Talk:Common cold/Archive 1

message: It would seem to me that the best possible link would be the low humidity of cold air.  This clearly leads to a drying of the nose, lips, etc., and this drying leads to cracking (even microscopically) which allows viruses to enter the body.  The NIH says there's no link, however....
Sublium 16:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linked to low humidity 

message: Regarding the "cold doesn't cause cold" issue, Dr. Greene gives an interesting argument which could give some justification why cold air could still influence the catching of a cold, despite no clinical evidence *yet*. I suggest that those who are knowledgeable about this have a look at this and maybe make a few additions to the article. I am definitively not knowledgeable enough of the subject yet to have a solid opinion. -- Simon Lacoste-Julien 16:30 (PST), March 7, 2004
----
The coldness of winter also reduces the immune system which would give an increase in infection Jonathanriddell 21:03, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is orthogonal to the common cold issue, but I recall listening to a talk in a mathematics conference 6 years ago which gave some explanation using queuing theory for this phenomenon. I unfortunately don't remember the argument (and had no idea what were Markov chains and stochastic processes at the time). Now that I know more about those, I can't reproduce a model which would make you more likely to choose the bad queue if you only have 2 queues (because of the symmetry of the model). But I would first of all suspect a psychological component of noticing the bad events first (so that you would tend to notice less when you picked the right lane). And also, note that you often have more than 2 lanes. And so if you just consider the 3 lanes case (say one to your left and one to your right), and they are all equally likely of finishing first, then the probability that one of your neighbors being faster than you is 2/3. Simon Lacoste-Julien 22:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I know about the indoor argument, but my personal experience is that I catch colds when I have been in cold temperature not properly dressed, for some reasons. I can spend a lot of time indoor during the cold season and not get sick, and then if I spend some time outside during windy conditions without a scarf, for example, the next day I'm sick (usually throat pain first)... These coincidences are pretty consistent in my experience, and they would merit explanations (better than just 'you spend more time indoor during the cold season' which is a general statement not explaining the individual coincidences like 'I get out in the cold once and I get sick'). Simon Lacoste-Julien 22:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: You can have too much faith in science, too.  Experiments tend to be too controlled to consider all possible factors.  Scientists can be just as naive in their faith in science as lay people can be in their faith in experience.  It is probably too complex an issue to easily determine whether exposure to certain weather conditions affects whether people get colds.  Although personal experience is not always trustworthy, I think in this case there is too much repeated experience to ignore. 24.68.180.163 21:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold doesn't cause cold 

message: *Early recovery from cold is simple, at the moment of "Cold ?" use a simple gauge mask to kepp warm and humid the nose by own breath. Continue for one or two days even during sleeping and working.  With warm pads around neck will help quicker recovery. For detail
http://iccincsm.tripod.co.jp     or  mail to iccinc@f6.dion.ne.jp
Satoshi mochizuki(Ph.D.)
:*I want a second opinion - is this blankworthy as an infomercial?  Thanks.  -- Pakaran 01:32, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: *sounds accurate,it really does not replicate well at body temperature thus infects only the nasopharynx region and above, but not below throat..  Also the higher temp should make mucociliary clarance easier so sympoms aren't so bad..
----
Does anyone have a problem with including information about zinc gluconate 
with regard to shortening the duration of colds?  Here are some of the studies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=15499830
Sublium 21:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cures? 

message: *"Until the 1980s, by law, the common cold was not a reportable disease. " 
:Which law?  Where? Jonathanriddell 21:03, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reportable Disease? 

message: I thought that was tooth decay. Neutralitytalk 00:40, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
:I doubt it. Actually, the article says it's the second most common. That seems questionable, but I'll see that article's Talk page. Twilight Realm 22:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Most common of all diseases" 

message: In the chapter "cold as misnomer" the text They showed that a group of people who sat with their feet in cold water for 20 minutes a day for a week had a 1 in 3 chance of developing symptoms during that week, while a control group who sat with their feet in an empty bowl had a 1 in 10 chance might be a little misleading. The evidence given in the quoted abstract  sounds a little different to me, but I do not have access to the paper in full text. Could anyone with knowledge about the whole article please verify whether 1) they have been cooled daily for one week or just once, and 2) 13/90 vs. 5/90 or 1/3 vs. 1/10 "suffered from cold" or "developed symptoms" ?? Thanks in advance, your information will be wellcome for our discussion in de:WP --JHeuser 10:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cardiff-study" 

message: "In the 18th century, John Wesley wrote a book about curing diseases; it advised cold baths as prevention and stated that chilling causes the common cold"
This doesn't make sense. Why would someone advise cold baths as a cold prevention, then state that cold caused the common cold? Seems like an error.
:I think the idea is that continual exposure to cooler temperatures would make the person less likely to catch a cold. Certainly in the early part of the 20th century, being exposed to colder weather was seen as "good for the constitution". This may sound strange, but it was not so much the exposure to being cold, but the moving from warm to cold to warm. The idea that exposure to the cold would be good for you was pretty much demolished during the first world war. --One Salient Oversight 10:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Wesley 

