Talk:Whooping cough/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ChaKeSeLiAl.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ellenberkley, Kim05.rosario, Jhpham, Rxbpherrera. Peer reviewers: Alexuang.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Audio Examples

I suspected I had pertussis but found it impossible to find audio clips of adults coughing. There are plenty of clips of babies and young children with pertussis on YouTube and elsewhere. Most rely on verbal descriptions of the cough and whoop, which is a shame, as the audio is immediately identifiable. I still don't know if I have whooping cough! Can one of the medical contributors to this page also include some sample audio clips of people at different ages coughing and whooping? Hedley 03:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfinger (talk • contribs)

Additional Information

The article says, "Infection with pertussis induces temporary natural immunity, but like the vaccine does not confer a lasting protective immunity.[13]" Actual duration of both vaccine and natural immunity should be expressed here. According to this journal article, natural immunity lasts form 7-10, to even 20, years in people who acquire Pertussis through infection. The duration of immunity from vaccine is much lower, according to the journal article, at 4 to 12 years. Natural immunity appears stronger than vaccination. Link to journal article: http://journals.lww.com/pidj/Fulltext/2005/05001/Duration_of_Immunity_Against_Pertussis_After.11.aspx

"All About Whooping Cough" http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?Article=2340 has some more detail about each stage and a slightly clearer description (easy to understand) of the symptoms at each stage.

Outbreaks

I recently heard there was an outbreak of whooping cough in Iowa City sometime in the last year or so. Does anyone have a source on the prevalence of outbreaks in the Western world? -- Wechselstrom 07:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

--I had pertussis towards the middle of 2005, I live in San Diego. The doctor said that there were over 300 cases in San Diego in and 2000 in San Diego. I googled this and found it to be correct: [1] Amplus Quem 17:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed for the past few weeks that I and about half the people I know have a really bad, rattling cough... didn't think much of it until I read this article in the Boston Globe about an an outbreak in a hosptial nearby. Not to say that we've all got pertussis, but it's something to think about. According to the article, "So far this year, 780 cases of whooping cough, known as pertussis, have been reported in Massachusetts, said Donna Rheaume, spokeswoman for the state Department of Public Health." I guess it's not as rare as people think, but I don't have any real statistics on it (aside from that one). -- Dirk Gently 17:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"However, in the fall of 2006, New Trier High School suffered a large pertussis outbreak with thirteen students falling victim to the virus. [1]" - I think this doesn't belong here. For starters, pertussis is not caused by a virus. Also, an outbreak of 13 cases in a high school of 4000 students is not that large. Outbreaks in middle and high schools are not uncommon. I would suggest a more general statement about outbreaks in adolescents or one about outbreaks in intitutions (schools, hospitals, etc). A reference to that outbreak could be used as an example, although a reference from a published scientific article might be more appropriate. Hunterkb 01:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think maybe an outbreak section would be appropriate. Specific outbreaks probably don't belong in the introductory paragraph. Also, I edited the information about New Trier: I couldn't find a source for "some thousand" students vaccinated (the latest article I found said ~200, but it only mentioned the first day). Hunterkb 19:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Missing Citations

These figures need a citation:

• "There are 30–50 million cases per year, and about 300,000 deaths per year"
• " Ninety percent of all cases occur in developing countries"

This statement could use a more precise statistic:

• "Most deaths occur in children under one year of age"

Mystic eye 23:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The statement "30-50 million cases per year" isn't supported by any evidence I can find on the World Health Organization web site. The best I can do is 152,535 reported cases and 294,000 deaths (source here). Also, the uncited statement that "Most deaths occur in young toddlers" doesn't mesh with my understanding of pertussis.

Mmoople (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it says on CDC that infants <6 months are at the highest risk because their vaccinations haven't started yet, but I'm not sure they qualify as young toddlers WillWritesWiki (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

July 2006 news

There has just been study in Oxford, United Kingdom, which says that a surprisingly high number of children may be having whooping cough, and if Wikipedia is to retain status for being up-to-date with its articles, this should be mentioned here. The survey is covered in the "Independent" newspaper for July 7, 2006. I shall leave some who is medically qualified and who knows about this survey to add to the article. ACEO 19:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC) According to the article quoted above, children with a cough lasting more than fourteen days were studied in Oxford, United Kingdom, and nearly four in ten were found to be infected with bordetella pertussis. The report also says that more than 85% of this sample caught this infection in spite of vaccination. The report also refers to how research into this recent study has recently been covered in the online edition of the British Medical Journal. ACEO 18:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I would add a link to the above mentioned article: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article1164554.ece 70.48.4.35 04:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the reference for the BMJ study : Harnden et al., British Medical Journal, 22 July 06, Vol 33, pp. 174-177. Pertussis infections in the UK children described in this study may simply be a consequence of waning immunity from the pertussis immunizations that the children received as infants. As discussed by the authors of the paper, the UK only recently changed their pertussis immunization policy to include a preschool booster dose. Because the study was initiated before the change in policy, none of the chilren enrolled in the study (ages 5-16) had received a booster shot at age four. Therefore, their last immunization with the pertussis vaccine was at an age of 4 months, which would give immunity to B. pertussis plenty of time to wane until the children reached the age at which they were enrolled in the study. The authors state that the recent policy change may shift the age of pertussis infections in the UK upwards to adolescents, which is what is observed in other countries that already include the preschool booster dose. I'm not able to retrieve the newspaper article mentioned above, but I get the impression that the results of this study is being interpreted by the press as evidence that the pertussis vaccine is no longer effective. However, the authors in the paper clearly state that the results could be a consequence of waning immunity, which is a problem of all pertussis vaccines in use. It appears that the high pertussis infection rates of children presenting with persistent cough is unique to the UK and may disappear as the preschool dose is introduced. Therefore, I feel that this paper does not merit mention in the article, although I won't object if others feel otherwise. NighthawkJ 03:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Vaccine controversy

