Talk:Mumps/Archive 1

message: NOTE TO WHOEVER KEEPS EDITING THIS INFORMATION OUT AND RELEGATING IT:-
It is fundamental and the most important information that as mumps is a mild illness in children in developed economies preventive measures are not necessary for them.  It is further fundamental factual information that the British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain actively recommended against mumps vaccination based on clinical factors.  They then changed that recommendation only when it went against government policy with the introduction of MMR in 1988 into Great Britain.
:this is an assertion that events in 1988 caused events in 1987.  Midgley 01:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This paragraph should probably include a note about the MMR controversy so as not to appear medically POV. Lee M 01:21, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What, the "controversy" where people fantasize without evidence that it's linked to autism? That's not a medical point of view.- Nunh-huh 08:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I think most of the fuss about it was here in the UK, but MMR is a wikilink to the MMR article, which has comprehensive information, so I think that should be sufficent for anyone interested in the topic. akaDruid 10:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, it can cause swelling in the thyroid, the pancreas, and other glandular tissue.  - Nunh-huh 08:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "PRINCIPAL POINT ON PREVENTION"

message: This recent addition deleted:-
:"Women are at risk of ovarian swelling and possibly bursting. Women with the mumps should have abdominal pain closely monitored because the ovaries are at risk of bursting."
Proper medical references are required generally for this page but this particular recent addition especially needs a proper reference.  It refers to something that does not seem to be in the normal literature about risks of mumps - this is an alleged complication that appears to have no basis in reality, according to what seems to be accepted medical knowledge.  It is highly unlikely that an ovary would 'burst'.  Eggs from ovaries will commonly be described as 'bursting' from an ovary in the normal course of ovulation.  --Anon The Editor 21:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bursting Ovaries 