message: Does anyone know whether (nonhuman) animals can get colds?  If so, please add this information to the article (citing sources if possible).  Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 23:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Googling "animal upper respiratory infection", without the quotes. Then do your own research and edits 71.141.243.10 03:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know horses can catch the common cold from other horses and humans, and humans can catch it form horses too. --124.171.250.157 12:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While URTI are common in horses, none of the most common equine viruses infects humans  —G716 <T·C> 11:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colds and (nonhuman) animals 

message: The sentence about Egyptians seems dubious for two reasons.
1) It seems perfectly obvious that the Egyptians should know something as prevalent as the common cold, so why mention it at all?
2) The statement "there were hieroglyphs for cough and for the common cold" is trivial if the writing simply  was phonetic. After all, you can write anything with a phonetic system. It is not trivial, if there indeed were dedicated ideograms for the common cold and coughing, but in that case a source should be mentioned. I checked some online dictionaries, which did not contain the ideograms, but bigger printed dictionaries may reveal some. Mlewan 11:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egyptians and the common cold 

message: Moreover, if cold weather is directly linked to the spread of the common cold, then it would be easy to prove by comparing the infection rates of people who live in colder climates (such as Iceland or Greenland) with people who live in warmer climates (such as countries close to the equator). 
Inhabitants of cold countries could have better clothes, or could have benefited from natural evolution. Are the people you refer to indigenes or inmigrants? Apokrif 18:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inhabitants of cold countries 

message: The picture on the main page just bothers me for some reason; whether its the color or what, I'm not sure. Is it that apropro to put up a picture of someone sneezing? I'm sure everyone knows what sneezing looks like. Andrewr47 03:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't say I like or see much use in it either. Femto 12:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad resolution, distorted colours, psychedelic. Not informative. I don't have any better picture, but I'm sure it should be easy to find. Mlewan 19:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like an STD prevention advertisement. The points above taken into consideration, I think it's best to remove the image. Shinobu 08:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture on main page 

message: changed
"Although widely available and advertized in the United States...."
to
"Although widely available and advertised in the United States...."
because advertized is not right spelling-wise. I just thought people might want to know, as I'm not a "wiki-editor" or anything.
66.91.41.104 08:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor, minor change 

message: According to cited source, http://www.homeowatch.org/legal/zicam.html, the lawsuit was for "Seventy-five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00)", and not, as this article says, $75,000,000 ($75 mil). I am correcting this. If I have missed something let me know. Dkordik 07:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zinc Cold Remedy lawsuit 

message: Is it just my imagination, or is the common cold far, far, far more common now than in the 1970s (at least in the United States)? I first noticed this around 1989, in fact, and the situation hasn't improved since. -- Unsigned comment
: It would be interesting to know whether decreased hygiene is an issue.  I know that back in the conformist 1950s and 1960s, handwashing was highly emphasized, and that's no longer the case.  When is the last time you saw any patron in a restaurant walk in, wash their hands, then sit down to eat? -Rolypolyman 14:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More common now than in the 1970s? 

message: On the "Complications" section there is a passage saying "the best way to blow your nose is keeping both nasal openings open when blowing and wiping rather than fully covering them, permitting pressure to partially dissipate.". I have read numerous sites stating the contrary, that one should block one nassal passage while blowing the other, including http://www.ehow.com/how_9504_blow-nose.html
I did not operate any change on the page as i am no specialist in this domain, but i think it may be a mistake and should be taken in consideration for re-edit, as i found basically no reference recommending the statements made there.
:unreferenced text removed G716 22:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The best way to blow your nose" 

message: OK, so this has been deleted from the main page, but I don't think it should have been:
Hydrogen peroxide has been claimed to prevent colds. A cotton swab is dipped in 3% solution of hydrogen peroxide and then used to clean the ear canal. The theory is that the cold virus incubates in the ear canal before spreading to the rest of the mucous membranes. So killing the virus while it is still in the ear canal aims to prevent the cold altogether.  http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2003/11/20/cold_remedies_that_really_work_update.htm 
This is what I wrote in the hydrogen peroxide talk article:
*I am the one who included this blurb, though originally with a different, admittedly "not very good" reference. I stumbled across the claim while looking for something to prevent me from getting the 6 or 7 colds a year I get nowadays. Doing a google search returns a lot more of these kinds of claims. Here was the original that I found. According to this, "pharmaceutical grade" 3% concentration should not be used internally; only diluted "food grade" should be used. This mentions a study by Richard Simmons regarding colds entering the body via the ear canal, and German research treating colds and flu with hydrogen peroxide. This mentions the same thing. Anecdotally, after finding this information I tried the solution mentioned above when I felt a cold coming on, felt something "odd" in my throat where the colds normally originate, and the cold disappeared. So it seems there is something to this. What do you think is required to get this put back in the main article, as it seems like this would be very useful information for people to have?
So what are the objections to this blurb? Can someone suggest improvements? If this does work (and my experience so far has been positive), it should be included in this article IMHO --greenmoss 11:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but it seems like a lot of original research is involved here. The technique has to be validated through published research, not by your own personal experiences. It's still possible to include this piece of information as "X and Y claim that..." coupled with a reference. —LestatdeLioncourt 11:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hydrogen Peroxide 

