Talk:Vibrio vulnificus

message: I dare anyone to say that an infection with a mortality rate approaching 50% is "easy to treat"! That comment is a little trite, isn't it? What works in a petri dish may not necessarily translate well in real life. I hope you don't mind that I've slashed that. --Gak 21:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Treatment is easy?

message: Upon reading the article, one of the first things that struck me as odd was that firstly the mortality rate upon getting a vibrio infection was 50%, and a little further down, the article says that the worst prognosis in patients was those who arrived in shock with mortality at 33%.
Though the figures in the article are correct to the study are correct to the study Prognistic Factors and Antibiotics in Vibrio Vulnificus Septicaemia by Liu JW, Lee IK, Tang HJ, et al.(2006), they are a bit misleading. The 33% mortality figure is in the study itself from 94 patients, and the 50% mortality figure is quoted at the beginning of the same study, i suppose based on the author's references.
The 33% mortality figure is misleading and sounds a little daft because it comes after the sentence preceding it which says that patients with shock have a worse prognosis, and indeed they do, according to the study - patients arriving in shock had a mortality rate of 70 to 91%.
There're probably far better studies of larger size to quote, though this one is quite well designed. Anyway. anyone know how to word the article so it sounds like it makes a little more sense? Numbers are correct but the language is misleading.
Squiggle (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading/conflicting info? 

message: Anyone for including Michael Winner as a prominent victim of this beast? JFW | T@lk 20:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winner? 

message: Its the 3rd time I have to re-edit the same study, as someone erased it again. It is a scientific study, that refers to the antimicrobial role of curcumin against Vibrio vulnificus and it published to the PubMed. The wikipedia articles are not personal pages of the user that wrote them, but anyone can add and edit reliable information. I find no reason for deleting this study. I already informed the administrator for this issue. Perhaps the person who wrote the article thinks that it his/her own property and violates the guidelines of wikipedia where anyone can add or edit a reliable information. Or he/she may think that an alternative treatment (such as curcumin, a yellow spice found in mustard) can't be added below antibiotic treatment (that relates to pure medical treatment, i.e. drugs), although it is based in a scientific study. I think that alternative treatments have to be mentioned as well 688dim (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Please do not delete again the information on the '''treatment''' that refers to '''curcumin'''

message: changed statement, CDC (at the website) does not recommend a tetracycline AND a doxycycline with a third G cephalosporin (tetra and doxy are the same family of drugs).
I know it is written in the PDF "poster" cited, but pleasse look with more attention at the website itself. the current recommendation is a quinolone OR a tetracycline with a third generation cephalosporin (the latter combination preferred).
About curcumin... well, tabasco sauce can effectively inhibit growth of Vibrio( also on a scientific publication), but i wouldn't place it as treatment...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.43.76 (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  treatment 

message: As I will be updating this article, here are some new sources that I will be using. They are more current than what are there now. 
Schwartz, R., MD. (2019, April 18). Vibrio Vulnificus Infection. Retrieved June 13, 2019, from https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1055523-overview
Jones, M. K., & Oliver, J. D. (2009, May 01). Vibrio vulnificus: Disease and Pathogenesis. Retrieved June 13, 2019, from https://iai.asm.org/content/77/5/1723
Glenn Morris, J. (2019, January 24). Vibrio vulnificus. Retrieved June 13, 2019, from https://www.uptodate.com/contents/vibrio-vulnificus-infections
Nickb0618 (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Sources  

message: I would like to add a more detailed Pathogenesis section Jgreen211 (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pathogenesis