There used to be a lot of controversy about the safety of whooping cough vaccine. I understand that this has died down now because of a court judgement of some sort (although I don't know whether or not this verdict has been unanimously accepted), but the controversy should still be included here at least as an important historical phenomenon. Ireneshusband 18:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The controversy was about the whole-cell DTP vaccines which aren't used any more. Those vaccines were associated with high rates of neurologic complications. The US now uses an acellular vaccine that is much safer. A lot of people aren't aware of that and I agree that controversy should be in the vaccine section. I'm not 100% sure of the details of the court case, but I know the lawsuit(s) brought about the creation of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (that may not be the correct name); it awards compensation to children who have an adverse event after vaccination regardless of the cause of the event (there are a lot of criteria obviously). Parents don't have to accept but if they do they can't sue the manufacturer; I think they may be still some controversy over that part. Hunterkb 19:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I started a section that describes the DTP controversy. Please check for NPOV. NighthawkJ 03:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a medical expert by any stretch but the sentence "There is newly emerging evidence that some strains of the bacteria that cause pertussis have become resistant to the acellular version of the vaccine which is leading to a rise in the incidence of whooping cough in the wealthy countries that use it." does not make sense to me. A bacteria can not become resistant to a vaccine because the vaccine does not kill the bacteria. Vaccines prime the immune system to make antibodies that can fight the infection. 150.101.221.225 (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Its clearly not a case of Drug resistance but the more mundane progression of mutation- new strains almost by definition, have genetic differences and different response to vaccines. If the acellular vaccines are still based on old variants of the Pertussis bacteria, eventually they will have to be updated or they will become ineffective. This is the case for all vaccines for diseases "in the wild" with widespread distribution. Hint: influenza virus doesn't develop new drug resistance every year, but there are new vaccines every year because the virus is spread so widely that it has substantial (minor) genetic drift from season to season. --Raduga (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Whooping fits

This article does not do justice to the characteristic "paroxysms" of Whooping that give this disease it's name. The whooping noise is made totally involuntarily by the patient, who is gasping for breath in the middle of an uncontrollable coughing fit. There is nothing minor or cute about this experience; something goes wrong in the throat, making it impossible to breathe. It feels like you are going to choke to death, literally die from lack of air. This is a very serious disease. Since this is a central feature, it would be good if the article stated whether you can indeed die from this, or if it just seems like you might. And at least a link to some resources that would explain what is going wrong with your breathing, associated with the whoop. Doctors in the US today don't seem to know much about this disease, and it is officially hard to test for. But if you have had it, as an adult, you know that you have had a serious, seemingly life-threatening experience. If there are truly other diseases that are associated with the same Whooping symptoms, they should be specifically mentioned and linked to in this article. 69.87.200.105 12:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't help it...it's nice to know I'm not alone in this. Thank you so much. Whooping cough fits are scary and violet and LOUD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.3.23 (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Audio

A recording of this sound would definitely add to this article. Cburnett 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a video from the website of the US Center for Disease Control illustrating the sound and removed the {{Audio requested}} template. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Aztec rubbish

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)

I wouldn't say that this is "rubbish". Is it not possible that the Aztecs got rum through trade, prior to the Conquista? Is it also not possible that the Aztecs after the conquest may not have had access to rum and used it? The Aztecs didn't just vanish, when their empire was conquered. I'm not saying that the reference is correct; I just find dismissing the idea as "obvious rubbish" as unscholarly. Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)theBaron0530

What "trade before the Conquista?" The Aztec empire did not trade with Europe. 2.28.151.150 (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Article is largely USA-centered

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)

Why not add some of this material to the article? Questioningly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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.

Dr Leila Denmark

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)

Mortality rate of untreated pertussis cases is 90%?