message: I once heard that Antarctica (presumably the coldest place in the world) is the only location on Earth that is free from the cold. Is this true? It sounds plausible enough.. I mean, there isn't a permanent population there.
-Robin Chen 03:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antarctica 

message: The article cites a study ref #65 that used a double-blind placebo design to test the effectiveness of steam treatments on cold symptom relief.  The conclusion of the study was that there was no evidence of an effect.  However, the study only used a single treatment phase (that lasted one hour) and measured the effects of that treatment for up to 7 days later. Using this sort of criterion, most drugs would provide little effect either (Take an aspirin, and then do self-report each night for 7 days. Want to guess if there was a difference on days 2-6?). It might therefore be worthwhile to add that the study only utilized a single treatment. 66.215.241.63 08:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment: Steam 

message: It's currently stated that the cumulative cost of the common cold to the united states is billions of dollars. What does this mean - billions of dollars per year? Please clarify as this statement is meaningless as it is. 130.88.51.45 (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added "annual" to clarify. Regards—G716 <T·C> 00:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cumulative Cost 

message: I'm wondering about the citation for a cold lasting 3 to 5 days as of 4:30pm EST Tue Nov 21, 2006.
According to The National Institutes of Health: 
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.69.155 (talk • contribs) 
:I don't think this contradicts the information in the article. The lead section says that the cold— i.e. the infection itself—lasts 3 to 5 days and that the symptoms (coughing) can last for 3 weeks. Likewise, the cited text says that the symptoms last up to two weeks. The only discrepency here is whether it's 2 or 3 weeks (but I guess that's a reasonable margin of error for a very general estimate). —LestatdeLioncourt 11:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it's just me, but my colds are always 1 to 3 days in length and the symptoms never last more than a week.  I'm skeptical of the lengths cited, but I'm aware that it's probably different for everybody. -Rolypolyman 14:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of cold 

message: The following section concerns me:
"Contrary to popular belief, scientists have now found that new strains of the virus can be deadly to the very young and elderly. Death is quite rare, and only 1 in 1 million healthy test subjects suffered death, but it is not impossible. This is much more common in the most vulnerable: the young, the elderly, and those recovering from surgery. In these cases, 1 in 50,000 test subjects died (note: the experiments were carried out on chimps, but the results in humans would probably be very similar)."
Firstly, the statement does not have a citation.  Secondly, I doubt the statements are accurate as presented.  What new strains of the cold are deadly?  When did 1 million chimps participate in a study of new strains?  How does the chimp data relate to the young, old or immunocompromised.  Certainly there are people who are so sick and frail that a serious upper respiratory infection can lead to death without proper supportive care, but it does not have to do with new strains or healthy people.  I feel strongly that this statement does not belong in the article.
: Hmmm.... -- Possibly related to RSV (??) (also see ) -- Boracay Bill 06:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mortality 

message: There's a "may require cleanup" tag on the Treatment section.  Any ideas about what the tagger has in mind?  It seems to me to be a pretty nice and clear section; the intro especially is good.  There's an obvious error in the "Antibiotics" subsection reference to fungi, which I will fix. HEL 18:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of "Treatment" section 

message: "the study is seriously flawed because the researchers used symptom questionnaires instead of actual infection detection and failed to check whether the participants were already infected or not."
I think that in order to be neutral, we should rather say that the results are controversial (if Prof. Smith questions the accuracy of a study by Prof. Doe, what allows us to give more weight to Smith's opiniion than to Doe's)? I think the point in Eccles's study is that it assumes that a low temperatures does not help the infection itself, but the symptoms of common cold: http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pulmonary/URIstheFlu/tb1/2136 and also, perhaps because they are not sure which virus they should look for, because common cold can be caused by different viruses (Eccles thinks that a flaw in previous studies, which concluded there was no link between temperature and common cold, was that subjects were inoculated which only one specific virus). Anyway, if I understand well, the results of Eccles are based on self-reports by subjects, which can be a flaw. I think that instead of a few lines in a newspaper, the WP article should at least give the references of the original paper, and a link to the abstract if the full text is not available (I don't know how to write in the References section, in WP style, something like "I know this is the original paper, but I contributed to the article only on the basis of the paper's summary and the commentaries I read in various places") Apokrif 20:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eccles's study 

message: From the introduction:
It is the most common of all human diseases, infecting adults at an average rate of 2–4 infections per year, and school-aged children as many as 12 times per year. Infection rates greater than three infections per year per person are not uncommon in some populations.
That last sentence seems out of place; it reads as though "three" is higher than "2-4" or "12".  If the average is 2-4, then why would it be necessary to mention that 3 is 'not uncommon'? ReddShadoe 21:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many infections per year is common? 

