Talk:Milwaukee protocol

message: How do you pronounce her first name? is it ji-anna, or more like jina? Omer Enbar 09:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How

message: The article read as follows: "She is only the eighth person known to have survived rabies after the onset of symptoms; the other survivors were vaccinated before symptoms developed."  This is fundamentally incorrect.  Being vaccinated before symptoms start is hardly unusual.  Unless I am insane (which I doubt I am), these people suffered from vaccine failures.  Giese is remarkable for being the first entirely unvaccinated person to survive. --Trafton 07:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction

message: Added Dr. Willoughby's name to the article.  He did lead the team that came up with this treatment, and he wrote the protocol, so he does deserve some modicum of credit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayekappy (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a reliable source to prove that he was the lead physician. Royalbroil 03:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Treatment

message: I'm going to make my biases explicit, and look for some guidance from more experienced Wikipedians: I do not support the recently added paragraph that attributes Ms. Giese's survival to a "prayer circle." I personally do not believe in the power of intercessory prayer to heal the terminally ill, but my personal beliefs are separate from my argument for why this comment should not be included in the article.
First, there is no reference to any sort of world-wide, mass prayer for Jeanna. Googling '"Jeanna Giese" prayer' finds evidence that students at her school prayed for her, but until there is some way of documenting the size of the prayer circle phenomenon, I don't think it is verifiable or fair to claim that the prayer circle was "large", or even that her story is "popular among Christians". ("Large" and "popular" are both tricky words - an objective measure would be best.) I'm not saying that we shouldn't include a reference to the power of prayer unless we can quantify the phenomenon, but I'm not seeing *any* evidence that it was large. Many references discuss her survival in the context of the power of prayer, but these were written after her recovery.
Second, including the reference to prayer in the article - which also states that there is no conclusive explanation for Ms. Giese's survival - falsely gives the impression that there is no medical explanation for her survival. Although her reasons for survival are controversial, controversy in the medical community does not imply that the only reasonable explanation is the supernatural. Even if many people did pray for Jeanna, her survival after many people prayed for her does not automatically warrant a mention. (Certainly one could think of many terminally ill people who were prayed for who did not survive - does this warrant a mention on their wikipedia page?) Absent any suggestion of why the Giese case was special (a special kind of prayer, and especially large number of people, etc.) any indication that she might have survived because of prayer is an implicit suggestion that prayer was the cause of her survival. Jbrukh's edits help, but it still seems misleading to me.
I certainly do not mean to trivialize anyone's religious beliefs, and I don't want to start a religious battle on the Wikipedia page of this remarkable girl. But I don't think it's fair to falsely leave readers with the impression that this is a particularly remarkable or noteworthy case of "the power of prayer." 
I am going to edit the article to include a reference to the "power of prayer" angle, but make it more "personal" by including a quote from her father. Your feedback on how to approach this sensitive issue is welcomed.
Loremipsum 00:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a related note, I removed the statement that the power of prayer could not be disproven. The scientific method cannot be used to prove a negative, making the statement redundant. --Kesh 18:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone recently decided the "prayer passage" was unencyclopedic and removed it. While I wish they had mentioned something on the talk page, I'm inclined to agree with them, and I'm not about to lose any sleep over it. Loremipsum 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The religious connection is mentioned on the site Why Won't God Heal Amputees. The site has been discussed by New York Times, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Shawnc (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Prayer Paragraph

message: I'm going to make my biases explicit, and look for some guidance from more experienced Wikipedians: I do not support the recently added paragraph that attributes Ms. Giese's survival to a "prayer circle." I personally do not believe in the power of intercessory prayer to heal the terminally ill, but my personal beliefs are separate from my argument for why this comment should not be included in the article.
First, there is no reference to any sort of world-wide, mass prayer for Jeanna. Googling '"Jeanna Giese" prayer' finds evidence that students at her school prayed for her, but until there is some way of documenting the size of the prayer circle phenomenon, I don't think it is verifiable or fair to claim that the prayer circle was "large", or even that her story is "popular among Christians". ("Large" and "popular" are both tricky words - an objective measure would be best.) I'm not saying that we shouldn't include a reference to the power of prayer unless we can quantify the phenomenon, but I'm not seeing *any* evidence that it was large. Many references discuss her survival in the context of the power of prayer, but these were written after her recovery.
Second, including the reference to prayer in the article - which also states that there is no conclusive explanation for Ms. Giese's survival - falsely gives the impression that there is no medical explanation for her survival. Although her reasons for survival are controversial, controversy in the medical community does not imply that the only reasonable explanation is the supernatural. Even if many people did pray for Jeanna, her survival after many people prayed for her does not automatically warrant a mention. (Certainly one could think of many terminally ill people who were prayed for who did not survive - does this warrant a mention on their wikipedia page?) Absent any suggestion of why the Giese case was special (a special kind of prayer, and especially large number of people, etc.) any indication that she might have survived because of prayer is an implicit suggestion that prayer was the cause of her survival. Jbrukh's edits help, but it still seems misleading to me.
I certainly do not mean to trivialize anyone's religious beliefs, and I don't want to start a religious battle on the Wikipedia page of this remarkable girl. But I don't think it's fair to falsely leave readers with the impression that this is a particularly remarkable or noteworthy case of "the power of prayer." 
I am going to edit the article to include a reference to the "power of prayer" angle, but make it more "personal" by including a quote from her father. Your feedback on how to approach this sensitive issue is welcomed.
Loremipsum 00:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prayer Paragraph