message: Excuse me but the aggression you got from me was calling you a vaccinator, as I recall.  That would be open to debate, I'd have thought.  And saying 'conspiracy theory' is just reverting to ad hominem, logical fallacy etc. It is obvious to me that you allopaths/vaccinators are going to suppress information critical to vaccination, which in this case is the argument that you have made mumps more dangerous to 'sell' the mmr vaccine.  There is plenty of evidence for this if you look in old textbooks before the vaccine came out.  Same with measles & chickenpox.  That is before we get into the effectiveness of the mumps vaccine (some were 100% ineffective, and in one study 75% of mumps cases had been vaccinated).  But I can't waste too much time talking when it wont make any difference to the mumps page, as editing is in the hands of vaccinators. As to the 'agression' of 198, that is open to debate, you are being judge and jury, and banishing him to the cells when his opinion upsets you. I wish I could do that to the wife!  john 15:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I never accused you of aggression John. The page already mentions that until 1987 several professional organisation did not recommend the vaccine. What else do you want? And the "domination by vaccinators" is your perception, yourself being judge and jury on this matter - just go ahead and make one NPOV edit and we'll see if there is domination here. JFW | T@lk 17:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Numerous personal attacks" is agression by any definition. Not sure what NPOV is but removing all whale.to links by 3 allopaths including yourself, is allopath domination, I would have thought. And removing the text supplied by 198 is another example.  I haven't even bothered to supply text yet, for obvious reasons. john 17:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of declinking to links to whale.to is to keep the discussion focused on the issue at hand rather than be diverted by the other content on whale.to (as amplified previously on Talk:MMR vaccine.  Andrew73 18:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That doesn't make any sense, pretext springs to mind.  Who is being diverted?  Children?  The only reason anyone would be diverted is because you keep mentioning the other subjects on whale.to! john 22:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I did not remove text by 198 - I replaced it with more accurate content. Why haven't you bothered to supply text? It is a better idea than slapping your URLs around. JFW | T@lk 19:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Remove/replace is the same thing in my world. More accurate content would be debatable (a euphamism for allopath beliefs), if I recall the text in question.  Text takes time to write, and I can't imagine any text would last long, so I would waste more time. And I have my opinions written up on whale.to, so linking would be a more sensible approach, maybe under 'the alternative view'  for example, but that is too threatening to vaccinators. You can't take the alternative viewpoint. john 22:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point of Wikipedia is to have WP:NPOV text in the end, rather than it be a collection of external links (unless you prefer to have Wikipedia segregated into pro-vaccinator, pro-allopath text and anti-vaccinator, anti-allopath external links)! Andrew73 22:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That maybe the point of Wikipedia in a perfect world, but that doesn't take into account the reality of medical politics, in that you allopaths control the text sections, so who wants to waste time writing text to have it rejected? So I would prefer to have external links and let people do their own thinking.  I know that isn't traditional, to let people think for themselves, as they may reject vaccination---and studies show the better educated are the ones who reject vaccines.  You could have  subheadings termed something like 'the alternative viewpoint', with whale.to links under that.  If what you say is true about external links and Wiki why do some pages have 20 or 30, and some are 1/1000 the size of whale, ie pretty trivial and just one document.  Whale.to is the largest database of alternative view on vaccination and vaccine disease on the internet, so one link to whale would be all that is required. I admire you effort to find reasons to reject whale.to links but they don't sound convincing.  The real reason is obvious.  john 16:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't go so far as to say that allopaths "control" the text sections (or would you also lump allopaths into mind control?).  And yes, the text does get edited, but there are plenty of articles that include anti-vaccinator viewpionts.  Just because some pages have 20-30 links (which probably is excessive) doesn't necessarily justify inclusion of whale.to.  Andrew73 17:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even a link to my medical conspiracy page on the conspiracy page  gets removed, and seeing as all conspiracies are deemed paranoid on Wiki I find that revealing. If allopaths don't control the medical pages how come just 2 allopaths---Jdwolff, InvictaHog (mainly) have edit control on those pages, and remove all of my links eg ? So I would go that far, from evidence, you wouldn't as you are an allopath. Don't use the link argument, as it doesn't really hold any water.  I have the largest collection of smallpox books and articles on the internet.  The largest collection of MMR and vaccination articles on the internet, as far as I am aware. john 18:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  JFW and InvictaHOG are not the only editors who have been removing links to whale.to; this includes myself and other editors as well!  Yes, your collection of vaccination articles is impressive (whether I agree with them or not), but why also include links to [ alien mind implant removers]?  Do you feel these topics all have equal credence?  Andrew73 20:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text:   You also, that is 3 allopaths.  That tells a story.  I never put links to implant removers from Wiki. And most people think the implants are put in by the government, by the way, but top marks for implanting the word 'alien', that is a good buzzword.  Have you done any research into aliens or implants, by the way?  john 15:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate your discretion in not including a link to alien implant removers in Wiki, but why is it implanted on whale.to (or did an alien (or aliens) implant it there to mind control humans?).  As an allopath, I don't do research on aliens!  Perhaps research on implants in the future, but I'm trying to stay out of the mind control variety.  Andrew73 16:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Whatever you want to call it, eg NPOV, no text from me will ever get accepted.  Anyway, NPOV sounds great in theory but that is a bit like a page written on God by an agnostic.  The only ones qualified to write on God are the mystics, shamans etc, as they experience God, but in an our atheist run world, the atheists show their great tolerance by letting the agnostics write pages for Wiki, if you can see the analogy, fingers crossed. 'Accusing' sounds like you still deny you are a vaccinator and allopath.  The denial is quite something to break through for an allopath, I can understand that. I can lead an allopath to the water but I can't make them drink, Shaw put it well "As well consult a butcher on the value of vegetarianism as a doctor on the worth of vaccination." john 16:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Excuse me....

