![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
NOTE TO WHOEVER KEEPS EDITING THIS INFORMATION OUT AND RELEGATING IT:- It is fundamental and the most important information that as mumps is a mild illness in children in developed economies preventive measures are not necessary for them. It is further fundamental factual information that the British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain actively recommended against mumps vaccination based on clinical factors. They then changed that recommendation only when it went against government policy with the introduction of MMR in 1988 into Great Britain.
For the vast majority of children mumps vaccination is a clinically unnecessary invasive medical procedure.
Further, the mass vaccination programmes are driven by the World Health Organisation, which, although meant to be nominally part of the United Nations organisation is heavily influenced directly by the pharmaceutical industry. WHO's policies on disease eradication are not debated in any western democracy nor voted on. Further, the concept of disease eradication is a misnomer as scientific study of the extensive disease statistics demonstrate from countries like the UK, USA and Australia stretching back of the order of 200 years. In particular, the trends in mortality from numerous diseases was steadily dramatically and inexorably down without vaccination over the relevant periods. It was coincidental with improved quality of drinking water, nutrition and living conditions. Mortality fell from very high percentages of population over these periods to very low levels.
It is unscientific and factually incorrect to ascribe improved disease mortality to vaccination when disease mortality was falling dramatically of its own without vaccination and the figures demonstrate in numerous cases over 200 years that mortality continued to fall at the same rates after the introduction of vaccinations in many cases.
Further, this clear and incontrovertible evidence shows that the ravages of disease in less developed economies would similarly improve just as dramatically with improved quality of drinking water, nutrition and living conditions. Vaccination does nothing in that regard and can be shown to have serious consequences for the malnourished, sick and immunocompromised, which is frequently what children in very poor circumstances can be.
We in western developed nations use vaccination as a conscience improver to demonstrate how humanitarian we are in supposedly 'eradicating' disease when we are instead keeping the people concerned in poverty through our political and economic policies and those diseases were being eradicated by other means.
Accordingly, the following text has been restored:- "As mumps is a mild illness in children in developed economies preventive measures are not necessary for them. Some paediatricians recommend vaccination against mumps where such children have not contracted the disease naturally by the age of 9.
The British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain actively recommended against general mumps vaccination (see further below). They then changed that recommendation in 1987 when it became United Kingdom government policy in 1988 to introduce mass child mumps vaccination programmes with the MMR vaccine."
Further editing to restore the sense of the BMA recommendations have also been made. If anyone wishes to amend those changes, I expect to see that noted and justified so that others can follow the logic or otherwise of those making the changes.
Anon The Editor. 08:30 17 August 2005 GMT
"MMR immunization (vaccine) protects against measles, mumps and rubella and should be given to children 15 months old."
Just for completeness, can someone confirm it can affect the thyroid too? When I had mumps, it affected both parotids (first one side then the other), and, then, it supposedly affected the thyroid (or so concluded the doctor, as I got a swollen neck much like goitre). It didn't leave any long-term effects on thyroid regulation, though. Qvantamon 08:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia:Vandalism before you accuse anyone of vandalism. Please also explain why membership of the BMA is relevant to the discussion. You appear to be splitting hairs. JFW | T@lk 19:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
As a Wikipedia administrator I play a certain role in mediating discussions and discouraging disruptive behaviour. I think you are crossing a line by saying that Midgley's response is "vandalism". I think your reactions are the ones that can be classified as "disruptive behaviour". You have not addressed any of the points I made; instead you direct your wrath to other users. Please contribute constructively. JFW | T@lk 18:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
My only concerns are (1) you accused Midgley of vandalism (see the header above this section), (2) you keep on mentioning BMA membership as a liability (I never mentioned anything about being a doctor - do not put words in my mouth please). I'm not interested in the remainder of your points. If you want to discuss this, you may have to send him an email. JFW | T@lk 21:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This recent addition deleted:-
Proper medical references are required generally for this page but this particular recent addition especially needs a proper reference. It refers to something that does not seem to be in the normal literature about risks of mumps - this is an alleged complication that appears to have no basis in reality, according to what seems to be accepted medical knowledge. It is highly unlikely that an ovary would 'burst'. Eggs from ovaries will commonly be described as 'bursting' from an ovary in the normal course of ovulation. -- Anon The Editor 21:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that there is no mention made of avoiding contact with an infected person's saliva (from coughing and sneezing). I think that might be worth noting.
As currently stated this is not accurate and POV. It fails to deal with the risks being minimal to non-existent and makes the symptoms sound worse than they are. There is no balance here. 81.111.172.198 14:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The edit of this section at 20:42 on 19 November 2005 by user Nunh-huh is unusual. An edit which added balance to an unbalanced POV section was deleted on a basis that is not valid (stating "a page really can't cite itself....").
Further, the section has now been edited in a manner which will give the casual and the lay reader an unbalanced understanding of the risks of mumps, which are rare. It is not clear why this section continues to be edited in this manner. It is not clear why the valid edit was deleted.
Perhaps User Nunh-huh would be so kind as to explain? 81.111.172.198 17:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
So what is the "causes" section now embellished with a {{ sectNPOV}} tag? [3] I have rewritten the intro with original material which explains that adults are more at risk for complications than children, which is true. I have also mentioned infertility, because although rare this is understandably a major issue for most of our readers. I think it would be strange to tone down this article more than necessary. If there are figures available, why hide them? I think a publically acceptable number needed to treat to prevent a case of infertility is very high. JFW | T@lk 22:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree with 198 that mumps has been made more serious by the vaccine sellers, this is just good marketing, the same happens with measles, smallpox (considered less dangerous than measles in late 1800's), and the rest, chickenpox being the latest. The mumps vaccine isn't safe or effective as proven when the last MMR vaccine was withdrawn due to the mumps portion, Urabe[ deprecated source? which is still being sold, and they admitted the Rubini strain was completely useless, and they used that for years. Then there are plenty of studies and opinions from non-vaccinator medical doctors and other doctors that mumps is beneficial and safe when handled properly, eg with vitamin C. [ deprecated source? 86.128.92.75 19:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm a UK doctor and a BMA member and I will enquire what the progression of opinion was, and why. It is worth pointing out that all the doctors involved in making UK immunisation policy were BMA members, and that the Association does change its views on what should be done according to factors such as whether GPs have time to do it, and whether the thing proposed is more or less importnat than other things proposed. Clever though we are, we don't react to next years events until we get there. Alas.
I've recently been treating people with Mumps. Quite what "mild ... painful swelling of the testicles" and salivary glands would be is unclear to me, apart from an argument going on...
The last chap but one I saw with Mumps looked like a hamster and walked like John Wayne, he made it home but then was admitted to hospital for several days by a colleague. The last one was just able to stand unassisted, another non-trivial infection.