message: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004 Oct 18;(4):CD000980.  
Update of: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD000980. 
Vitamin C for preventing and treating the common cold.Douglas RM, Hemila H, D'Souza R, Chalker EB, Treacy B. 
National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, 34 Nungara Place, Aranda, ACT, Australia, 2614.
BACKGROUND: The role of oral vitamin C (ascorbic acid) in the prevention and treatment of the common cold has been a subject of controversy for at least sixty years. Public interest in the topic continues to be high and vitamin C continues to be widely sold and used as a preventive and therapeutic agent for this common ailment. OBJECTIVES: To discover whether oral vitamin C in doses of 200 mg or more daily, reduces the incidence, duration or severity of the common cold when used either as continuous prophylaxis or after the onset of cold symptoms. SEARCH STRATEGY: This updated review added to earlier searches, a full search of the following electronic databases: the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2004); MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2004); and EMBASE (1990 to June 2004). SELECTION CRITERIA: Papers were excluded if a dose less than 200 mg daily of vitamin C was used; if there was no placebo comparison; if methods of outcome assessment were inadequately described; and if the report did not record any of the three study outcomes (incidence, duration or severity) in sufficient detail to enter into the meta-analysis. Three criteria of study quality were assessed: Jadad scores, placebo distinguish-ability, and allocation concealment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. 'Incidence' of colds during prophylaxis was assessed as the proportion of participants experiencing one or more colds during the study period. 'Duration' was the mean days of illness of cold episodes and 'severity' of these episodes was assessed by days confined indoors, off work or school. or by symptom severity scores. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-nine trial comparisons involving 11,077 study participants contributed to the meta-analysis on the relative risk (RR) of developing a cold while taking prophylaxis. The pooled RR was 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.00). A subgroup of six trials that involved a total of 642 marathon runners, skiers, and soldiers on sub-arctic exercises reported a pooled RR of 0.50 (95%CI 0.38 to 0.66).Thirty comparisons that involved 9,676 respiratory episodes contributed to the meta-analysis on common cold duration during prophylaxis . A consistent benefit was observed, representing a reduction in cold duration of 8% (95% CI 3% to 13%) for adult participants and 13.5% (95% CI 5% to 21%) for child participants.Fifteen trial comparisons that involved 7,045 respiratory episodes contributed to the meta-analysis of severity of episodes experienced while on prophylaxis. The pooled results revealed a difference favouring those on vitamin C when days confined to home and off work or school were taken as a measure of severity (p = 0.02), and when restricting to studies which used symptom severity scores (p = 0.16), and for the both measures of severity combined (p = 0.004).Seven trial comparisons that involved 3,294 respiratory episodes contributed to the meta-analysis of cold duration during therapy with vitamin C that was initiated after the onset of cold symptoms, and no significant difference from placebo was seen.Four trial comparisons that involved 2,753 respiratory episodes, contributed to the meta-analysis of cold severity during therapy and no significant difference from placebo was seen.In laboratory studies, differing methods of artificial transmission of virus to vitamin C or placebo treated volunteers in residential experiments gave different results. Volunteers infected by nasal installation showed small or no benefit from vitamin C, whereas a group who were infected more naturally, reported less severe symptom severity scores (p = 0.04). REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: The failure of vitamin C supplementation to reduce the incidence of colds in the normal population indicates that routine mega-dose prophylaxis is not rationally justified for community use. But evidence shows that it could be justified in persons exposed to brief periods of severe physical exercise and/or cold environments. Also, the consistent and statistically significant small benefits on duration and severity for those using regular vitamin C prophylaxis indicates that vitamin C plays some role in respiratory defence mechanisms. The trials in which vitamin C was introduced at the onset of colds as therapy did not show any benefit in doses up to 4 grams daily, but one large trial reported equivocal benefit from an 8 gram therapeutic dose at onset of symptoms.
 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alan2012 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cochrane meta-analysis: Vitamin C and the Common Cold (FYI) 

message: The chart found under "Cold" as a misnomer would be immensely more informative if translations to English were included. The Wilschon 22:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations of foreign-language names for "cold" please 

message: Before pathology, it states:
Contrary to popular belief, scientists have now found that new strains of the virus can be deadly to the very young and elderly. Death is quite rare, and only 1 in 1 million healthy test subjects suffered death, but it is not impossible. This is much more common in the most vulnerable: the young, the elderly, and those recovering from surgery. In these cases, 1 in 50,000 test subjects died (note: the experiments were carried out on chimps, but the results in humans would probably be very similar).
And yet there are no citations for any of this, leading me to believe that this paragraph is either false, or up in the air.
There's also plenty other parts that need sources as well.
:This paragraph, which was added by Jp kiddo on 2/5/07, appears to be subtle vandalism.  I will remove it. MrRedact 20:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources? 

message: Why is this disease called the Cold, while the other (which is actually a symptom, but let's forget that) called a Fever? Is one caught often as a result of being in cold surroundings, or results in the body having lower temperatures; whereas the other a result of being surrounded by too much heat, or results in the body being hot afterwards? 
I know a fever is probably called that because it's symptoms are high body temp., and intolerance of cold temperatures.  But the Common Cold is often viewed as a sort of "opposite" to the fever in society; was wondering if there is any truth to this view -- is the Cold called that because it results in lower body temp., or maybe it is CAUSED by cold temperatures? It doesn't appear to be a mirror of the fever.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.12.38.25 (talk • contribs) 
:Abnormally low body temperature is known as hypothermia, but it is not technically the "opposite" of fever—hyperthermia is (see the relevant articles for more detail). Colds are not caused by cold temperatures. This is a common misconception. It's just that people usually associate cold (as a medical condition) with cold temperature for various reasons. By the way, your question would probably be more appropraitely placed on the Reference Desk. —LestatdeLioncourt 15:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold v.s. Fever 

