"Francisella tularensis is one of the most infective bacteria known. Fewer than ten organisms have been shown to lead to severe illness."
This statement is confusing to me. It seems to say both that the bacteria is widely distributed but also rare. Could someone clarify? --K erowyn 01:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Clarification: This statement refers to infectivity in a host, not distribution in an environment. That is, it doesn't take many organsims to cause illness. Other pathogens require a much higher number (e.g. tens of thousands) of organisms to cause disease.-- Elozares 20:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Is tularemia related to plague? 71.194.8.121 04:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)ac
Can anyone provide a citation for, or verify, the text "No vaccine is available to the general public." under the section "Treatment"? According to http://www.beaglesunlimited.net/rabbithunting_tularemia.htm (under section "Treatment of tularemia") there is a vaccine available for tularemia. Vulturejoe 04:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The reference to tabloid 'Pravda' can not be considered as serious. The referred article in 'Pravda' does not contain any reference to scientific source. Kokava 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"it is highly virulent in humans and domestic rabbits. F. tularensis palaearctica (Type B) occurs mainly in aquatic rodents (beavers, muskrats) in North America and in hares and small rodents in northern Eurasia. It is less virulent for humans and rabbits."
As this talk page has already established that very few organisms are required to cause the disease, and virulence is in general related to the pathogenicity of an organism, I move to strike the "less virulent" sentence, despite the face-value reliability of 'Pearson A (1998). Zoonoses: biology, clinical practice, and public health control...Oxford University Press.' 108.56.237.27 ( talk) 01:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, people, I've tried starting a discussion on the WT:MEDMOS#Naming page regarding the naming of articles such as this one. It is taking days for any reply as everyone seems uninterested in this topic. Now I understand people having their own type of English, but as the ICD-10 is meant to be our source for names according to WP:MEDMOS and it names tularemia as tularaemia I think we need to move this page accordingly. Please don't reply to me with WP:ENGVAR or w/e I am talking about the ICD-10's naming which we're meant to be following not American vs. British spelling! Fuse809 ( talk) 07:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Ive never seen anorexia listed as a symptom of any disease. Is it really anorexia, the eating disorder, and not merely "loss of appetite" or something similar? — Soap — 05:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
According to the Francisella article the bacteria was discovered by Edward Francis in 1922. The two articles are thus contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.236.97.127 ( talk) 22:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Review in Lancet Infectious Diseases doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00355-2 JFW | T@lk 14:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
"Francisella tularensis is one of the most infective bacteria known. Fewer than ten organisms have been shown to lead to severe illness."
This statement is confusing to me. It seems to say both that the bacteria is widely distributed but also rare. Could someone clarify? --K erowyn 01:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Clarification: This statement refers to infectivity in a host, not distribution in an environment. That is, it doesn't take many organsims to cause illness. Other pathogens require a much higher number (e.g. tens of thousands) of organisms to cause disease.-- Elozares 20:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Is tularemia related to plague? 71.194.8.121 04:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)ac
Can anyone provide a citation for, or verify, the text "No vaccine is available to the general public." under the section "Treatment"? According to http://www.beaglesunlimited.net/rabbithunting_tularemia.htm (under section "Treatment of tularemia") there is a vaccine available for tularemia. Vulturejoe 04:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The reference to tabloid 'Pravda' can not be considered as serious. The referred article in 'Pravda' does not contain any reference to scientific source. Kokava 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"it is highly virulent in humans and domestic rabbits. F. tularensis palaearctica (Type B) occurs mainly in aquatic rodents (beavers, muskrats) in North America and in hares and small rodents in northern Eurasia. It is less virulent for humans and rabbits."
As this talk page has already established that very few organisms are required to cause the disease, and virulence is in general related to the pathogenicity of an organism, I move to strike the "less virulent" sentence, despite the face-value reliability of 'Pearson A (1998). Zoonoses: biology, clinical practice, and public health control...Oxford University Press.' 108.56.237.27 ( talk) 01:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, people, I've tried starting a discussion on the WT:MEDMOS#Naming page regarding the naming of articles such as this one. It is taking days for any reply as everyone seems uninterested in this topic. Now I understand people having their own type of English, but as the ICD-10 is meant to be our source for names according to WP:MEDMOS and it names tularemia as tularaemia I think we need to move this page accordingly. Please don't reply to me with WP:ENGVAR or w/e I am talking about the ICD-10's naming which we're meant to be following not American vs. British spelling! Fuse809 ( talk) 07:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Ive never seen anorexia listed as a symptom of any disease. Is it really anorexia, the eating disorder, and not merely "loss of appetite" or something similar? — Soap — 05:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
According to the Francisella article the bacteria was discovered by Edward Francis in 1922. The two articles are thus contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.236.97.127 ( talk) 22:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Review in Lancet Infectious Diseases doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00355-2 JFW | T@lk 14:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)