I've edited a bit, heading toward a more NPV in some things and adjusting temporal flow in causation (see above). THis is spare
(“Since mumps and its complications are very rarely serious there is little indication for the routine use of mumps vaccine”. [14.4.7: British National Formulary 'BNF' – No 11 1986]). By 1987/8 just prior to the introduction to the United Kingdom of the MMR vaccine on 1st October 1988 this recommendation had been altered to "Mumps vaccine is not at present recommended for routine use in the UK" [14.4: 1987 BNF 394 No 13 & 1988 BNF 407 No 15]. By 1989 the recommendation had been dropped and not replaced. It instead stated "See under MMR vaccine ..." and makes no recommendation of its own, stating in line with the then new general health policy "Health authorities will have an obligation to ensure that every child has received MMR vaccine by the time of entry to primary school, unless there is a valid contra-Indication, parental refusal, or laboratory evidence of previous infection. Vaccination records should be checked; where there is no record of MMR vaccination or where the child has received single-antigen measles vaccine, parents will be advised that their children should receive MMR vaccine." [14.4: 1989 (March) BNF 416]). Midgley ( talk · contribs)
Stop making personal attacks, 81.111.172.198, such as referring to people as "vaccinators" (which coming from you is a personal attack). Deal with the issues. I have no problem with citing BNF #11. Please tell me why known complications of mumps should not be mentioned in the intro. We can work on this article in a collaborative fashion if you calmly and without further name-calling list the points you have problems with. We can do another RFC if you so desire. Say, why can't you get a login name? JFW | T@lk 10:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Midgley 22:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Numerous personal attacks by 81.111.172.198 ( talk · contribs) and 86.128.169.252 ( talk · contribs) removed as per Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. JFW | T@lk 21:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Text asserts. Not demonstrates. (and vocal, is if I recall my English correctly, of the voice, not in print or text - if we are to name things correctly.) This is the Mumps page, not the Hepatitis page. As times change, so do the best things to do, and so do recommendations of them. Someone is confusing the relationship between the BMA (the association of most British doctors including the public health ones) and the government. On rather a lot of matters, the government asks doctors for advice, and from time to time takes it. It doesn't seem strange or embarrassing that when we decide that immunisation against a particular disease is indicated the government follows and makes it public policy. Rather sensible. And yes, it is nice to be paid for work (actually the changes in the current contract seem likely to reduce immunisation target payments for many practices, the additional services bought from us are mainly around management of chronic diseases - but that again is really a matter for a different page altogether. Midgley 01:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me but the aggression you got from me was calling you a vaccinator, as I recall. That would be open to debate, I'd have thought. And saying 'conspiracy theory' is just reverting to ad hominem, logical fallacy etc. It is obvious to me that you allopaths/vaccinators are going to suppress information critical to vaccination, which in this case is the argument that you have made mumps more dangerous to 'sell' the mmr vaccine. There is plenty of evidence for this if you look in old textbooks before the vaccine came out. Same with measles & chickenpox. That is before we get into the effectiveness of the mumps vaccine (some were 100% ineffective, and in one study 75% of mumps cases had been vaccinated). But I can't waste too much time talking when it wont make any difference to the mumps page, as editing is in the hands of vaccinators. As to the 'agression' of 198, that is open to debate, you are being judge and jury, and banishing him to the cells when his opinion upsets you. I wish I could do that to the wife! john 15:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
So instead of attempting to write WP:NPOV you lament the fate of your URLs on talkpages, accusing your opponents of being vaccinators and allopaths? That makes a lot of sense, john. JFW | T@lk 22:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
How about having figures, rather than the argument over whether they are rare or common? And listing the organs affected rather than the periodic assertiosn that they symptoms are "mild". THis was in an earlier version...
"Orchitis (swelling of the testes) occurs in 10-20% of infected males, but sterility only rarely ensues; a viral meningitis occurs in about 5% of those infected. In older people, other organs may become involved including the central nervous system, the pancreas, the prostate, the breasts, and other organs."
Can anyone produce a picture of the rash asserted as one of those mild effects BTW? I don't recall seeing one. Midgley 00:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
There is a dispute resolution process. This may help in real content disputes, but is inadequate where there's a clash of paradigms. Eventually, one of the parties tends to become abusive and is blocked. I've seen this dynamic time and time again, and led to the short-term block of 81.111.172.198. John's use of "vaccinator" is just plain silly, especially as he himself doesn't like the Name Game. Random quotes from individual medical graduates, while harmless, do become tedious and predictable. JFW | T@lk 21:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
No allopath is going to like being called a vaccinator, especially when he is pretending to be unbiased---silly is your euphemism for that, a new one for me. I can't make out exactly what Midgley is trying to say but he doesn't appear to answer any of my points except to make out a vaccine is still effective even if the victims had been vaccinated. A vaccinator even tried this one with me once over smallpox vaccine when well over 90% of the victims had been vaccinated, and had obviously, in this case, caught smallpox from the vaccine. I suspect he would have tried this argument with the Rubini mumps strain when it was in use, but even vaccinators now say it was 100% useless at preventing mumps. If I didn't study vaccination history I might have more confidence in vaccinators beliefs, which is why Dr Midgley is rather disdainful of old books, I would suggest, for if people really looked at the history books documenting the smallpox vaccine they would certainly never believe in any vaccine now, or the beliefs of vaccination. I like the one written by the Chief sanitation officer of Leicester, for example, who proved conclusively that sanitation was more effective than vaccination, buy some margin, and over 20 years [ deprecated source? He would be one of the 'mad', no doubt, of Dr Midgley. What I always find amusing, and scary, is the fact vaccinators claim vaccination was effective from day one, 200 or so years ago, from when Jenner started it, that must be a 100 or so years before preservatives! john 07:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
"If people are worried about endemic smallpox, it disappeared from this country not because of our mass herd immunity. It disappeared because of our economic development. And that's why it disappeared from Europe and many other countries, and it will not be sustained here, even if there were several importations, I'm sure. It's not from universal vaccination."----Dr. Mack [ deprecated source? john 22:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Above discussion primarily on smallpox now moved over to Talk:Smallpox vaccine. Andrew73 18:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
My 19yr old daughter (vaccinated once with MMR) caught mumps off her 19yr old boyfriend (vaccinated MMR a year ago). Kids used to get mumps pre school, now it is teenagers, hardly an improvement, but either way it seems pointless to give kids autism in an attempt to prevent a mild disease. The only reason has to be money. john 20:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I have yet to meet a qualified doctor who opposes breastfeeding. Stop projecting your theories on others, John. JFW | T@lk 13:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
John, end of strawmanning. This page is about mumps, not about breastfeeding. JFW | T@lk 13:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
If you can indicate which one of those viewpoints has any notability then of course this material may be included under the header "alternative medicine" or somesuch. And for heaven's sake drop your use of the word "allopath". JFW | T@lk 13:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
"Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories and claims in articles must only be included if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Wikipedia:Verifiability
"any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tearlach - accessed 28/1/2006
There is a great deal of dubious and POV information lacking balance on this page. It needs substantiation from reliable established accepted texts. Andrew73's reason for reversion [ [9]]is inadequate:-
The statistics quoted are of unknown origin. They do not seem to be an accurate reflection of incidence and severity of symptoms. There is already contradiction and exaggeration on this page which the editor who provided this information needs to disassociate himself from. The medical field is notorious for the proliferation of dubious and unreliable information so Wikipedia needs to try to ensure it is providing reliable information and to ensure readers are not mislead. 86.10.231.219 08:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference Andrew73. Please note following on mumps orchitis:-
There is no reference in the page to gaining lifetime immunity from contracting wild mumps in childhood. An important omission as it is a method of prevention of orchitis in adulthood.