message: My 19yr old daughter (vaccinated once with MMR) caught mumps off her 19yr old boyfriend (vaccinated MMR a year ago).  Kids used to get mumps pre school, now it is teenagers, hardly an improvement, but either way it seems pointless to give kids autism in an attempt to prevent a mild disease. The only reason has to be money. john 20:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aargh, and did she develop autism after MMR? JFW | T@lk 22:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the sympathy.  Just shows why it is better to get mumps pre school rather than vaccine mumps during Uni.   No, she didn't develop autism luckily, not every one does, about 1 in 100 after vaccination, at a rough guess, she was lucky to have just one MMR. Another friend's kid developed mumps after MMR--she said it looks like they create mumps by giving everyone injections, be interesting to know the real stats. It helps if you breastfeed for at least a year (world average 4 years), but you allopaths don't do much to encourage that, it would help encourage you if you didn't take money from milk manufacturers.  john 13:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 1/100?  Don't be ridiculous.Midgley 20:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, really straying here. Apparently have never met the breast feeding Nazis that populate all the hospitals I work at. Anecdotal medicine at its finest. InvictaHOG 01:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: So have I but I was influenced by a Prof of Pediatrics Robert Mendelsohn, you can read his comemnts [ also if docs really believed in bottlefeeding, and didn't just offer lip service, then around 99% of mothers would be breasfeeding. And taking money from bottle feeding manufacturers isn't a good move if you want people to believe what you say. john 22:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps Dr. Mendelsohn is out of date.  The medical community as a whole, at least in the U.S., is in favor of breastfeeding, including the American Academy of Pediatrics.  On their website, they describe themselves as a "staunch advocate" of breastfeeding.  Andrew73 22:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Yes, they have to say that, but as they take money from milk manufacturers perhaps they aren't quite as committed as you appear to think they are?  I don't think anyone would dispute that if the medical profession actually walked their talk then 98% of women would be breastfeeding for 1-4 years, not, at a guess 20-30% for 3 months on average.  That is the killer statistic, as who gives parents their belief that cows milk is OK to feed your children?  They don't tell them that the death rate is twice as high in bottlefed children, for example. You read the benefit of breast [ which the medical profession have know for decades.  I like the quote by Hilary Butler, which says it all. john 09:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That was decided a long time ago---you allopaths are going to dictate the mumps page text around vaccination and allopathic beliefs, and keep out any alternative viewpoint (eg naturopathy, homeopathy, nutritional med) so ones mind does tend to wander. john 12:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Breast feeding

message: MMWR has it: the UK has  an epidemic. JFW | T@lk 22:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epidemic 

message: Is the (USA) strain identified and compared to previous ones, yet?  Midgley 00:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It's genotype G. . - Nunh-huh 05:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequenced? 

message: When 2007 rolls around, is there a plan to move all the 2006 outbreak statistics to their own page (perhaps: Mumps (2006)), and continuing for each subsequent year? This would at least provide a historical trail of data. — Loadmaster 13:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next year's article 

message: Is it required that the article contains such an extensive documentation of statewide outbreaks of the virus in the US? I find it strange that there is no refernce to Maurice Hilleman on the page.
--EGGman64 03:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Outbreaks 

message: Single reports of possibly interesting lines of research are far more the stuff of Medline, Nature, Science and the Lancet than they are encyclopaedic.  When they become regular treatments, complete a clinical trial with a clear outcome or otherwise become confirmed is the time to add them.  WP is not Medline.  Midgley 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research (Treatments) 

message: Why is there a list of all mumps outbreaks since 2006. What possible purpose could this serve.--Notker Balbulus 17:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been asked a number of times before, and I agree. Major outbreaks would be notable, but this is just listcruft coming well under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE (#9 Long and sprawling lists of statistics). At the least, it should be retired to a separate article. Anyone else think so? Tearlach 11:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I proposed above, either the list should stay but as a separate article of its own (e.g., "Mumps cases (2006)"), or it should be removed entirely (except for very large/notable epidemics). — Loadmaster 19:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest splitting this into a subarticle, like Mumps/outbreak2006 or something less silly/inflamatory.  I noticed that the most recent edit today is someone updating the current/ongoing outbreak.  Maybe by splitting this, it can move to [wikinews.org] or some similar site?  Heathhunnicutt 15:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest moving all US related stuff into another article and just reference an American total for 2006 at least keep the article from looking so centric.  The difference between heading sizes in my browser (IE 7) is not enough to make individual US state listings any less visually important than the actual other countries.  Alternately, turf the whole thing other than major outbreaks.  A major outbreak is news and possible encyclopaedic when it's passed.  A minor outbreak is quickly contained.  I doubt anyone will use a mumps outbreak from 2006 to decide where to attend university in 2007.  Most of these will already contained.--216.16.239.66 15:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why

