Talk:Congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis

message: We say:
"CIPA is extremely rare. There are only 35 reported cases in the United States and more than 300 in Japan because it occurs more often in genetically homogeneous societies. It is also found in Vittangi, a Swedish village in Kiruna Municipality in northern Sweden, where nearly 40 cases have been reported; however, the disorder found in Vittangi may be of a different kind because those affected can perspire."
If this disorder does not come with anhidrosis, how is it CIPA? Skittle 20:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't CIPA, its just CIP, which is linked to in the "See Also." I'll go ahead and move it. Trance Blossom (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this actually CIPA? 

message: CIP: Congenital "indifference" to pain
CIPA: Congenital "insensitivity" to pain with anhidrosis
CIPA caused by neuropathies of peripheral nerves, by mutation of NTRK1 gene.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=256800
CIP caused by channelopathies of nerves, by mutation of SCN6A gene. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=243000 
by bc  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.13.127 (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And Yet the CIP page lists "insensitivity" in its namespace, not indifference, and lists that there are two types: Insensitivity AND indifference. If it were just me, I'd actually work on merging this article with the CIP article. Perhaps subsections are required? CIP vs. CIPA? Both seem to be very similar, but with a few differences. 64.122.15.114 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIPA is not CIP, 

message: According to the article, the odds of being born with CIPA are 1 in 125 million. Yet there are apparently at least 387 living cases, out of a total population of 6+ billion. Which makes in closer to 1 in 15 million.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrik BP (talk • contribs) 14:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad statistics ? 

message: Just to check that the mentioned treatment with naloxone is actually correct. Naloxone is a very short acting opiod antagonist and needs to be given by continuous IV drip for the treatment of opiod overdose due to it's low plasma half life. This leads me to suspect that use of it in treatment of CIPA is inpractical. I would be grateful of clarification on this point. Perhaps what is actually used is a longer acting opiod antagonist such as Naltrexone? (which used in the outpatient management of some addicts) If someone could verify this I would be extremely greatful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.254.191 (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naloxone - is this definately correct 

message: There are two references as of now. Both of them refer to fiction TV shows!! What is up with that?? The TV shows can refer to the medical page but not the other way around. The cases described aren't even real. I think these references should be removed from the article and be replaced by scientific publications. I'll wait a few days to do that myself if there is no opposition.
Lukas 04:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: For: I think this article and the article for Congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP) overlap quite a bit; CIPA should just be a subsection on the CIP page. --Trance Blossom (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: What kind of an encyclopedia entry is this "some believe that [...] is common among Ashkenazi Jews"? There are scientific studies that provide such information, and then it's not a matter of belief, but rather of scientific evidence (which then can be examined by other scientists...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.35.183 (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Some Believe"? 

message: "Androphenic"? Can someone who knows that this means replace it with a better word. If you google it, there are 7 results, all of which are quotations from this page. This doesn't really give someone a realistic chance of understanding the opening paragraph. Thanks very much. 81.179.6.246 (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Androphenic" 

message: Anyone else think we should remove this whole section? Personally, I don't like "Pop culture" sections in medical, unless the connection is extremely clear and significant. Ideally, that is, I think we should limit such info to media where the disorder/disease plays a major role throughout the work; so, that would be if a major character in a movie had the problem, and for a TV show, only when a regular/recurring character had the problem. It seems pretty WP:UNDUE to me to have, for example, House appear on every article about every obscure disease, since the very nature of the show requires that they mine medical science for rare problems. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the media 

message: I mean, nowhere in the source guidelines does it say we admit "facts" from fiction television entertainment programs.
I say, if you can't find anything in a legitimate source, this entire article has multiple issues.K80theshade (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really?