May I suggest it is not accurate to say orchitis is painful. That is rare. Mostly discomfort.
Suggest symptoms listed separately common and less common under usual name with no explanation and add explanation of symptoms later if needed eg. orchitis, parotitis. In less common category, pre 1980's orchitis was extremely rare as most mumps was in under 10's. Now most mumps are in young adults. 86.10.231.219 15:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Those of us who are have been taking notes for a while...
Hippocrates,(460-375BC) I apologise for not producing the original Greek, but he has been dead these many years,
"IN THASUS, about the autumn equinox, and under the Pleiades, the rains were abundant, constant, and soft, with southerly winds; the winter southerly, the northerly winds faint, droughts; on the whole, the winter having the character of spring. The spring was southerly, cool, rains small in quantity. Summer, for the most part, cloudy, no rain, the Etesian winds, rare and small, blew in an irregular manner. The whole constitution of the season being thus inclined to the southerly, and with droughts early in the spring, from the preceding opposite and northerly state, ardent fevers occurred in a few instances, and these very mild, being rarely attended with hemorrhage, and never proving fatal. Swellings appeared about the ears, in many on either side, and in the greatest number on both sides, being unaccompanied by fever so as not to confine the patient to bed; in all cases they disappeared without giving trouble, neither did any of them come to suppuration, as is common in swellings from other causes. They were of a lax, large, diffused character, without inflammation or pain, and they went away without any critical sign. They seized children, adults, and mostly those who were engaged in the exercises of the palestra and gymnasium, but seldom attacked women. Many had dry coughs without expectoration, and accompanied with hoarseness of voice. In some instances earlier, and in others later, inflammations with pain seized sometimes one of the testicles, and sometimes both; some of these cases were accompanied with fever and some not; the greater part of these were attended with much suffering. In other respects they were free of disease, so as not to require medical assistance. "
So, most of them were bloody sore, a few were not too bad. As a doctor, that is the experience I have personally, and from colleagues of the disease currently.
A copy is at MIT: http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/epidemics.mb.txt
http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/en.aspx?articleId=255§ionId=6887
Describes it as "very painful" but does not give a reference for that. NHS DIrect is set up to answer calls from anyone in the UK who eg has severe pain in their testicles.
According to The Principles and Practice of Clincial Virology (4th Ed) "The description of Hippocrates in the fifth century BC of an epidemic disease with swelling near the ear and painful enlargement of the testis is usually cited as the first description of mumps. Outbreaks in military personnel have received special attention and mumps has been a considerable health problem for the armed forces until recently. In 1918, during the First World War the mortality rate among the US and French armies was as high as 75 per 1000 men, causing as serious a problem as the opposing army." Published Online: 26 Apr 2002 Editor(s): Arie J. Zuckerman, Jangu E. Banatvala, John R. Pattison Print ISBN: 0471973408 Online ISBN: 0470842474 Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
The American Urological Soc who know a thing or two about balls, say "Acute orchitis: During the acute phase of mumps orchitis, symptoms include pain of varying severity, tenderness and swelling. The parotiditis (swelling of facial glands) of mumps usually precedes orchitis by three to seven days." http://www.urologyhealth.org/adult/index.cfm?cat=11&topic=490
BJU International Volume 97 Page 138 - January 2006 doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.05902.x Volume 97 Issue 1 http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.05902.x Mumps orchitis in the non-immune postpubertal male: a resurgent threat to male fertility? JOE PHILIP*, DAVID SELVAN* and ANTHONY D. DESMOND* Of 195 males presenting with an acute history of testicular pain and swelling, 25 gave a history of mumps parotitis 4–11 days earlier. Three had bilateral orchitis and two needed scrotal exploration to exclude torsion. Scrotal ultrasonography findings varied from increased vascularity to abnormal testicular echo texture. Treatment included analgesia ..."
They omit a linear analogue scale analysis of the degree of pain, however anyone who has seen or had a torsion will know that it is toward the upper end.
Midgley 03:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
"Some anti-vaccine activists protest against the administration of a vaccine against mumps, claiming that the attenuated vaccine strain is harmful, and/or that the wild disease is beneficial. Disagreeing, the"
OK, everything should be referenced if it isn't comon experience so lets take it bit by bit...
"Some anti-vaccine activists protest against the administration of a vaccine against mumps,"
It might be fair to say that all of them protest, and the clause is intneded to indicate they are a sub-fraction of the human species rather than that the opinion in that group is split, but to suggest that none of them do seems peculiar given the discussions here on this page. Indeed, I suspect the perso nwho removed it actually could have provided a large number of references to protests against mumps vaccination. Is there a WP policy on pretending not to know what you keep saying?
"Disagreeing, the" WHO asserts its policy.
The opposite to the WHO disagreeing would be th eWHO agreeing, it is safe to say and if necessary refer to WHO's policy, that they agree. Back in I think.
So can we make controversy outo f th egrounds?
" claiming that the attenuated vaccine strain is harmful, and/or that the wild disease is beneficial."
Um... if there is really nobody here who can produce a reference to a claim being made that the attenuated mumps vaccine is harmful, then how short are their memories?
"A claim that the wild disease is bemeficial" If you'd look about an inch from here...
That edit on the grounds claimed does not look like an effort to improve the quality, or contribute to the material of WP.
~~
MMWR has it: the UK has an epidemic [10]. JFW | T@lk 22:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
US News media is reporting outbreaks in
User:AlMac| (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The bit in MMWR makes me think the number of patients in UK must have been less than 100k+ as the article states.
