Talk:Smallpox/Archive 1

message: I feel that the entire blob on the top of the page is unnessary and should be removed
--68.122.74.95 01:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this concern still valid?  The 'top blob' seems reasonable to me. 82.21.228.223 02:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary text at top 

message: I am taking a whack at wikifying and copyediting the ==History== sec. It's well written but the contributor is obviously not completely comfortable writing in English. Needs review for factual accuracy too. Ellsworth 17:44, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, didn't mean to imply that it was not accurate, just that I have no knowledge of this topic, and I'm only trying to make the prose flow more smoothly. BTW you're very good in English, better than 90% of the commercial/international sites out there. Ellsworth 16:21, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: You write
: The first recorded incidence of an epidemic is during the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC) between Athens and Sparta.
But later
: Smallpox didn’t enter Europe until 581 A.D
This seems to need clarification. Thue 11:42, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smallpox in Europe 

message: When he explained his idea to Dr. Ludlow, he was told that his ideas were foolish.
Who is Dr. Ludlow?  No attempt at explaination is made. --Bletch 02:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Ludlow? 

message: All the text in the article following the table-of-contents box is rather poorly written. There are a bunch of niggling stylistic problems, but beyond that I think it should be rewritten. It reads too much like a high-school term paper, and is anything but succinct. I might get to this myself later, but in the meantime if anyone else is looking for a way to kill an hour, by all means assist. Jeeves 23:03, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  More work needed 

message: New information as of March 2004.  Please see:[details]
I am not an expert on this, but I don't see how Lord Amerst could have suspected that blankets from a smallpox ward would infect the Indians with smallpox.  The date is 1763, but at that point, people believed in spontaneous generation of disease, or miasmas.  Germ theory of disease wasn't developed until the mid-1800's, and even then, medical experts were very resistant to the idea that touch could spread disease, leading to a continuation of childbed fever by doctors who wouldn't wash their hands.
From what I have read on Internet, the idea that Amherst had this intent is controversial (http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html) but there are reports of letters that very strongly indicate he did this fully intent on extermination (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_066.html ).  I just don't see how he could have known this might work.
: Both of those sources you cite make a strong case that Mr. Amherst intended to exterminate every man, woman and child. The germ theory of disease was a wives' tale believed by many long before Louis Pasteur constructed experiments to prove it and elevate to a theory. Zenyu 13:43, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
"On at least one occasion, germ warfare was used by the British Army under Jeffrey Amherst when smallpox-infected blankets were...."  People keep putting the Amherst info back in.  This time from a non-registered user on 3 March 2005.  The story is recorded and reused in lots of sources, but also refuted in several.   See Population history of American indigenous peoples for related discussion.
: I restored this text 'was used by the British Army under Jeffrey Amherst when smallpox' on 2005 Mar 03. I don't have an opinion on the question; the text was deleted by the 2005 Feb 21 vandal, and the sentence was broken without it. Swmcd 03:50, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
Amherst infamously considered spreading smallpox to the surrounding forces. In a series of letters to his subordinate Henry Bouquet during the summer of 1764, Amherst discussed the idea of spreading smallpox to attacking forces via gifts of blankets that had been exposed to smallpox. This idea had already been tried a year previous: on 24 June 1763, infected blankets were given to the Delawares by the commander of Fort Pitt, perhaps on his own initiative.  --from the Amherst article.
Maybe we should write a distinct article (included or related to Pontiac's Rebellion)or at least a paragraph discussing both pros and cons and break this cycle.  Opinions?
WBardwin 22:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has been discussed at length on a number of pages ----See:  Talk:Population history of American indigenous peoples and the accompanying article.  If we get around to writing an article about this very small event, the facts support the following:  people thought about it, one lower level officer tried it, but the Amherst letter was after the fact.  There is no evidence that any epidemic came from the incident.  I'm moving the dispute notice here -- I'm sure it will end up on the front page again.  Maybe the article will have to become a priority.  WBardwin 00:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The use of infected blankets by Lord Amherst is controversial and may be impossible. 