message: Somebody had removed  for this entry:
"Coca-cola boiled with a lemon then drunk, can help with colds by warming your body temperature and caffeine helps performance and also usuable on cold days, better results if drunk just before bed."
I believe a little more discussion should be made first, because the entry is not very rational.
For instance, why would a lemon do such a difference?
Does Coca-cola earm your body temperature? And even if it did, why would that relieve cold symptoms?
However, as written earlier, "Coffee, or its active component, caffeine, has also been shown to improve mood and mental performance during rhinovirus infection.". Nevertheless, coffee is a better source of caffeine than Coca-cola, which therefore renders Coca-cola redundant in this case.
Finally, why would it be best just before bed?
Eiher the entry should be scientific proven by trials on people, or it should be rationally deductable. Mikael Häggström 07:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: American Lung Assoc recommends avoiding caffeine drinks.  I have started work on this section and will continue later G716 06:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ignoring any statements from the ALA, or any other US/UK medical group (I'm not going to debate the factuality or lack-there-of of their information here) there is much information from the natural and herbal medical groups, including the Chinese Centre for Medical Progress (Hong Kong, 1992) and the American Natural Remedies Group (USA, 2003) ,that shows various benefits of avoiding refined, chemically modified/created sugars while suffering from a cold infection. That would be a reliable reason to avoid Coca-Cola and other non-natural soda drinks. Lostinlodos (talk) 09:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coca-cola as a remedy? 

message: I removed Tamagozake as a home remedy as use of alcohol is specifically not recommended in some of the authoritative references. The Tamagozake page, only cites a blog and a recipe web page.G716 07:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tamagozake

message: The recently added home remedy, Garlic, is not written in a formal tone - it reads more like something your grandmother might say than an encyclopaedia entry. D4g0thur 12:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone issues 

message: I have removed the statement "Interferon-containing lozenges are currently being investigated as an alternative method of delivery." as I can find no reliable source. Amarillo Biosciences appears to be the only company developing interferon-containing lozenges, but not for the cold G716 07:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interferon-containing lozenges

message: I have brought this article to Good Article Review for review and possible delisting of its Good Article status. G716 07:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article Review

message: Here are the comments from Good Article Review:
Nomination for delisting due to:
:* many sections are very poorly referenced and there appear to be many unverifiable statements
:* the pathology section discusses transmission, not the pathology
:* the treatment section is poorly organized -- a mix of approved OTC drugs for symptom relief, palliative patient care, unproven supplements, experimental antiviral drugs, and folklore. G716 07:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this review wasn't archived properly, but there ya go, it was delisted. Homestarmy 21:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted from Good Article status

message: I marked this dubious.  I realize that effectiveness of home remedies, aside from placebo effect, are probably expected to be dubious.  The bit about "... the fumes of the garlic will soak through your system during the night" is a bit much, though. -- Boracay Bill 03:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't you see that episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer? :-) Axl 21:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Home remedy - Garlic 

message: I reorganized order of treatment section as follows:
 ==Treatment==
   ===Palliative Care===
   ===Antibiotics===
   ===Antivirals===
   ===Over-the-Counter Symptom Medicines===
   ===Herbal Remedies===
      ====Echinacea====
   ===Other===
      ====Vitamin C====
      ====Zinc Preparations====
      ====Interferons====
      ====Steam Inhalation====
      ====Chicken Soup====
      ====Home Remedies====
G716 16:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Treatment Section

message: The Italian - English Dictionary at WorldReference.com doesn't translate suffumigio, but lists suffumigare meaning fumigate
G716 19:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Steam Inhalation

message: I removed this section.  All that is left are the following unsourced items.  I'll be willing to add back in if anyone comes up with reliable sources.
*nebulized medicinal mixtures
*hot compresses
*Eating spicy food can help alleviate congestion, although it may also irritate the already-tender throat.
G716 05:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Home remedies 

message: I am Brazilian myself and never heard of anything like widespread cold during hot seasons, quite the opposite, as it would be expected. Could anybody find any reference for that claim? (it's in the end of the article) Otherwise, I think it would be appropriate to delete that paragraph.
:Unreferenced text removed -- I could find no source on the web for this claim.  I am wiling to replace if anyone finds a reliable sourceG716 22:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cold Season in Brazil

message: This article says the incubation period is 1-3 days, but the rhinovirus article specifically says 8-10 hours.  So which is it? -Rolypolyman 14:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Difference was onset of symptoms and time to peak symptoms —G716 <T·C> 04:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incubation period conflict 