Year | UK Cases from MMWR [13] |
2003 | |
2004 | 16,367 |
2005 | 56,390 |
Heathhunnicutt 20:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
In this VOA article, the reporter seems to have spoken to the CDC when referencing the "100k" figure. Heathhunnicutt 17:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Looking at that table above and extrapolating:
Year | Cases "notified" from MMWR report |
2003 | no data |
2004 | 16,367 |
2005 | 56,390 |
April 2006 (Extrap.) | 18,797 |
Total | 91,554 (estimated) |
I did change the article text to read "around" 100k cases in UK. Heathhunnicutt 17:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Is the (USA) strain identified and compared to previous ones, yet? Midgley 00:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
When 2007 rolls around, is there a plan to move all the 2006 outbreak statistics to their own page (perhaps: Mumps (2006)), and continuing for each subsequent year? This would at least provide a historical trail of data. — Loadmaster 13:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it required that the article contains such an extensive documentation of statewide outbreaks of the virus in the US? I find it strange that there is no refernce to Maurice Hilleman on the page. -- EGG man 64 03:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Single reports of possibly interesting lines of research are far more the stuff of Medline, Nature, Science and the Lancet than they are encyclopaedic. When they become regular treatments, complete a clinical trial with a clear outcome or otherwise become confirmed is the time to add them. WP is not Medline. Midgley 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is there a list of all mumps outbreaks since 2006. What possible purpose could this serve.-- Notker Balbulus 17:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is something like the "outbreak table" I had in mind to summarize the current and ongoing outbreak.
Date | Iowa [1] | Wisconsin |
20 March 2006 | N.D. | 1 |
14 April 2006 | 600+ [15] | N.D. |
19 April 2006 | 14 | |
2 May 2006 | 1,487 [16] |
References
Heathhunnicutt 00:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you planning on removing the current info or just having the table alongside? The other information might be useful too. -- Joshuagross 02:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know where the name comes from? What do you suppose a single "mump" would be?
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 12:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
A 40-something friend of mine in Dallas TX just got the mumps (2006-09-07) . His doctor said it's only the second adult case he's ever seen in his entire career. — Loadmaster 15:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Why on earth is there a long list of cases? I'm contemplating removing it wholesale. WLU ( talk) 12:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Finally. And to User:GeertjePeertje, at the time, the news links were delayed and hadn't hit Google until a few hours later (I did look). More importantly, it was not NPOV and seemed inflammatory. WLU cleaned it up nicely - thank you. -- MartinezMD ( talk) 04:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
First Line: "Mumps can be caught by sexual intercourse also vaginas can get infected"
Needs to be removed/edited. Zorglemeister 00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
There was also a line "run its course before wanking". I changed it to receding. Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.204.28 ( talk) 10:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I have edited and corrected an assertion under the "Treatment" heading, because it only pointed to Aspirin conterindication for use in young children (!!!), for risk of Reye's Syndrome.
Anyone unfamiliar with the issue should read (should have read) the Wikipedia article on Reye's syndrome, where a specific counter indication for children and adults under 19 yers is mentioned (not just small kids).
Anyone unfemmiliar with medical terminology shold NOT edit treatment related articles.
Szjanos ( talk) 15:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The Lancet has retracted Wakefield's research regarding the MMR vaccine and autism. Someone better at editing than I should make the proper changes in Prevention text. retraction DOI reference: doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60175-7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.6.215 ( talk) 01:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The article currently contains this " before and after mumps" image. Is this a valid/useful pair of images? Picture on the left is smiling, person on the right is not and is also angling their face up. It almost looks like they are two completely different people - and it's not at all clear whether that's due to mumps or because they are different people!
Could we get an image that comes with some kind of source and whose settings are more controlled?
99.225.148.19 15:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
These images are misleading because of the extreme differences in light, lens distortion and camera angle. It creates an exaggerated effect, and questionable authenticity. I suggest removal. Richardsidler ( talk) 18:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You would be hard pressed to find equal lighting and angles on a medical photograph in the acute disease phase. Also, mumps can be pretty impressive in some cases. We should use these until there are better ones available.-- MartinezMD ( talk) 23:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
what is the point?
in one photo he is smiling, then he isn't. for a start they should be labelled before and during an infection of mumps, but no symptoms can be seen in the second pic.
the photos are useless and unhelfpful, delete them i say.
Doktordoris ( talk) 02:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
is it worth mentioning that in my youth, at least (i.e. the 1950's), pre-adolescent mumps infection in males was considered a good thing. this, of course because of the risk of orchitis and resultant sterility if the disease were contracted after puberty. parents held 'mumps parties', where all the male child's male friends were invited with the specific intention of their becoming infected. Toyokuni3 ( talk) 16:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
People in many countries may not be aware that there are places, Canada, for example (where I live), where the word "Aspirin" is a commercial trademark, owned by the Bayer company. Using this word as if it were a generic name for the drug can lead, and has led, to legal procedings. In Canadian drugstores, "Aspirin" is sold, but is always made by Bayer. The same compound made by other manufacturers is also sold, but the packages are labelled "ASA", which is short for "acetylsalicylic acid", the chemical name of the compound. Canadians are used to this situation, and normally talk about "ASA", rather than "Aspirin".
Wikipedia tries to avoid misusing trademarks, so I have edited this article to replace "Aspirin" with "ASA". I've linked this to "Acetylsalicylic acid", but this gets redirected to the page called "Aspirin"! More work is obviously needed to get rid of this trademark.
DOwenWilliams ( talk) 03:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I've had a quick look at the most recent sources, because some of the sources have become very stale.
Will add if I find anything else. JFW | T@lk 14:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I will be editing this article over the next 2 or so months for a course in medical school. I'm a bit new at this but I will be adding much as I can, my goal is to bring this article to at least B-class. Mjbailey ( talk) 02:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Under Prevention, the article states:"Some anti-vaccine activists protest against the administration of a vaccine against mumps, claiming that the attenuated vaccine strain is harmful, and/or that the wild disease is beneficial. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that the wild disease is beneficial, or that the MMR vaccine is harmful." There is in fact evidence that the wild form of the disease may be beneficial in the prevention of ovarian cancer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951028/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.34.220.214 ( talk) 05:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
First paragraph states that the complication of ovarian swelling does not affect fertility. "Signs and Symptoms: Complications" states that half of the 5% suffering ovarian swelling as a complication will have fertility issues. I don't know which is true, but one of them needs to be corrected! Thanks 92.4.1.26 ( talk) 00:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mumps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I came here looking for information on whether mumps was recognized as a separate disease in ancient times or whether it has only more recently been recognized as such (like, for example, typhus, which was only recognized as a separate disease in the 15th century). I don't have access to databases or sources that might have this information, but surely someone here does; it would be useful for history students (and writers), at the very least. -- 24.76.103.169 ( talk) 00:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Malaise more or less means "feeling tired". "feeling generally unwell". IMO it is perfectly reasonable to use easier to understand language. Also supported by
WP:MEDMOS.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
01:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
NOTE TO WHOEVER KEEPS EDITING THIS INFORMATION OUT AND RELEGATING IT:- It is fundamental and the most important information that as mumps is a mild illness in children in developed economies preventive measures are not necessary for them. It is further fundamental factual information that the British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain actively recommended against mumps vaccination based on clinical factors. They then changed that recommendation only when it went against government policy with the introduction of MMR in 1988 into Great Britain.