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)

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)

A wearing-off immunisation still offers partial protection (although, having had a "mild" case under these circumstances at age 4 I can attest it is still terrifying). Infants would be more susceptible to the complications, which would be the immediate cause of death. Many occur in ones too young to have received all (or any) of their first series of vaccinations, so they would not be "mild" cases. If I find reliable figures on this I'll add them.

We are also still short of figures for other countries. KoolerStill (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Canada and world figures MISLEADING

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)

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)

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)

Infectivity

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)

posttussive emesis?

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)

Would adding a link to emesis be acceptable? I don't see anything in WP:MEDMOS advising this as a remedy- though it seems reasonable to me. Revert/fix if you think better. --Raduga (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Section Society and Culture is biased

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)

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)

Acellular vaccine is "safer"?

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)

I think I have something to contribute

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) [2]

Copyright problem removed

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 sentences or phrases. 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 will be blocked 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)

My apologies, this was inadvertent and thanks for pointing it out. I can't think of a better way to reword that phrase (which is probably why it's the same as the source in the first place), so have restored it as a quote instead. Tobus (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Folk remedies section

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)

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)

NEJM on cellular vs. acellular vaccine

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)

Unexplained revert

@Doc James: reverted my edits without explanation. That's not good form. What's up? Lfstevens (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You edits broke some refs [3], caused improper formatting, added some no wiki tags, added " that were not needed. There was no justification for the edit in the edit summary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Looks like VE put in some junk. I made the edit again, without the noise. FWIW, I've never seen refs converted to comments as in this article. Don't understand the purpose.

I have restored the lead back to 4 paragraphs per WP:LEAD. You changed it to 6.

Every sentence in the lead contains a reference. Otherwise people will come and add "citation needed" tags. If two sentences in a row are supported by the same ref than the ref supporting the first sentence is hidden.

Many of your changes go against WP:MEDMOS.

Also our leads are being written to follow the body of the text per WP:MEDMOS, thus the ordering of content in the lead Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed the section of WP:MOS and think I didn't really stray, so I'd appreciate if you could be more specific. I'm always happy to fix any problems I cause. On the lead, I always opt for clarity over paragraph counts. That's why I made those changes. Lfstevens (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

Agree that the previous lead layout was better and should be maintained. The edits making it a larger number of short choppy paragraphs weren't improvements. Zad68 13:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no plans for further changes. Let me know if I broke anything else and I'll pitch in. Lfstevens (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Diagnostics

doi:10.1128/CMR.00031-15 Review in CMR. JFW | T@lk 14:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Revisions and edits

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)

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)

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)

Ref was not inaccurate. Just came to different conclusions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikilinked "zoonotic disease" in cause to the Zoonosis page. ChaKeSeLiAl (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Cough syrup/lozenges

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)

Review in CMR

doi:10.1128/CMR.00083-15 JFW | T@lk 13:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

"Leaky" vaccines

I have self-reverted a recent edit, since an identical edit to Pertussis vaccine was challenged. I have started a discussion there.

History section

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)

Sure agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per consensus. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Pertussis → Whooping cough – "Whooping cough" is the WP:COMMONNAME, especially in English-speaking countries: [4]. 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)

• Google Books disagrees with Google Trends: ngram. Dekimasuよ! 05:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• I will go ahead and oppose this change. Though "pertussis" may be a more technical term as argued below, it is also well-known, particularly because it is referred to as "pertussis" in the names of various vaccines (DPT and DTaP vaccines, etc.). I'd also note that relevant related pages, such as Pertussis vaccine and Pertussis toxin, are currently at consistent titles. Dekimasuよ! 23:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• oppose - Usage evidence based on Google Ngrams leads me to believe that the current title and primary redirect are the best way to handle this. -- Netoholic @ 05:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• oppose per Netoholic rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support I think "whooping cough" is the common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support Sites for the general public generally use whooping cough.[5] Pertussis is a more technical term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support You can add the NHS to the list of organisations that use 'whooping cough' rather than 'pertussis'. It looks like whooping cough is used in general texts, perhaps what Google books is doing is showing what the academic literature tends to use. Since Wikipedia's audience is essentially the general public, I think it makes sense to use a common term they're more likely to have heard of. Richard Nevell (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support. We are a general encyclopedia, and should use the common name known to the general readership. A classic case of statistics being a good guide but a very poor arbitrator. Andrewa (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per WP:COMMONNAME. Heck, the only reason I know what pertussis is is because I'm in medical school. Waddie96 (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Category title

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)

Foundations 2 2019, Group 3C Goals

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"

Foundations 2 2019, Group 3B Peer Review

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)

-- 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)

-- 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)

· 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)

-- Yes, the group achieved their goal of adding accurate, relevant statistics about whooping cough prevalence.--Mparagas18 (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

-- 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)

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)

· 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)

· 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)

· 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)

Airborne versus droplet

Per https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3501154/ may be airborne. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Health education

Tetanus meanning transletion to khasi 2409:4066:113:DF2E:8518:718F:AEBB:D55B (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)