message: The smallpox article was hit by a vandal 212.135.1.83 on 21 Feb 2005.  The vandalism was evidently generally undiscovered by subsequent users, including myself.  However, I finally read all the way through it today and caught the problems.  Rather than simply revert, as others had made additions, I printed a copy dated Feb 12th and blocked the information back in, with some copy editing.  If you edited the article since that date, please look it over and make any appropriate changes.  Thank you.  WBardwin 05:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that the article says Lincoln had the disease (as did many of his generation) but recovered from it.  Other issues/inaccuracies you noted?  WBardwin 18:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 21st Feb 2005 

message: Would it be considered appropriate if I put "Conservation Status: Critical" () in the infobox? It is a hated disease and all, but technically, it is a critically endangered species, and I think it should be listed for the sake of uniformity. -- Natalinasmpf 21:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason not to list smallpox as endangered -- although it's a living species we are trying to exterminate.  Might be a bit jarring for the average reader however.  I say go ahead! WBardwin 05:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that's going a bit far, as if someone were trying to be funny but not quite getting there. "Endangered species" implies one that should be kept around (according to some anyway). You would also then need to list many other kinds of bacteria (some of which are genetically-engineered) and the extinction lists would also become huge, "for the sake of uniformity". Jeeves 07:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  But if it wasn't meant to be kept around, why isn't it destroyed? The idea is that as a once successful species, it bears useful information (in its DNA and encoding and concepts of behaviour) - if those two labs have something wrong (like a power failure, or a fire, or a bomb), the information and concepts of the species dies forever. As for the other bacteria, yes in fact they should get conservation statuses (based on their relative presence), but it depends on how notable they are. -- Natalinasmpf 19:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Critical" is not the appropriate categorization. If you need to categorize the smallpox virus, the appropriate category is "Extinct in the wild". The fact is, "conservation status" categorizations all begin with the implicit point of view that all species should be "conserved". Clearly smallpox is at least one species for which this point of view is not universally agreed to. I don't think adding the category would in any way enhance the article. - Nunh-huh 02:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation Status 

message: This article has tooooo many links !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--AllDefeater 03:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many links 

message: maybe it should be mentioned somewhere, that the grid has found 44 smallpox treatment candidates.
: Can you tell us more about this? It sounds mildly interesting. JFW | T@lk 22:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/ 

message: According to this article
"The process spread to Turkey, where an American doctor learned of it. He then told the Royal Society in England, where Lady Mary Wortley Montagu learned of it."
But according to the undergrad lecture I had on smallpox in 18th C England, yesterday, Lady Wortley learned of innoculation while in Turkey as wife of a British diplomat, and brought it to the attention of the Royal Society herself. This seems to agree with the wikipedia article on her. The unnamed American doctor isn't mentioned. Anyone got a reliable source for this?
: My textbook (in Slovenian) has the same. That should be corrected (probably). --Eleassar my talk 14:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: good review article --JWSchmidt 17:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lady Wortley Montagu & innoculation 

message: Perhaps someone could explain the exact difference between variolation and arm to arm vaccination (75% of vaccination as late as 1890)? john 13:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: good review article --JWSchmidt 17:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Innoculation/variolation and arm-to-arm vaccination 

message: Jenner is worth a biography - for teh Cuckoo and being FRS if nothing else.  WOuld it be reasonable to thin down the section on him here, moving it into his biog?  Midgley 04:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A lot on Jenner - who has a page 

message: IE the process and complication rate in say 1974.
Either here or in Vaccination a specific section on that may be useful.  Midgley 04:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Vaccination 

message: http://www.bopcris.ac.uk/cgi-bin/displayrec.pl?searchtext=vaccination+Royal+commission&record=/bopall/ref5885.html
UK government documents as images.  Midgley 01:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Commission (source document access) 