For the vast majority of children mumps vaccination is a clinically unnecessary invasive medical procedure.
Further, the mass vaccination programmes are driven by the World Health Organisation, which, although meant to be nominally part of the United Nations organisation is heavily influenced directly by the pharmaceutical industry. WHO's policies on disease eradication are not debated in any western democracy nor voted on. Further, the concept of disease eradication is a misnomer as scientific study of the extensive disease statistics demonstrate from countries like the UK, USA and Australia stretching back of the order of 200 years. In particular, the trends in mortality from numerous diseases was steadily dramatically and inexorably down without vaccination over the relevant periods. It was coincidental with improved quality of drinking water, nutrition and living conditions. Mortality fell from very high percentages of population over these periods to very low levels.
It is unscientific and factually incorrect to ascribe improved disease mortality to vaccination when disease mortality was falling dramatically of its own without vaccination and the figures demonstrate in numerous cases over 200 years that mortality continued to fall at the same rates after the introduction of vaccinations in many cases.
Further, this clear and incontrovertible evidence shows that the ravages of disease in less developed economies would similarly improve just as dramatically with improved quality of drinking water, nutrition and living conditions. Vaccination does nothing in that regard and can be shown to have serious consequences for the malnourished, sick and immunocompromised, which is frequently what children in very poor circumstances can be.
We in western developed nations use vaccination as a conscience improver to demonstrate how humanitarian we are in supposedly 'eradicating' disease when we are instead keeping the people concerned in poverty through our political and economic policies and those diseases were being eradicated by other means.
Accordingly, the following text has been restored:- "As mumps is a mild illness in children in developed economies preventive measures are not necessary for them. Some paediatricians recommend vaccination against mumps where such children have not contracted the disease naturally by the age of 9.
The British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain actively recommended against general mumps vaccination (see further below). They then changed that recommendation in 1987 when it became United Kingdom government policy in 1988 to introduce mass child mumps vaccination programmes with the MMR vaccine."
Further editing to restore the sense of the BMA recommendations have also been made. If anyone wishes to amend those changes, I expect to see that noted and justified so that others can follow the logic or otherwise of those making the changes.
Anon The Editor. 08:30 17 August 2005 GMT
"MMR immunization (vaccine) protects against measles, mumps and rubella and should be given to children 15 months old."
Just for completeness, can someone confirm it can affect the thyroid too? When I had mumps, it affected both parotids (first one side then the other), and, then, it supposedly affected the thyroid (or so concluded the doctor, as I got a swollen neck much like goitre). It didn't leave any long-term effects on thyroid regulation, though. Qvantamon 08:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia:Vandalism before you accuse anyone of vandalism. Please also explain why membership of the BMA is relevant to the discussion. You appear to be splitting hairs. JFW | T@lk 19:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
As a Wikipedia administrator I play a certain role in mediating discussions and discouraging disruptive behaviour. I think you are crossing a line by saying that Midgley's response is "vandalism". I think your reactions are the ones that can be classified as "disruptive behaviour". You have not addressed any of the points I made; instead you direct your wrath to other users. Please contribute constructively. JFW | T@lk 18:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
My only concerns are (1) you accused Midgley of vandalism (see the header above this section), (2) you keep on mentioning BMA membership as a liability (I never mentioned anything about being a doctor - do not put words in my mouth please). I'm not interested in the remainder of your points. If you want to discuss this, you may have to send him an email. JFW | T@lk 21:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This recent addition deleted:-
Proper medical references are required generally for this page but this particular recent addition especially needs a proper reference. It refers to something that does not seem to be in the normal literature about risks of mumps - this is an alleged complication that appears to have no basis in reality, according to what seems to be accepted medical knowledge. It is highly unlikely that an ovary would 'burst'. Eggs from ovaries will commonly be described as 'bursting' from an ovary in the normal course of ovulation. -- Anon The Editor 21:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that there is no mention made of avoiding contact with an infected person's saliva (from coughing and sneezing). I think that might be worth noting.
As currently stated this is not accurate and POV. It fails to deal with the risks being minimal to non-existent and makes the symptoms sound worse than they are. There is no balance here. 81.111.172.198 14:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The edit of this section at 20:42 on 19 November 2005 by user Nunh-huh is unusual. An edit which added balance to an unbalanced POV section was deleted on a basis that is not valid (stating "a page really can't cite itself....").
Further, the section has now been edited in a manner which will give the casual and the lay reader an unbalanced understanding of the risks of mumps, which are rare. It is not clear why this section continues to be edited in this manner. It is not clear why the valid edit was deleted.
Perhaps User Nunh-huh would be so kind as to explain? 81.111.172.198 17:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
So what is the "causes" section now embellished with a {{ sectNPOV}} tag? [3] I have rewritten the intro with original material which explains that adults are more at risk for complications than children, which is true. I have also mentioned infertility, because although rare this is understandably a major issue for most of our readers. I think it would be strange to tone down this article more than necessary. If there are figures available, why hide them? I think a publically acceptable number needed to treat to prevent a case of infertility is very high. JFW | T@lk 22:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree with 198 that mumps has been made more serious by the vaccine sellers, this is just good marketing, the same happens with measles, smallpox (considered less dangerous than measles in late 1800's), and the rest, chickenpox being the latest. The mumps vaccine isn't safe or effective as proven when the last MMR vaccine was withdrawn due to the mumps portion, Urabe[ deprecated source? which is still being sold, and they admitted the Rubini strain was completely useless, and they used that for years. Then there are plenty of studies and opinions from non-vaccinator medical doctors and other doctors that mumps is beneficial and safe when handled properly, eg with vitamin C. [ deprecated source? 86.128.92.75 19:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm a UK doctor and a BMA member and I will enquire what the progression of opinion was, and why. It is worth pointing out that all the doctors involved in making UK immunisation policy were BMA members, and that the Association does change its views on what should be done according to factors such as whether GPs have time to do it, and whether the thing proposed is more or less importnat than other things proposed. Clever though we are, we don't react to next years events until we get there. Alas.
I've recently been treating people with Mumps. Quite what "mild ... painful swelling of the testicles" and salivary glands would be is unclear to me, apart from an argument going on...
The last chap but one I saw with Mumps looked like a hamster and walked like John Wayne, he made it home but then was admitted to hospital for several days by a colleague. The last one was just able to stand unassisted, another non-trivial infection.
