Talk:Treatment of human lice

message: Um, can't one just shave one's head?  It's sort of fashionable anyway, especially among middle-age men. -Rolypolyman 07:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Head Shaving

message: I've had a go at cleaning this up, mainly by cutting out some data and rearranging the rest but it really needs a good workout by someone with more time. 85.210.113.18 11:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article clean up

message: Caught a few refereces to lice as insects. Lice are not insects! 85.2.197.196 15:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on lice seems to think they are.  Josh Parris 05:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Insects

message: This article reads more like a how-to rather than a discussion about the removal of lice from humans. 202.89.152.42 09:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. One of the drawbacks of collaborative editing is that articles can get worse over time as well as better. Two months ago the article was vastly better than it was when you saw it. I've reverted to that version and merged in more or less everything useful done since that date – Gurch 11:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to

message: I've removed this for the same reasons I gvae on the main Head Lice page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Head_louseNBeddoe 12:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Louse Buster

message: Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_louse#Shaving_the_Head : "A completely shaven head is not necessary, the hair only needs to be cut to 1 inch or less." Yet still this article specifically states that "A completely shaven head is necessary, a mere buzz cut is not sufficient." This should probably be checked up... - 88.91.191.62 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction?

message: :*Because eggs hatch 6–9 days after oviposition, if a pediculicide is used, treatment is recommended to be repeated at least once and this after 10 days, when all lice have hatched from the eggs.[2] Between the two treatments i.e., days 2–9, the person will still be infested with lice, which hatch from eggs not killed by the anti-louse product. Therefore, with some products a third treatment on day 5 is recommended.
:This is just confusing: Treatment 2 at 10 days and treatment 3 at 5 days?? - Dutchdavey 18/9/2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.241.248.37 (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's confusing.  If you would, please be bold and change it to be more clear.  The third treatment sentence is also vague. "some products"?  What products?  Give an example, and back it up with a reference citation. Noca2plus (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, I think I understand the point of the statement.  Lice poisons typically do not kill the lice eggs.  Say, for example, you poison an established lice population on day 1.  Let's assume all the juvenile and adult lice die.  But all the eggs survive, some of which were laid several days earlier.  On day 2, some of those eggs hatch.  Unless the day 1 poison is particularly persistent, those newly hatched lice could conceivably lay new eggs before day 10 (lice grow to sexual maturity in eight to nine days).  And those new eggs would allow the lice population to persist beyond the day 10 treatment.  The point of the day 5 treatment is to kill any juvenile lice that hatched after day 1.  It's also worth noting that insecticides are not always 100% effective adults, so the recommended day 5 treatment could be a hedge to kill and juveniles/adults that survived the day 1 treatment. Noca2plus (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Treatment schedule

message: The statement "Food-grade oils, hair gels, Vaseline and mayonnaise as well as formulations meant only for parasitic insects on pets or free-living insects in the household (e.g., ants and cockroaches) are not recommended for head lice treatment.[23]" is not supported by the article Footnote 23 purports to cite.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.62.89 (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph in the ref that talks about these substances says that they are effective without actually recommending that they be used or not. So I took this out of the article. Rees11 (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Treatment modalities not recommended

message: Mainly to address the fact that the article at the moment is a how-to rather than a commentary. An article on ... say religiously-motivated "terrorism" does not include the methods of making bombs; rather, it talks about why people do various things. 
After culling the actual treatment information, the actual commentary probably will make up only a few paragraphs.
The OR tag is to indicate that the information is from people's own experiences of the subject of the article.
118.90.28.56 (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New tags (8 Feb 09) 

message: It may seem that I have something against the Robicomb, but I don't. I would welcome the addition of properly sourced material. The only thing I could find with a cursory search is the IHA book recommending against its use, so I added that. Opposing viewpoints welcome as long as they are reliably sourced. Rees11 (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robicomb 

message: "Summers Laboratories is developing a non pesticide lice treatment that kills by asphyxiation".  This does not make sense, compare it to the definition of pesticide in wikipedia "A pesticide is any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any pest". Mtpaley (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  non pesticide treatment 

message: Hi,
I don't believe the subheading on the use of Gasoline is particularly impartial. It speaks of the risks of potential burns and dermatitis but say nothing of it's effectiveness. If someone can list some examples of this stuff working would be a good inclusion. (and it does work, believe me I tried everything before gas, except the Dimethicone treatment... looks good)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.51.116 (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impartiality and Explanation of Effects of Gasoline/Petrol Use 

message: "However, head lice are known to be resistant of commercial products.". How do the lice know if the product is commercial or not? --93.216.69.201 (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lice with knowledge about economics 

message: Something might be missing from this article, but I don't know how to find out.  A late relative of mine was a youth in the 1940s-50s in Ontario, Canada, around Muskoka or Windsor.  He often claimed that he was subjected to either radiation or x-ray treatment to the head, as a treatment for lice.  I think he said it was long and/or repeated enough to cause his hair to temporarily fall out, and he was glad that there were no other apparent negative results in his life.  I'm trying to uncover any facts of such a treatment for lice in history, but have come up empty.  Is there evidence one way or the other?  Could he have been lied to about the purpose of the treatment? 24.55.241.136 (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radiation / X-rays as a historical treatment