message: This paragraph is written in a very haphazard manner. It needs to be rewritten .Bharatveer 03:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take out the examples.  I expect one could find some evidence that the sub-continental countries and Somalia are less rich  than England and the USA, but actually giving examples doesn't help that much.  Midgley 18:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eradication 

message: Re:  Kizor's recent edit.  So, what exactly is the reasoning for the change?  Wiki accepts both styles, and allows the editors of each article to establish the standard and enforce it.  Most academic articles dealing with the history of disease, and with history itself, use the BCE/CE standard, and that is what this article has used for some time.  Religious content should not, in my mind, be the sole criteria for choosing the common era standard.  I am posting this note on the article's talk page for discussion and a possible poll.  Best wishes.  WBardwin 04:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smallpox and BCE/BC 

message: Is this article biased? It glosses over hundreds of negative experiences with the smallpox vaccine, dissenting doctors (past and present)etc. Jenners story ommits many facts and shows him in a more benign light than he perhaps deserves. readers should not rely solely on this article for info on smallpox but should search wider on the internet.Timmymallet
: This article is biased towards the consensus of the scientific/medical community, and that’s a good thing. (For those who would rather have something different, there’s still Usenet…)
: By the way, if you are the same person as User:Freddiebear, please stick to one account. —xyzzyn 17:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A biased article? 

message: I'm wondering why the article says that "Smallpox was a highly contagious viral disease..." and that it "...was caused by two viral variants..." Doesn't it still exist? The viruses are still around, right (even if they are kept in labs)? Shouldn't we refer to it in the present tense? For example, the CDC's website refers to smallbox in the present tense: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/overview/disease-facts.asp.
--66.31.1.141 13:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact that humans are no longer vaccinated for the disease, at least in the United States, makes it a real threat for an accidental or intentional outbreak.  WBardwin 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was vs. Is 

message: I edited the lead section to provide a more consise summary of the article.  Almost no content was actually deleted, instead I moved much of the detailed text to other sections of the article.   The lead section needs better sourcing.
In general, I feel that much of the text I relocated deserves a careful look to determine whether it should be included, and if so, how to best organize it.  I'll continue to contribute as time allows.
dpotter 15:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section reorganized and condensed. 

message: There seem to be contradictions within the article having to do with how contagious smallpox is, and also the mortality rates for the different types.Amity150 06:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradictions 

message: I would like to remove most of the links to years. They don't seem to me to add much value to the article. I agree with AllDefeater's comment that there are too many wiki links in the article and I find it harder to read. I will wait to make this change to see what the consensus is. You may want to check out Wikipedia's Manual of Style. JeremyBicha 00:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Years 

message: I am Norwegian and was looking up Vannkopper (Norwegian for ChickenPox) I wanted the English site for the same disease and lo and behold... I got SmallPox.
SmallPox and ChickenPox are not the same.
The link from Norwegian to English is unfortunately wrong :)
Pretty fun if you do not suffer from the disease... :)
The Latin word for the disease would give the right link :)
Hope this gets corrected :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.164.53.75 (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh my :) 

message: I'm removing the part in the Vaccine section that says "A recent study by the Center of Disease Control in Atlanta (CDC) has found that every 1 in a million people are carriers of smallpox and could infect many others with the disease."  This statement makes no sense, doesn't list a source, and I was uanble to find the study mentioned. 70.21.157.163 02:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carriers 

message: The section on "infection" includes a great deal of history.  Infection should cover clinical descriptions of the diagnosis, progress and prognosis for the disease.  The effect of smallpox on history is significant and should be included but in a separate coordinated and integrated section.  The history section should be confined to the affect of smallpox on history rather than the history of the discovery of its treatment.  The history of its treatment (innoculation and then vaccination) should be a separate, integrated and coordinated section.--Blue Tie 13:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs reorganization 

message: 217.38.64.124 14:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Jan Ingenhousz 1730 - 1799 

message: * The epidemiology behind the Plague of Athens is (and probably will remain) uncertain. Thus, including Pericles as a smallpox victim is not terribly supportable. -- MarcoTolo 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pericles]] 

message: Didn't Abraham Lincoln get shot in the head? How can he be a victim of smallpox? or are you going to list all the known people that contracted the disease and got better? Vicco Lizcano 23:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed "victims of smallpox" to "historical figures who contracted smallpox." Fullobeans (talk) 07:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abraham Lincoln? 