I've edited a bit, heading toward a more NPV in some things and adjusting temporal flow in causation (see above). THis is spare
(“Since mumps and its complications are very rarely serious there is little indication for the routine use of mumps vaccine”. [14.4.7: British National Formulary 'BNF' – No 11 1986]). By 1987/8 just prior to the introduction to the United Kingdom of the MMR vaccine on 1st October 1988 this recommendation had been altered to "Mumps vaccine is not at present recommended for routine use in the UK" [14.4: 1987 BNF 394 No 13 & 1988 BNF 407 No 15]. By 1989 the recommendation had been dropped and not replaced. It instead stated "See under MMR vaccine ..." and makes no recommendation of its own, stating in line with the then new general health policy "Health authorities will have an obligation to ensure that every child has received MMR vaccine by the time of entry to primary school, unless there is a valid contra-Indication, parental refusal, or laboratory evidence of previous infection. Vaccination records should be checked; where there is no record of MMR vaccination or where the child has received single-antigen measles vaccine, parents will be advised that their children should receive MMR vaccine." [14.4: 1989 (March) BNF 416]). Midgley ( talk · contribs)
Stop making personal attacks, 81.111.172.198, such as referring to people as "vaccinators" (which coming from you is a personal attack). Deal with the issues. I have no problem with citing BNF #11. Please tell me why known complications of mumps should not be mentioned in the intro. We can work on this article in a collaborative fashion if you calmly and without further name-calling list the points you have problems with. We can do another RFC if you so desire. Say, why can't you get a login name? JFW | T@lk 10:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Midgley 22:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Numerous personal attacks by 81.111.172.198 ( talk · contribs) and 86.128.169.252 ( talk · contribs) removed as per Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. JFW | T@lk 21:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Text asserts. Not demonstrates. (and vocal, is if I recall my English correctly, of the voice, not in print or text - if we are to name things correctly.) This is the Mumps page, not the Hepatitis page. As times change, so do the best things to do, and so do recommendations of them. Someone is confusing the relationship between the BMA (the association of most British doctors including the public health ones) and the government. On rather a lot of matters, the government asks doctors for advice, and from time to time takes it. It doesn't seem strange or embarrassing that when we decide that immunisation against a particular disease is indicated the government follows and makes it public policy. Rather sensible. And yes, it is nice to be paid for work (actually the changes in the current contract seem likely to reduce immunisation target payments for many practices, the additional services bought from us are mainly around management of chronic diseases - but that again is really a matter for a different page altogether. Midgley 01:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me but the aggression you got from me was calling you a vaccinator, as I recall. That would be open to debate, I'd have thought. And saying 'conspiracy theory' is just reverting to ad hominem, logical fallacy etc. It is obvious to me that you allopaths/vaccinators are going to suppress information critical to vaccination, which in this case is the argument that you have made mumps more dangerous to 'sell' the mmr vaccine. There is plenty of evidence for this if you look in old textbooks before the vaccine came out. Same with measles & chickenpox. That is before we get into the effectiveness of the mumps vaccine (some were 100% ineffective, and in one study 75% of mumps cases had been vaccinated). But I can't waste too much time talking when it wont make any difference to the mumps page, as editing is in the hands of vaccinators. As to the 'agression' of 198, that is open to debate, you are being judge and jury, and banishing him to the cells when his opinion upsets you. I wish I could do that to the wife! john 15:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
So instead of attempting to write WP:NPOV you lament the fate of your URLs on talkpages, accusing your opponents of being vaccinators and allopaths? That makes a lot of sense, john. JFW | T@lk 22:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
How about having figures, rather than the argument over whether they are rare or common? And listing the organs affected rather than the periodic assertiosn that they symptoms are "mild". THis was in an earlier version...
"Orchitis (swelling of the testes) occurs in 10-20% of infected males, but sterility only rarely ensues; a viral meningitis occurs in about 5% of those infected. In older people, other organs may become involved including the central nervous system, the pancreas, the prostate, the breasts, and other organs."
Can anyone produce a picture of the rash asserted as one of those mild effects BTW? I don't recall seeing one. Midgley 00:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
There is a dispute resolution process. This may help in real content disputes, but is inadequate where there's a clash of paradigms. Eventually, one of the parties tends to become abusive and is blocked. I've seen this dynamic time and time again, and led to the short-term block of 81.111.172.198. John's use of "vaccinator" is just plain silly, especially as he himself doesn't like the Name Game. Random quotes from individual medical graduates, while harmless, do become tedious and predictable. JFW | T@lk 21:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
No allopath is going to like being called a vaccinator, especially when he is pretending to be unbiased---silly is your euphemism for that, a new one for me. I can't make out exactly what Midgley is trying to say but he doesn't appear to answer any of my points except to make out a vaccine is still effective even if the victims had been vaccinated. A vaccinator even tried this one with me once over smallpox vaccine when well over 90% of the victims had been vaccinated, and had obviously, in this case, caught smallpox from the vaccine. I suspect he would have tried this argument with the Rubini mumps strain when it was in use, but even vaccinators now say it was 100% useless at preventing mumps. If I didn't study vaccination history I might have more confidence in vaccinators beliefs, which is why Dr Midgley is rather disdainful of old books, I would suggest, for if people really looked at the history books documenting the smallpox vaccine they would certainly never believe in any vaccine now, or the beliefs of vaccination. I like the one written by the Chief sanitation officer of Leicester, for example, who proved conclusively that sanitation was more effective than vaccination, buy some margin, and over 20 years [ deprecated source? He would be one of the 'mad', no doubt, of Dr Midgley. What I always find amusing, and scary, is the fact vaccinators claim vaccination was effective from day one, 200 or so years ago, from when Jenner started it, that must be a 100 or so years before preservatives! john 07:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
"If people are worried about endemic smallpox, it disappeared from this country not because of our mass herd immunity. It disappeared because of our economic development. And that's why it disappeared from Europe and many other countries, and it will not be sustained here, even if there were several importations, I'm sure. It's not from universal vaccination."----Dr. Mack [ deprecated source? john 22:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Above discussion primarily on smallpox now moved over to Talk:Smallpox vaccine. Andrew73 18:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
My 19yr old daughter (vaccinated once with MMR) caught mumps off her 19yr old boyfriend (vaccinated MMR a year ago). Kids used to get mumps pre school, now it is teenagers, hardly an improvement, but either way it seems pointless to give kids autism in an attempt to prevent a mild disease. The only reason has to be money. john 20:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I have yet to meet a qualified doctor who opposes breastfeeding. Stop projecting your theories on others, John. JFW | T@lk 13:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
John, end of strawmanning. This page is about mumps, not about breastfeeding. JFW | T@lk 13:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
If you can indicate which one of those viewpoints has any notability then of course this material may be included under the header "alternative medicine" or somesuch. And for heaven's sake drop your use of the word "allopath". JFW | T@lk 13:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
"Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories and claims in articles must only be included if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Wikipedia:Verifiability
"any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tearlach - accessed 28/1/2006
There is a great deal of dubious and POV information lacking balance on this page. It needs substantiation from reliable established accepted texts. Andrew73's reason for reversion [ [9]]is inadequate:-
The statistics quoted are of unknown origin. They do not seem to be an accurate reflection of incidence and severity of symptoms. There is already contradiction and exaggeration on this page which the editor who provided this information needs to disassociate himself from. The medical field is notorious for the proliferation of dubious and unreliable information so Wikipedia needs to try to ensure it is providing reliable information and to ensure readers are not mislead. 86.10.231.219 08:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference Andrew73. Please note following on mumps orchitis:-
There is no reference in the page to gaining lifetime immunity from contracting wild mumps in childhood. An important omission as it is a method of prevention of orchitis in adulthood.