message: Here is something like the "outbreak table" I had in mind to summarize the current and ongoing outbreak.
Date         	Iowa 	Wisconsin
20 March 2006	N.D. 	1
14 April 2006	600+ 	N.D.
19 April 2006	     	14
2 May 2006   	1,487	
Heathhunnicutt 00:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current info seems a little too verbose.  I wonder if it merits its own page already.  I am hoping someone else will take this idea and trim the section down to a table-based summary or perhaps a map or a graph.  If I get more spare time, I will work on the genetics or the vaccine article. Heathhunnicutt 16:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, I can't believe I forgot this for so long. If no one else wants to handle this, I will. Joshuagross (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example outbreak history table 

message: Does anyone know where the name comes from?  What do you suppose a single "mump" would be?
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 12:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mump is a now obsolete word, of which the pertinent meaning seems to be to grimace (and used as a substantive noun, the grimace so produced). The word could also mean "to mumble" and "to assume a demure or melancholy expression". The first use of the word mumps to mean the disease it now refers to was in 1598. The word mumps is today generally construed as singular. As for etymology of mump - it doesn't seem like anyone is too sure, but some think it may be imitative of the mumbling it describes. - Nunh-huh 16:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology? 

message: A 40-something friend of mine in Dallas TX just got the mumps (2006-09-07) . His doctor said it's only the second adult case he's ever seen in his entire career. — Loadmaster 15:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The US average is about 250 cases per year and plenty of adults are in there.  So although not in large cases, it occurs regularly, with episodic outbreaks (~6400 in 2006).  I'm reading this article because we have 3 suspected cases (ages 2, 13, and 27) in my practice in the past month.  So to echo other's statements, we don't need to be listing every small case in the main article.--192.77.126.50 (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other cases 

message: Why on earth is there a long list of cases?  I'm contemplating removing it wholesale.  WLU (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved to list of modern mumps outbreaks, it's not a great title, but it's weird to have such a long section.  What's the point, what's encyclopedic about a list of news stories?  WLU (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of cases 

message: First Line:
"Mumps can be caught by sexual intercourse also vaginas can get infected"
Needs to be removed/edited.
Zorglemeister 00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential Sabatoge

message: I have edited and corrected an assertion under the "Treatment" heading, because it only pointed to Aspirin conterindication for use in young children (!!!), for risk of Reye's Syndrome.
Anyone unfamiliar with the issue should read (should have read) the Wikipedia article on Reye's syndrome, where a specific counter indication for children and adults under 19 yers is mentioned (not just small kids).
Anyone unfemmiliar with medical terminology shold NOT edit treatment related articles.
Szjanos (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reyes Syndrome risk 

message: The Lancet has retracted Wakefield's research regarding the MMR vaccine and autism.  Someone better at editing than I should make the proper changes in Prevention text.
retraction
DOI reference: doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60175-7  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.6.215 (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lancet retraction 

message: The article currently contains this " before and after mumps" image.
Is this a valid/useful pair of images?  Picture on the left is smiling, person on the right is not and is also angling their face up.  It almost looks like they are two completely different people - and it's not at all clear whether that's due to mumps or because they are different people!
Could we get an image that comes with some kind of source and whose settings are more controlled?
99.225.148.19 15:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, have difficulty seeing any difference between the before and after images. Sure, they differ strongly, but I can't see what mumps has to do with it. 78.42.178.246 (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there seems to be consensus with all of us, I removed the image.  A better during and after photo would demonstrate the marked swelling that can occur.  that is the point. MartinezMD (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mumps Comparison image before and after 

message: is it worth mentioning that in my youth, at least (i.e. the 1950's), pre-adolescent mumps infection in males was considered a good thing. this, of course because of the risk of orchitis and resultant sterility if the disease were contracted after puberty. parents held 'mumps parties', where all the male child's male friends were invited with the specific intention of their becoming infected.Toyokuni3 (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Same is true for Varicella (Chicken Pox) in my youth.  There were often parties held at the home of an infected child to contract the illness early in a child's life.--MartinezMD (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  When we were kids, my sister caught chickenpox. Our mother, who was a doctor, encouraged my sister and me to spend time together, so I would catch the disease and get it over with. I didn't catch it (and still have never had it), but my mother got it, and suffered from shingles for weeks afterwards. Serve her right! DOwenWilliams (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Reference 