message: # What type of organism causes smallpox?
# What does the organism do to make someone sick?
# what part of the population does smallpox primarily affect?
# What is the disease's historical importance?
HELP ME!! I can't find the info anywhere else!
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.122.72.187 (talk) 
: Well, I could just say "read the Smallpox article", since your questions are answered there, or "Go ask at the Help Desk , but I'm feeling extra-helpful tonight.
:# Smallpox "....is a highly contagious viral disease unique to humans. It is caused by either of two virus variants named Variola major and Variola minor."
:# "The initial or prodromal symptoms are essentially similar to other viral diseases such as influenza and the common cold—fevers, muscle pain, stomach aches, etc. The digestive tract is commonly involved, leading to vomiting. Most cases are prostrated. Smallpox virus preferentially attacks skin cells and by days 12–15, smallpox infection becomes obvious. The attack on skin cells causes the characteristic pimples associated with the disease. The pimples tend to erupt first in the mouth, then the arms and the hands, and later the rest of the body. At that point the pimples, called macules, should still be fairly small. This is the stage at which the victim is most contagious."
:# Smallpox isn't particularly choosy about who it infects. As usual, those who are immunocompromised are at higher risk.
:# Start with Smallpox#Eurasia.
-- MarcoTolo 01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: Same as my edit summary:
: Europe in 165 or 581?  No subtleties can be obtained from footnote because there are none. Ufwuct 22:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll add a ref (Hopkins, 1983). I think the confusion may lie in the definition of "Western Europe" (the purported 581 AD date). I would have included Italy in that category, but apparently the UN considers it to be in Southern Europe, reserving "Western" for countries north of the Alps and east of the Pyrenees. Or, perhaps the author of that section was just confused... <grin>. -- MarcoTolo 21:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  FWIW, I actually used the 2002 reprint of Hopkins, 1982. -- MarcoTolo 21:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradict 

message: I just read an article about how Dr. Thomas Dimsdale from England introduced inoculations for smallpox to Russia in 1768. Catherine the Great made him a baron for his work. Yet, I can find nothing about him throughout Wikipedia.
The publication was the March 24-30, 2007 edition of New Scientist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayavarman1 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr.Thomas Dimsdale first set up practice in the town (Hertford, England) in 1734. He had a strong interest in the prevention of smallpox and in 1767 he published a book on the subject. In the following year he travelled to Russia, where he innoculated Catherine The Great, for which he was handsomely rewarded with a title and wealth. He died in 1800 at the age of 90. from web site .   Anyone have access to info on this fellow?  WBardwin 00:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Thomas Dimsdale 

message: The article describes smallpox as "highly contagious," yet "less so than other infectious diseases." What, if anything, is this supposed to mean? My understanding is that smallpox is only moderately contagious, requiring reasonably prolonged face-to-face contact for transmission. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robinfrost (talk • contribs) 13:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, that sentence at least jars and is uninformative.  I don't have a handy measure of contagiousness, but one thing is I suppose that it is among the more contagious - by touch - diseases in the poxy stage, but less infectious - by walking into a room and breathing - than chickenpox in th prodromal stage.  When I feel stronger I may attempt to repair that bit. Midgley 11:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smallpox transmission 

message: Is there any reason the recent resurgence in Bangladesh, and its neighboring areas are left out of this article? --soum (0_o) 13:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: according to User:Klparrot's 1 June 2007 note on the article the Indian smallpox alert was false alarm.  Klparrot provided this link  as a reference.  Best wishes. WBardwin 01:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resurgence 