May I suggest it is not accurate to say orchitis is painful. That is rare. Mostly discomfort.
Suggest symptoms listed separately common and less common under usual name with no explanation and add explanation of symptoms later if needed eg. orchitis, parotitis. In less common category, pre 1980's orchitis was extremely rare as most mumps was in under 10's. Now most mumps are in young adults. 86.10.231.219 15:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Those of us who are have been taking notes for a while...
Hippocrates,(460-375BC) I apologise for not producing the original Greek, but he has been dead these many years,
"IN THASUS, about the autumn equinox, and under the Pleiades, the rains were abundant, constant, and soft, with southerly winds; the winter southerly, the northerly winds faint, droughts; on the whole, the winter having the character of spring. The spring was southerly, cool, rains small in quantity. Summer, for the most part, cloudy, no rain, the Etesian winds, rare and small, blew in an irregular manner. The whole constitution of the season being thus inclined to the southerly, and with droughts early in the spring, from the preceding opposite and northerly state, ardent fevers occurred in a few instances, and these very mild, being rarely attended with hemorrhage, and never proving fatal. Swellings appeared about the ears, in many on either side, and in the greatest number on both sides, being unaccompanied by fever so as not to confine the patient to bed; in all cases they disappeared without giving trouble, neither did any of them come to suppuration, as is common in swellings from other causes. They were of a lax, large, diffused character, without inflammation or pain, and they went away without any critical sign. They seized children, adults, and mostly those who were engaged in the exercises of the palestra and gymnasium, but seldom attacked women. Many had dry coughs without expectoration, and accompanied with hoarseness of voice. In some instances earlier, and in others later, inflammations with pain seized sometimes one of the testicles, and sometimes both; some of these cases were accompanied with fever and some not; the greater part of these were attended with much suffering. In other respects they were free of disease, so as not to require medical assistance. "
So, most of them were bloody sore, a few were not too bad. As a doctor, that is the experience I have personally, and from colleagues of the disease currently.
A copy is at MIT: http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/epidemics.mb.txt
http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/en.aspx?articleId=255§ionId=6887
Describes it as "very painful" but does not give a reference for that. NHS DIrect is set up to answer calls from anyone in the UK who eg has severe pain in their testicles.
According to The Principles and Practice of Clincial Virology (4th Ed) "The description of Hippocrates in the fifth century BC of an epidemic disease with swelling near the ear and painful enlargement of the testis is usually cited as the first description of mumps. Outbreaks in military personnel have received special attention and mumps has been a considerable health problem for the armed forces until recently. In 1918, during the First World War the mortality rate among the US and French armies was as high as 75 per 1000 men, causing as serious a problem as the opposing army." Published Online: 26 Apr 2002 Editor(s): Arie J. Zuckerman, Jangu E. Banatvala, John R. Pattison Print ISBN: 0471973408 Online ISBN: 0470842474 Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
The American Urological Soc who know a thing or two about balls, say "Acute orchitis: During the acute phase of mumps orchitis, symptoms include pain of varying severity, tenderness and swelling. The parotiditis (swelling of facial glands) of mumps usually precedes orchitis by three to seven days." http://www.urologyhealth.org/adult/index.cfm?cat=11&topic=490
BJU International Volume 97 Page 138 - January 2006 doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.05902.x Volume 97 Issue 1 http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.05902.x Mumps orchitis in the non-immune postpubertal male: a resurgent threat to male fertility? JOE PHILIP*, DAVID SELVAN* and ANTHONY D. DESMOND* Of 195 males presenting with an acute history of testicular pain and swelling, 25 gave a history of mumps parotitis 4–11 days earlier. Three had bilateral orchitis and two needed scrotal exploration to exclude torsion. Scrotal ultrasonography findings varied from increased vascularity to abnormal testicular echo texture. Treatment included analgesia ..."
They omit a linear analogue scale analysis of the degree of pain, however anyone who has seen or had a torsion will know that it is toward the upper end.
Midgley 03:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
"Some anti-vaccine activists protest against the administration of a vaccine against mumps, claiming that the attenuated vaccine strain is harmful, and/or that the wild disease is beneficial. Disagreeing, the"
OK, everything should be referenced if it isn't comon experience so lets take it bit by bit...
"Some anti-vaccine activists protest against the administration of a vaccine against mumps,"
It might be fair to say that all of them protest, and the clause is intneded to indicate they are a sub-fraction of the human species rather than that the opinion in that group is split, but to suggest that none of them do seems peculiar given the discussions here on this page. Indeed, I suspect the perso nwho removed it actually could have provided a large number of references to protests against mumps vaccination. Is there a WP policy on pretending not to know what you keep saying?
"Disagreeing, the" WHO asserts its policy.
The opposite to the WHO disagreeing would be th eWHO agreeing, it is safe to say and if necessary refer to WHO's policy, that they agree. Back in I think.
So can we make controversy outo f th egrounds?
" claiming that the attenuated vaccine strain is harmful, and/or that the wild disease is beneficial."
Um... if there is really nobody here who can produce a reference to a claim being made that the attenuated mumps vaccine is harmful, then how short are their memories?
"A claim that the wild disease is bemeficial" If you'd look about an inch from here...
That edit on the grounds claimed does not look like an effort to improve the quality, or contribute to the material of WP.
~~
MMWR has it: the UK has an epidemic [10]. JFW | T@lk 22:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
US News media is reporting outbreaks in
User:AlMac| (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The bit in MMWR makes me think the number of patients in UK must have been less than 100k+ as the article states.