message: Current text:
:In a widely-publicized, but flawed, experiment, researchers at the Common Cold Centre at the Cardiff University attempted to demonstrate that cold temperatures can lead to a greater susceptibility to viral infection.[58] In the experiment, 29% of a group of 90 people who sat with their feet in ice-cold water for 20 minutes a day for five days developed cold symptoms during the five days, while 9% of a control group of 90 people who were not similarly exposed developed symptoms. However, when interviewed on NPR, Dr. Ronald Turner (University of Virginia) pointed out a flaw in the study: the experiment only recorded symptoms and not actual viral infections.[59]
It did not attempt what is said; abstract says "This study will test the hypothesis that acute cooling of the feet causes the onset of common cold symptoms." The cited "flaw," that it recorded symptoms and not viral infections, was no flaw: testing viral infection was not the intent of the experiment, and was was clearly stated in the study's objectives and conclusion. It's a rigorous study, with full text freely available online; it clearly delineates between reported symptoms, or reported belief one has a cold, versus actually having a respiratory infection. The doctor cited in an NPR.org article for pointing out the "flaw" was briefly quoted explaining the study (that it had nothing to do with virology) but was not quoted as saying the study was flawed; my impression is that the article's author viewed it as a flaw, and may have misinterpreted the doctor to be saying the study was flawed. Whatever the case, I think this particular NPR.org article, primarily about why kids don't want to wear coats, should not be taken as a reliable source in judging the scientific validity of the study. 
There is also no cited source that the study was widely-publicized. While I don't doubt it, and I don't doubt its findings would be widely misinterpreted and/or misreported, a source should be provided for those claims, or they should not be claimed. I am modifying the paragraph as follows:
:Researchers at the Common Cold Centre at the Cardiff University conducted a study to "test the hypothesis that acute cooling of the feet causes the onset of common cold symptoms."[4] In the experiment, 14.4% of a group of 90 people who sat with their feet in ice-cold water for 20 minutes twice a day for four or five days reported cold symptoms within five days of the procedure, while just 5.6% of a control group of 90 people who were not similarly exposed reported cold symptoms. The study measured the subjects' self-reported cold symptoms, and belief they had a cold; not whether an actual respiratory infection developed. It concludes that the onset of common cold symptoms can be caused by acute chilling of the feet, but that "further studies are needed to determine the relationship of symptom generation to any respiratory infection."
-Agyle 23:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed numbers above; 14.4% vs 5.6% reported belief they had a cold, while 28.8% vs 8.8% reported cold symptoms. Also, the NPR article from the prior text, which I removed as a source, is here. -Agyle 23:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, that's another limitation of the study; the control group put their feet in empty bowls of air twice a day! I hope they do conduct further research; tracking actual infections would make the "blindness" of the study less important. Note that the reference (generated by cite journal) actually has two links, one to doi.org, one to nih.gov; both give an abstract, but the page from the doi.org has an option to see the full article for free. It's tempting to remove the PMID from the "cite journal" data so that it won't display the second, less useful link. -Agyle 05:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out the link to the free full text.  I've added the url to the citation in the article. Regards —G716 <T·C> 01:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold as misnomer: Cardiff study mischaracterized? 

message: Removed mis-placed text
:Between one-third and one-half of all people exposed to a cold virus become infected; 75% of the infected population show symptoms, which start 1–2 days after infection.
:After a common cold, a sufferer develops immunity to the particular virus. This immunity offers only limited protection against the many other cold viruses. The person, therefore, can easily be infected by a different cold virus.
:(removed citation is: )
First sentence refers to experimental infection, not natural infection (which is what this section is about), and second sentence is in wrong place —G716 <T·C> 03:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symptoms 

message: The article currently states that headache and fever are rare symptoms of colds. P&G Health reports these symptoms as occurring in 20-60% of cases.
:Fixed. Cited refs differ slightly in opinion about headache -- consensus appears to be that headache occurs sometimes, not rarely.  Fever is rare in colds. —G716 <T·C> 04:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Headache and Fever

message: Dizziness (usually due to excessive nose blowing), skin sensitivity, loss of appitite, dehydration, sore throat, greatly decreased sences of scent & taste, increased sensitivity to light, & time seems to drag slowly on.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.122.193 (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These appear to be personal anecdotal observations, not documented, common symptoms. —G716 <T·C> 04:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Symptoms

message: In the phrase "Vitamin C megadosage", the entire phrase was linked to the article Vitamin C megadosage, but an anon IP changed it to link to Vitamin C and Vitamin C megadosage separately (using the formatting Vitamin C megadosage). I can see the rationale for either approach, and tend to favor using a single internal link as a reader may otherwise be unaware that there are two distinct links. I've seen similar situations before, but don't know of any WP guidelines on the matter. I'd be curious to read opinions, or a link to a WP guideline. I'm reverting to a single link for now. -Agyle 16:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How to internally link Vitamin C megadosage?

message: In his autobiography James Lovelock describes work he did (for UK Medical Research Councl) that establishes aeolian transport plays no role (Andrewes, C.H., Lovelock, J.E. and Sommerville, T. 1951. An experiment on the transmission of colds. Lancet, 260, 25.). As I recall sufferers were found to pass the virus on only when they played cards together. Contact with infected surfaces seemed, in his work, to be the key. Can any expert confirm this and make the necessary correction? Could the transmission of flu be similarly restricted?--Nick Green 22:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A PubMed search lists lots of research on transmission of rhinovirus.  Secondary ref #6 in the article lists both aerosol and contact as modes of transmission. Regards—G716 <T·C> 23:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Transmission

message: Is it not true that the common cold originated from horses? Helpsloose 11:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horses 

message: Does anyone know which organizations are conducting scientific research with the common cold? I mean, come on! We have computers. We have sequenced the human genome. What, are they trying to concoct a vaccine using an abacus?!? Sevenzark 7 (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Pleconaril Regards—G716 <T·C> 02:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual medical research towards a cure? 