message: That URL/site isn't there anymore!! awww =( somebody fix it!!
: Link does not appear to exist at the Internet Archive.... -- MarcoTolo 22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gauthier: Fear factor", MetroWest Daily News, October 21, 2004 

message: This page has a category marker of "species extinct in the wild" this is utter stupidity, that list is of the IUCN, which only deals with Eukarya. I really can't find the category marker associated with this in the edit page. Could somebody please delete this maker because it is wrong! Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snelleeddy (talk • contribs) 
: Fixed. -- MarcoTolo 20:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suspect we could find stupidity more utter than that, actually.  Is it possible that the fault is in the list used or selected, which deals only with the Eukarya?  As an example of a species deliberately made extinct Variola may be a good one.  The Thylacine was said to be another, but the Yangtse river dolphin is unintentional and Cod will be against our intentions if it goes.  Polio is another deliberate target...Midgley 11:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that smallpox should be put on the "species extinct in the wild" thing.66.159.69.132 18:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of "Species extinct in the wild" 

message: I have not edited in Wikipedia before but I feel that the transition from 2.1 Hemorrhagic smallpox to 2.2 Eurasia is abrupt and confusing.  If they are both under the heading of Infection in the Contents outline then the heading of Eurasia seems even more out of place. Oxenmantim 02:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transition to Eurasia 

message: The ring trilogy of horror novels feature smallpox as being the virus spread by the video tape that kills people in one week.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.245.115 (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smallpox in Fiction 

message: The Soviet Union contribution to the world to ged rid of smallpox is a well known fact.
Each year of eradication program USSR contribute more that twenty million bottles of vaccine a year. And also send out a lot of volunteer and equipments.
Why this fact become untolerable to someone here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.233.237 (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No facts are intolerable to Wikipedia, but they must be sourced and verifiable.  If you have sources, we can craft suitable text for the article--—G716 <T·C> 12:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eradication of Smallpox 

message: I added a dissambiguation link to a film titled Variola Vera. Typing Variola vera in the search box brings a user to the disease page. A user that is interested in finding the movie would have to know to type in Vera in uppercase letters or to add (film) at the end. This just makes things easier for those looking for the movie even though most people typing in Variola vera will be looking for the disease article. I will reciprocate a link from the movie article. Is everyone OK with this? SWik78 18:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1982 serbian film link 

message: I created a new article, Eradication of infectious diseases, which could use a lot of work if anyone is interested. There is a small section on smallpox that could be significantly expanded. --Ginkgo100talk 17:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article: "Eradication of infectious diseases" 

message: I smell racism in this sentence  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.27.13.152 (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, it's anecdotal until sourced. A quick googling brought up one reference to an infected slave and another to an infected soldier, but nothing usable.  It's too minor a detail to leave in unsubstantiated, in my opinion, so I deleted it.  Meanwhile, that whole section seems heavily anecdotal and filled with facts which would be interesting if they were, indeed, facts. I may try to source them on a rainy day (but wouldn't be heartbroken if somebody else did it first). Fullobeans (talk) 06:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In 1520 another group of Spanish came from Cuba and landed in Mexico. Among them was an African slave who had smallpox 

message: Natural events also impeded the vaccination team’s efforts. The monsoon rains burst dams and dikes. The rain and flooding forced people to flee, once again allowing smallpox to spread. This outbreak took the team a whole year to stop.
There is no antecedent to this outbreak in the text. Can someone who knows what it refers to please add text to make it clear what outbreak is being referred to? I presume one in Indiana and Bangladesh, but that is not entirely clear since the previous paragraph also talks about Sudan.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenevad (talk • contribs) 15:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on one point 