Year | UK Cases from MMWR [13] |
2003 | |
2004 | 16,367 |
2005 | 56,390 |
Heathhunnicutt 20:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
In this VOA article, the reporter seems to have spoken to the CDC when referencing the "100k" figure. Heathhunnicutt 17:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Looking at that table above and extrapolating:
Year | Cases "notified" from MMWR report |
2003 | no data |
2004 | 16,367 |
2005 | 56,390 |
April 2006 (Extrap.) | 18,797 |
Total | 91,554 (estimated) |
I did change the article text to read "around" 100k cases in UK. Heathhunnicutt 17:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Is the (USA) strain identified and compared to previous ones, yet? Midgley 00:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
When 2007 rolls around, is there a plan to move all the 2006 outbreak statistics to their own page (perhaps: Mumps (2006)), and continuing for each subsequent year? This would at least provide a historical trail of data. — Loadmaster 13:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it required that the article contains such an extensive documentation of statewide outbreaks of the virus in the US? I find it strange that there is no refernce to Maurice Hilleman on the page. -- EGG man 64 03:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Single reports of possibly interesting lines of research are far more the stuff of Medline, Nature, Science and the Lancet than they are encyclopaedic. When they become regular treatments, complete a clinical trial with a clear outcome or otherwise become confirmed is the time to add them. WP is not Medline. Midgley 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is there a list of all mumps outbreaks since 2006. What possible purpose could this serve.-- Notker Balbulus 17:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is something like the "outbreak table" I had in mind to summarize the current and ongoing outbreak.
Date | Iowa [1] | Wisconsin |
20 March 2006 | N.D. | 1 |
14 April 2006 | 600+ [15] | N.D. |
19 April 2006 | 14 | |
2 May 2006 | 1,487 [16] |
References
Heathhunnicutt 00:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you planning on removing the current info or just having the table alongside? The other information might be useful too. -- Joshuagross 02:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know where the name comes from? What do you suppose a single "mump" would be?
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 12:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
A 40-something friend of mine in Dallas TX just got the mumps (2006-09-07) . His doctor said it's only the second adult case he's ever seen in his entire career. — Loadmaster 15:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Why on earth is there a long list of cases? I'm contemplating removing it wholesale. WLU ( talk) 12:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Finally. And to User:GeertjePeertje, at the time, the news links were delayed and hadn't hit Google until a few hours later (I did look). More importantly, it was not NPOV and seemed inflammatory. WLU cleaned it up nicely - thank you. -- MartinezMD ( talk) 04:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
First Line: "Mumps can be caught by sexual intercourse also vaginas can get infected"
Needs to be removed/edited. Zorglemeister 00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
There was also a line "run its course before wanking". I changed it to receding. Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.204.28 ( talk) 10:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I have edited and corrected an assertion under the "Treatment" heading, because it only pointed to Aspirin conterindication for use in young children (!!!), for risk of Reye's Syndrome.
Anyone unfamiliar with the issue should read (should have read) the Wikipedia article on Reye's syndrome, where a specific counter indication for children and adults under 19 yers is mentioned (not just small kids).
Anyone unfemmiliar with medical terminology shold NOT edit treatment related articles.
Szjanos ( talk) 15:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The Lancet has retracted Wakefield's research regarding the MMR vaccine and autism. Someone better at editing than I should make the proper changes in Prevention text. retraction DOI reference: doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60175-7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.6.215 ( talk) 01:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The article currently contains this " before and after mumps" image. Is this a valid/useful pair of images? Picture on the left is smiling, person on the right is not and is also angling their face up. It almost looks like they are two completely different people - and it's not at all clear whether that's due to mumps or because they are different people!
Could we get an image that comes with some kind of source and whose settings are more controlled?
99.225.148.19 15:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
These images are misleading because of the extreme differences in light, lens distortion and camera angle. It creates an exaggerated effect, and questionable authenticity. I suggest removal. Richardsidler ( talk) 18:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You would be hard pressed to find equal lighting and angles on a medical photograph in the acute disease phase. Also, mumps can be pretty impressive in some cases. We should use these until there are better ones available.-- MartinezMD ( talk) 23:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
what is the point?
in one photo he is smiling, then he isn't. for a start they should be labelled before and during an infection of mumps, but no symptoms can be seen in the second pic.
the photos are useless and unhelfpful, delete them i say.
Doktordoris ( talk) 02:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
is it worth mentioning that in my youth, at least (i.e. the 1950's), pre-adolescent mumps infection in males was considered a good thing. this, of course because of the risk of orchitis and resultant sterility if the disease were contracted after puberty. parents held 'mumps parties', where all the male child's male friends were invited with the specific intention of their becoming infected. Toyokuni3 ( talk) 16:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
People in many countries may not be aware that there are places, Canada, for example (where I live), where the word "Aspirin" is a commercial trademark, owned by the Bayer company. Using this word as if it were a generic name for the drug can lead, and has led, to legal procedings. In Canadian drugstores, "Aspirin" is sold, but is always made by Bayer. The same compound made by other manufacturers is also sold, but the packages are labelled "ASA", which is short for "acetylsalicylic acid", the chemical name of the compound. Canadians are used to this situation, and normally talk about "ASA", rather than "Aspirin".
Wikipedia tries to avoid misusing trademarks, so I have edited this article to replace "Aspirin" with "ASA". I've linked this to "Acetylsalicylic acid", but this gets redirected to the page called "Aspirin"! More work is obviously needed to get rid of this trademark.
DOwenWilliams ( talk) 03:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I've had a quick look at the most recent sources, because some of the sources have become very stale.
Will add if I find anything else. JFW | T@lk 14:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I will be editing this article over the next 2 or so months for a course in medical school. I'm a bit new at this but I will be adding much as I can, my goal is to bring this article to at least B-class. Mjbailey ( talk) 02:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Under Prevention, the article states:"Some anti-vaccine activists protest against the administration of a vaccine against mumps, claiming that the attenuated vaccine strain is harmful, and/or that the wild disease is beneficial. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that the wild disease is beneficial, or that the MMR vaccine is harmful." There is in fact evidence that the wild form of the disease may be beneficial in the prevention of ovarian cancer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951028/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.34.220.214 ( talk) 05:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
First paragraph states that the complication of ovarian swelling does not affect fertility. "Signs and Symptoms: Complications" states that half of the 5% suffering ovarian swelling as a complication will have fertility issues. I don't know which is true, but one of them needs to be corrected! Thanks 92.4.1.26 ( talk) 00:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mumps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I came here looking for information on whether mumps was recognized as a separate disease in ancient times or whether it has only more recently been recognized as such (like, for example, typhus, which was only recognized as a separate disease in the 15th century). I don't have access to databases or sources that might have this information, but surely someone here does; it would be useful for history students (and writers), at the very least. -- 24.76.103.169 ( talk) 00:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Malaise more or less means "feeling tired". "feeling generally unwell". IMO it is perfectly reasonable to use easier to understand language. Also supported by
WP:MEDMOS.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
01:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)