message: People in many countries may not be aware that there are places, Canada, for example (where I live), where the word "Aspirin" is a commercial trademark, owned by the Bayer company. Using this word as if it were a generic name for the drug can lead, and has led, to legal procedings. In Canadian drugstores, "Aspirin" is sold, but is always made by Bayer. The same compound made by other manufacturers is also sold, but the packages are labelled "ASA", which is short for "acetylsalicylic acid", the chemical name of the compound. Canadians are used to this situation, and normally talk about "ASA", rather than "Aspirin".
Wikipedia tries to avoid misusing trademarks, so I have edited this article to replace "Aspirin" with "ASA". I've linked this to "Acetylsalicylic acid", but this gets redirected to the page called "Aspirin"! More work is obviously needed to get rid of this trademark.
DOwenWilliams (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not looking to start an edit war, but the official Wikipedia article is titled Aspirin. MartinezMD (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But should it be? DOwenWilliams (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, per WP:COMMONNAME Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: WP doesn't rule the world. "Aspirin" is still a registered trademark, and misuse of it can have legal consequences. DOwenWilliams (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it cannot when it is used here.  Please don't pontificate about stuff you clearly have no idea about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you an expert on Canadian law? DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't have to be. WP's servers are in the US, and US law is controlling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aspirin / ASA 

message: I've had a quick look at the most recent sources, because some of the sources have become very stale.
* doi:10.1086/652770 (CID) provides guidance on isolation practices
* doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.09148.x (BJU) mumps orchitis
* doi:10.1097/GRF.0b013e31824df256 (Clin Obst Gynecol) obstetric considerations
* Senanayake (2008) is only quoted in one section, but might be of broader interest.
* Cochrane on MMR doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub3
* Green Book (Public Health England)
Will add if I find anything else. JFW | T@lk 14:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this as well -- https://books.google.com/books?id=lTV3BQAAQBAJ "Mumps:Global Status" (2014) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for update 

message: Hi, I will be editing this article over the next 2 or so months for a course in medical school. I'm a bit new at this but I will be adding much as I can, my goal is to bring this article to at least B-class. Mjbailey (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great! I like you addition regarding Reye's syndrome. You could also expand the epidemiology section. Lime0life (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing this for a course 

message: Under Prevention, the article states:"Some anti-vaccine activists protest against the administration of a vaccine against mumps, claiming that the attenuated vaccine strain is harmful, and/or that the wild disease is beneficial. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that the wild disease is beneficial, or that the MMR vaccine is harmful."
There is in fact evidence that the wild form of the disease may be beneficial in the prevention of ovarian cancer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951028/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.34.220.214 (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits of wild childhood mumps 

message: First paragraph states that the complication of ovarian swelling does not affect fertility. "Signs and Symptoms: Complications" states that half of the 5% suffering ovarian swelling as a complication will have fertility issues. I don't know which is true, but one of them needs to be corrected! Thanks 92.4.1.26 (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The second source made no mention of fertility problems so I removed it.MartinezMD (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory information? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Mumps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060415205123/http://www.who.int:80/vaccines/en/mumps.shtml to http://www.who.int/vaccines/en/mumps.shtml#summary
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081207003042/http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca:80/mumps-oreillons/prof-eng.php to http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/mumps-oreillons/prof-eng.php#t2
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070425223203/http://www.microbiologybytes.com:80/virology/Paramyxoviruses.html to http://www.microbiologybytes.com/virology/Paramyxoviruses.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I came here looking for information on whether mumps was recognized as a separate disease in ancient times or whether it has only more recently been recognized as such (like, for example, typhus, which was only recognized as a separate disease in the 15th century). I don't have access to databases or sources that might have this information, but surely someone here does; it would be useful for history students (and writers), at the very least. --24.76.103.169 (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of mumps 

message: Malaise more or less means "feeling tired". "feeling generally unwell". IMO it is perfectly reasonable to use easier to understand language. Also supported by WP:MEDMOS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't make the edit, but I'm pretty sure malaise means ill feeling rather than tiredness. Feeling tired I would say is fatigue. MartinezMD (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks User:MartinezMD :-) Yes I got the two mixed up. Have changed to "feeling generally unwell". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that works fine. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Easier to understand language