message: Removed a section of John Adams trivia from the "Famous sufferers and survivors" section.  Adams and his immediately family were all (at different times) inoculated against smallpox and suffered the effects of inoculation to varying degrees, but none suffered or died as a result of a contracted infection.  If anyone's interested, the Adams material could be reworked into the inoculation page as well as into the North American smallpox epidemic stub. Fullobeans (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be splitting hairs, but my opinion on this is that if you shoot yourself in the foot to avoid the draft, then you're not a war casualty. You make a perfectly valid point, though, and if the general consensus is that the Adams family should be included, all I'd suggest is that the mention of them be in proportion to the rest of the article. A brief mention of the family's inoculation and resultant difficulties would be sufficient to direct interested parties to the John Adams, Abigail Adams, or Inoculation pages... except that they'll find no further information once they're there. This is an interesting and illuminating bit of biography, and it would be great if somebody who's knowledgeable on the topic could write a comprehensive and well-sourced summary of it for one of the aforementioned articles.  Fullobeans (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: "Up to a third" (above) seems high for innoculation, more consistent with variola major.  The point of innoculation was that the risk of death was notably less than of risking natural infection.  There is at least one article about it nearby. Midgley (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Adams 

message: I've known a couple of people whose attempts at obtaining a vaccination that "took," failed. Their assumptions were that they had a natural immunity to smallpox. I've read some writers who contend there is no such thing as natural immunity, whereas others say that it does exist, but that it is rare. I'd be interested in seeing something with more weight behind this, one way or the other. Brian Pearson (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are numerous reasons for vaccine failure (i.e. lack of an appropriately elevated immune response), ranging from errors in administration to poor patient immune activation: That I am aware of, "having a natural immunity to X" is not one of them. (If you already have "immunity" to a particular pathogenic process, how would you know if a given vaccination "failed"?) In any case, if you have any reliable sources regarding this concept, I'd suggest the Vaccination page is probably a better place for such information to appear. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wonder if transgenerational epigenetic changes could be a factor. Brian Pearson (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Probably - though given how much we don't know about the process of immunological activation and maintenance, perhaps that's not so surprising. I'm certainly no expert in epigenetics, but it appears that conceptually-similar mechanisms have been described recently in plants (see here, for example). -- MarcoTolo (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural immunity 

message: shouldnt it be "Smallpox was a disease, unique to humans" since it no longer exists as a human disease?
129.100.195.87 (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: It should be perfectly obvious that my point is not to add a joke to the page. The point is: What is the context for the joke? Why is a hit Broadway play expecting thousands to laugh at a smallpox letter bomb gag in 1933? What is the real-life scenario or legal case that Noel Coward is wittily alluding to in his inimitable way in the oft-deleted joke? There is nothing currently in this article that provides any sort of context. Audiences were clearly not remembering back to the Revolutionary War. So what is the audience reacting to?
I asked the opinion of an eminent academic, born in 1932, who is cited quite a number of times in Wikipedia. He was startled by this, and had no idea what circumstances would have made this a funny joke when he was a boy. I told him the joke, and he guessed it dated from the past decade, since the anthrax attack, as anyone would.
So, what's the joke actually about then, eh?
Varlaam (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhh, thank you for providing some clarification. The main issue is that there is no context for this joke, but just adding that the notion was current in the 1930s, and mentioning the film doesn't really solve the problem. It doesn't provide context and just reads like some random factoid. The article certainly needs a lot more general information on the use of smallpox as a biological warfare. I'd be happy to provide assistance if you are interested in doing so. Cheers --DO11.10 (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 1933 smallpox joke that keeps getting deleted 

message: "Kitab fi al-jadari wa-al-hasbah" should be translated (The Book of Smallpox and salmonelosis) rather than (The Book of Smallpox and Measles)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.70.153 (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It's Measles.--DO11.10 (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistranslation in current article 