message: Why do people get the common cold up to 20-30 times or more in their life when the articcle states that only 5 diseases cause symptoms of the common cold? Would the body be immune to any common cold like viruses after being in contact with those first 5 viruses? Spitfire (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: added note on number of serotypes of rhinovirus —G716 <T·C> 22:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The viruses mutate too fast and often for your immune system to matter.  All that your immune system can do is make you immune to the last flavor that came by.  The problem is you rarely see the same set of mutations.  I don't know how many genes a virus has to mutate with but say it has five possible mutated versions, and there are five different viruses, you could get the cold 25 different times.  I am guessing the viruses have the ability to mutate way more.  Dachande (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nowhere in this article does it state why people get repitions of the common cold. 

message: I don't remember the name of the researchers or the institution where the research was performed, but i had seen something on TV about the relation between cold and common cold.
No, it is not the cold itself that makes people sick, but it does lower resistance. When for example, your chest is exposed to cold, extra blood goes there to keep it warm. But some of this blood comes from around your nasal cavities where it was previously, through the anti-bodies, keeping the resident 'common-cold-virus' at bay. With the resulting lack of anti-bodies, the virus is not resisted and you get sick.
Has anyone else heard of this? 
Rachid12051 (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting -- if you find a reliable source for the research, I'll summarize for the article. —G716 <T·C> 01:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cold and common cold 

message: Please state in the image caption with which country and which war this "Wartime poster" is associated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.48.52 (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done—G716 <T·C> 04:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Cost Of The Common Cold & Influenza 

message: Unfortunately, this article does not meet the Good Article criteria at the present time, and in fact, is still quite a long ways off. There are numerous organizational issues with the article; most notably, it appears that there are too many subsections and sub-sub-sections that could probably be combined or reorganized for clarity. For starters, I'd put 'prevention' and 'treatment' closer together. Make sure that the treatments listed there are actually treatments of actual symptoms of the common cold. Some of the ones listed actually appear to be preventative, such as Vitamin C.
What is the purpose of the 'exposure to cold weather'; seems like this could go into a section on the causes or pathology.
The 'economic cost' section is pretty specific to the US, and isn't inclusive of other nations; thereby, the 'worldwide view' tag that's there still applies. This must be settled prior to GA status.
While the references used in the article appear to be reasonably good and reliable sources, there's still a lot of sections and material that is insufficiently cited. Any 'citation needed' tags must also be resolved for GA as well.
The article's images, while appropriately tagged, are not organized very well, particularly towards the beginning of the article, and around the 'economic cost' section. They seem to be kind of crammed in there, like there's too many, or maybe this is an indication that there's not enough actual text in the article, so it needs expansion there. It might also help to put the table of contents where it should be placed by default (to the left and immediately after the summary/lead section, instead of at the right underneath the infobox).
The 'symptoms' and 'complications' sections could use some significant expansion, as well as the lead section. The lead should provide a good summary of the article; it might help to review WP:LEAD for tips here.
Check the Medical Manual of Style for guidelines and templates on how medically-related articles on diseases should look, and specifically what sections that need to be included that may be missing. The article, at present, is not in compliance with WP:MEDMOS.
Hope this helps improve the article. This may not be a complete listing of every individual issue, but hopefully will give editors some guidelines towards getting it up to standards. Once the article meets the key criteria listed at WP:WIAGA, and is probably at least around 85-90% compliant with WP:MEDMOS, I think it can be promoted to GA quite easily. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: "a sense of impending doom..."
Is that really a symptom?  Maybe it should be removed.
Sixium (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impending Doom? 

message: Would you believe I was struggling to find a word for "dollars" but "money" just didn't come to me? Probably becauase I HAVE A FREAKING COLD!. Thanks for your help - good edit!139.48.81.98 (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To whoever changed "dollars" to "money" in the intro 

message: "Herbs often used in homeopathic cold remedies". Using herbs in remedy makes it herbal, not homeopathic? Victordk13 (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  H 

message: It might be nice to include an explanation of why a cold causes the symptoms it does, such as achiness and sore throat (especially the early signs).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.57.240 (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Why of Symptoms 

message: How can you have a placebo-controlled double-blind test on steam inhalation? What was the placebo?
AngleWyrm (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Steam inhalation?  Bringing 212+ deg F air into the nasal cavities sounds like a recipe for disaster. -Rolypolyman (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steam Inhalation 

message: Wouldn't it be a good idea to include various nations' traditions in using natural remedies in treating the common cold? For example: the Americans traditionally believe that chicken soup does the trick, in the UK it's honey and lemon juice mixed with hot water, in Germany it's fennel tea with honey, in Russia it's milk, garlic and honey. Any thoughts? Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 05:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  International remedies 

message: Removed the reference to plastic to be more compatible with the source provided.
Darydale (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Immunity to the Common Cold? 