message: The Recife case at the bottom of that paragraph seems to contradict the statement at the top of the paragraph that (implied all) other attempts have been unsuccessful. Salopian (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Other attempts

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 16:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Actual protocol and list of drugs and amounts used and techniques posted would help save lives if posted here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mix Bouda-Lycaon (talk • contribs) 03:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The people who should be administering this treatment are physicians, and all of the physicians who would be capable of administering it would have access to the medical journals which describe the protocol and techniques (they're online for those with subscriptions to those sites). So, how would publishing them on Wikipedia be of interest? If you are interested, I'm certain you could probably find a library with copies of the journals which you could read. 71.13.147.17 (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone please post the method of treatment here. 

message: The introduction says that Jeanna "became the first of only three patients known to have survived symptomatic rabies without receiving the rabies vaccine."  But, the Other Attempts section says, "There were 2 survivors out of 25 patients treated under the first protocol. A further 10 patients have been treated under the revised protocol and there have been a further 2 survivors."  This means there have been at least four survivors.  How many have there really been?
:The June 2015 Reader's Digest says there have been 8 survivors out of 57 attempts. I don't have complete faith in claims made by magazines, so I'd think a better source would be needed.71.89.84.249 (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many survivors? 

message: 2012-04-17
The protocol is here.
http://www.mcw.edu/portal/Search-Results.htm?Search_Keywords=rabies+protocol
http://www.mcw.edu/FileLibrary/Groups/Pediatrics/InfectiousDiseases/Milwaukee_rabies_protocol_V3_1.pdf
http://www.mcw.edu/FileLibrary/Groups/Pediatrics/InfectiousDiseases/Milwaukee_rabies_protocol2_1.pdf
Alex_I  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantregistermynick (talk • contribs) 10:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The protocol itself. 

message: Prior to an edit a month ago, this article claimed several people had survived with the help of this treatment.There are numerous discussions on this page that claim some cases were with vaccine and a handful were not. Yet now this article has been edited to categorically state that this treatment has never worked even once since then. So was the article previously entirely bullshit? If so how was it sourced? Can someone confirm that the paper cited actually says what the article says it says? This seems like a radical change to the article and I am sceptical it may have been done by someone with an agenda.91.125.187.166 (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, according to recent WP:MEDRS the protocol has been entirely discredited. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes were too big - most of the content was removed. Even the descritption of the Jeanna Giese case, which is denied by no one, has been deleted! Citing an older version: "Some critics say those survivors are due to the patients having a genetic rabies immunity and that the Milwaukee protocol has nothing to do with the survival rate;[17] however this would imply the five patients all happened to coincidentally survive rabies while receiving the Milwaukee protocol—despite no documented survivors before them." Therefore it is possible that the protocol realy works - though only with patients who have a certain combination of genes which helps them to fight rabies, but even they would die without receiving the treatment. And how about that: "Ketamine has been shown to have a direct effect against the rabies virus." Is it also - as the Anonymuous User above have said - bullshit? The method has been controversial from the beginning and maybe it's not recommended by most experts now, but it has not been abandoned yet; you can easily find in the internet reports about two attempts from the current year 2018, one of which claims to be succesful. BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been discredited in the relevant WP:MEDRS. If you want to contend otherwise you need to produce WP:MEDRS saying otherwise. Alexbrn (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

text: I don't deny that it was discredited. But even discredited therapies can be described with details at enwiki. BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: With reliable sources, yes. Alexbrn (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally contradictory edit? 

message: I started a section on the talk page of the Rabies article on how it and this article taken together give a somewhat confusing picture on the status of the Milwaukee protocol and on whether survivals can be attributed to it. I was also led to wonder if the Milwaukee protocol, if it is now considered a failure, really merits its own article. The article is pretty short and if the experiment has been abandoned, it is unlikely that there will be much more to say on the subject.
I think it would be adequate and in fact clearer to cover the Milwaukee protocol in the "Treatment" section of the article on the disease itself.
Rallette (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus was to merge; if you want to undo that you would need to propose a split of Rabies. Such a proposal so soon might be considered disruptive I think. Alexbrn (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Very little is needed. it'll be nothing more relevant than a footnote in history since it is a failed treatment, along with the thousands of other failed treatments. MartinezMD (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal