 (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I looked into the history of this page. It would seem that someone seriously vandalized the page and no one noticed. Awful English, and seemed to have it out for maggot therapy. In fact, there is a lot of information he removed that I don't think has made it back in the article, but I don't care enough to deal with the broken English and work it back in. Not sure how to reference it, but the edit was at 14:25, on 11 March 2012 by Madendoktor. 2601:9:5D80:962:892D:C63F:F8E3:70FE (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a copyright violation that's been in the article since 23 May 2006. The material was copied from here (a link to a February 2006 archive of the bter foundation site). While the material has changed slightly over time, most of it is still word-for-word. Kuru(talk)02:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In February 2004, the British National Health Service (NHS) permitted its doctors to prescribe maggot therapy. In the European Union, Canada and Japan, maggots are classified as medicinal drugs, needing a full market licence. In the U.S., maggots for medicinal use are classified as a device.[citation needed]
well, the congressional record ref records some rep saying that a doctor testified that he used maggot therapy. i will add something using these. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lead Image - Is there some "outline fourth-degree-burn-or-necrotic-non-healing-wound" image somewhere?[edit]
I know I know - this is the old "censorship v. decorum argument".. (especially in the current US-and-elsewhere these days it seem) But is there a less .. I don't know what to say other than "semi-repulsive-for-those-who-haven't-perfected-the-medical-student-art-of-observing-without-truely-seeing" (note I am not a medical student, I just read that phrase somewhere). Especially since the article title is not "Maggot Severe Wound Therapy", which might serve to prepare the reader for the image (maybe). Jimw338 (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Limitations: The wound must be of a type which can benefit from the application of maggot therapy. A moist, exudating wound with sufficient oxygen supply is a prerequisite." If you can find a freely licensed picture of such a wound that is less repulsive, please submit it; for me, though, it seems hard to even imagine any moist exudating wound with sufficient oxygen supply that would also not be repulsive. People don't put maggots into tiny wounds, there isn't room, and they don't put maggots into closed wounds, no oxygen. It's got to be an open wound, and also one that is moist and exudating.--GRuban (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Better questions: Why have an image at all? If so, why not collapsed by default? If you do have an image, why have it in a toplevel infobox or otherwise in the lead paragraph, guaranteeing that it will autoload on mouseover of a wikilink when JS is on and autotransclude at jumbo size into the top right of search engine results on most search engines such as Google? There are a ton of VISUALLY NON-GROTESQUE MEDICAL ARTICLES on Wikipedia that do not have any images yet, but I notice practically every one of these "incredibly icky articles involving putrescent mangled flesh" articles has at least one (often JUST ONE, and ALWAYS pinned right at the top of the article) image, invariably a photograph of the grossest possible relevant subject matter, and some hyper-autist squatting ceaselessly that insta-reverts the article whenever it's deleted or even moved downward.
This isn't a censorship issue, this is a "does this image add anything to the article?" issue. Aside from "maggoty flesh that could just as well be rotten hamburger", what does the extremely closeup image convey? Absolutely nothing that a drier image (e.g.: this illustration) wouldn't. And if you think having the exact grossest type of photo of the procedure in the article is of vital importance, why MUST it be at the top of an infobox pinned to the lead paragraph of the article? There is absolutely no practical benefit other than "because I can". 2600:1700:DA90:2AB0:91E6:3857:C9E0:63B9 (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