message: Somebody should add something about Cold FX, its allowed to make claims about shortening the length of colds, whereas most of those herbs have far less proven evidence.  In Canada its clinically proven to reduce the duration of cold symptoms.24.65.42.159 (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold FX 

message: In the paragraph under 'Virus' there is a reference to the ability to gain complete immunity to the common cold 'by eating nothing but plastic'. The website link that is given as a reference for this does not mention plastic. Is the entry a typo or a misinterpretation of the sited reference website?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.242.47.51 (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is common cold the most widespread illness in the world (save for perhaps, malnutrition, not just due to poverty, but also due to eating disorders, junk food, fad diets, etc.)? Surely, no living organism is immune to it. Does the article also mention as to how many people in the world might be suffering from common cold at one given time?59.184.189.65 (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The viruses are polymorphic. There are more than 100 different varieties at any given time and although a certain level of immunity may develop to a single one following infection, to be immune, you'd have to be exposed to every single variation of the virus and produce an immune response to it. Given than a few more appear from mutations each year and a few old ones fade into rarity, developing a vaccine of lots of different ones would be unfeasable as most new infections are from the newest mutants and there are already too many varieties. (I've tried to avoid words like "strain", "type", "class" in this paragraph to avoid confusion as you have to be very careful with such words to avoid making mistakes and I'm too lazy to double check I got them right).--KX36 (talk) 10:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immunity to the common cold? 

message: What about andrographis? Consumer Reports' Natural Medicine Ratings (subscription required) rates it as "possibly effective."
--Cory Fryling (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrographis 

message: The page currently seems to say that one of the main causes for a common cold is a coronavirus. I was taught in medical school that coronavirus does not (usually) affect humans, and that's why it took so long to track down the virus in SARS. Perhaps the article should note this. At the moment someone could look at this and think there's a 50:50 chance their cold is a rhinovirus or a coronavirus.--KX36 (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to one of the two cited references, coronavirus may cause up to 15% of colds—G716 <T·C> 01:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coronavirus 

message: The statement "The seasonality may be due to the start of the school year..." has been taken from the USA government website: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. In Australia, the school year starts in February, a hot summer month. Colds and flu are prevalent in colder periods, just like elsewhere but albeit during different months of a year. I see no causal link between the start of the school year and the onset of "cold season".Outback1964 (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epidemiology 

message: Etiology is all wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.195.132 (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed - reverted to last stable version —G716 <T·C> 23:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etiology 

message: Shouldn't there be some mention of Cold-fX?  216.239.234.196 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes maybe under alternative treatments that have no evidence for them.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cold-fX]] 

message: There is an issue with how much is write about alternative treatments.  None of which have good support.  This section should be reduced.  Reviews rather than primary research should be referenced.  Will work on this.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Have fixed it.  Still lots of work needed.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight 

message: What is this bit about?  
<In fact, recent sources a Ms Allegra Nespoli as having contracted the virus for up to 6 months on her move to an unspecified burough of London (Old London Town). Hospital records have never been officially recovered but sources close to the government alluded to the incident in several revealing interviews with early morning interviewer Tim Westwood.>
76.213.243.124 (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under "Symptoms"... 

message: I disagree with the use of the word 'highly contagious' as research has shown it to be not very contagious.
According to the Common Cold Centre at Cardiff University, on webpage:
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/biosi/subsites/cold/commoncold.html
There is a paragraph that says:
Common cold viruses are not very contagious
Despite the fact that very few of us escape from at least a couple of common cold infections each year, common cold viruses are not very contagious. Under laboratory conditions when healthy volunteers are kept with others who are suffering from common cold infections it has proven remarkably difficult to spread infection from one person to another.
Source: Andrewes C. The Common Cold. New York: Norton, 1965:187.
Is there any research to suggest it is 'highly contagious'?
Chikong (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly contagious 

message: This New Scientist article http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12808-cold-weather-really-does-spread-flu.html quotes a study which says the temperature does play a role.  Can someone with relevant expertise take a look this and consider it's implications for this article?  203.161.83.161 (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exposure to cold weather 

message: I have a challenge for myself and anyone who considers themselves informed about the "common cold."  Find research (a primary source) that demonstrates that hand washing reduces infection.  There certainly isn't any on this page.  What we have is, instead, a reference to a news article about research on influenza, wherein someone parrots the conventional "wisdom" that colds are transmitted by touch.
It makes no sense that colds are transmitted by touch for this simple reason:  People wash their hands about the same amount year round.  But colds are highly seasonal.  This is the best "research" on this question I have found so far.
Michael Layton  2009-04-03  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.240.77 (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Means of Infection 

message: The article reference does not support the claim that 2nd generation antihistamine drugs are not useful for a cold symptoms. The drugs merely do not cross the blood brain barrier and a cold virus does not attack the brain anyway.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.225.190 (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you are getting at.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You would agree with the above article.  These drugs have limited effectiveness and are not effective for the cough.  May help with nasal congestion.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd generation antihistamines.