message: Hi.  Can I ask what source you have which states that Elizabeth Tudor usd makeup to hide pockmarks.  Several books I have state clearly that Elizabeth had no pockmarks on her face?  Also a recent televised study Inside the Body of Henry VIII which aired several weeks ago in England examined documents pertaining to the health of the king and there is strong evidence that Henry VIII himself was a sufferer. Danny (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elizabeth I and smallpox 

message: Preston, in his extensively researched nonfiction work "The Demon in the Freezer", reviews in some detail the world's known and suspected stocks of smallpox. Among other things, he discusses the fact that, post-"eradication", Russia's military acknowledged having accumulated many tons of smallpox, and also having converted long-range nuclear missile warheads to smallpox warheads. He sees reason to believe that Russia hasn't reduced its stock of smallpox, and may have even increased it in post-Soviet years.
Preston also states that Russian scientists acknowledge that some twenty tons of Russian genetically altered "supervirus" smallpox are now unaccounted for. Some of these same researchers believe that the missing superpox may have gone to North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. Preston's position is that it's virtually certain that rogue states y/o terrorist organizations are seeking, have obtained, or will obtain sufficient (perhaps genetically engineered) smallpox to launch an attack.
Though I'm not an authority on smallpox, Preston's conclusions would indicate that smallpox has not been eradicated at all--it's just in a human-assisted dormancy. In fact, one might argue that there is now more smallpox on earth than there has ever been, and that smallpox is now more dangerous than ever.
I believe that the current genuine potential for smallpox as a biological warfare agent should be part of almost any conversation about smallpox (especially discussions that posit or assume smallpox's eradication), and I'd like to see this article expanded to include it. If I had sufficient knowledge and expertise, I'd write that section myself. Instead, I've written this short bit as the first step in adding accurate content about the current status of smallpox.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.109.77 (talk • contribs) 
: It is important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we must report on the facts, not opinions. While I am sure that Preston extensively researched his book, I don't feel that his book is, in itself, a reliable source for this material. (Much the same way Wikipedia is not, in itself, a reliable source.) Thus, addition of this type of material would require numerous, reliable, primary or secondary sources that directly support the facts. I'm not sure how prevalent or accessible these sources are, but the skeptic in me thinks "not very".--DO11.10 (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ken Alibek, former head of the USSR's bioweapons program has written a book about his research career detailing, among other things, many of the claims that Preston makes in "The Demon In the Freezer."  In the book, titled "Biohazard," Alibek confirms the development of a GM strain of Smallpox called "India-1" and the mass production of smallpox virus for use in warheads.  This would seem to constitute a reliable primary source on the topic.  --Killfile  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killfile (talk • contribs) 19:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary biological weapon 

message: I think it would be a good idea to collapse or at least lower the picture, as it seeing it pop up like that might shock some people. (no really, this picture is nightmare fuel unleaded !) AllFactsPlease (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. While it might be accurate, and I'm a pretty tough guy, it's a horribly shocking image to just throw at someone. 99.67.64.169 (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

text: While I don't really have a problem with this picture (it is quite accurate) perhaps you would like to suggest an alternate image from the group here.--DO11.10 (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

text: This photo is as far as I know highly representative of a smallpox patient. I oppose changing it. --Kjetil_r 20:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, i was shocked too. i'm for lowering it at least after the introduction, showing something less disturbing or putting a schema  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.132.255.168 (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: "To this day, smallpox is the only human infectious disease to have been completely eradicated." This sentence has a reference that is 8 years old! 'To this day' is a bit out of date. 92.149.145.5 (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead claim 

message: Regarding Edward VI of England and smallpox:  Contemporaries attributed Edward's early death to "consumption" - but tuberculosis as a distinct disease was unknown at the time.  During this period in Europe, consumption, or "Phthisis", was a name attributed to various diseases with symptoms such as emaciation (serious loss of weight), debility, cough, hectic fever, and purulent expectoration.  Edward's personal journal, as well as several court accounts, note that he had recovered from an apparently mild case of smallpox only weeks before his death.  He resumed his regular activities, including travel, but relapsed suddenly and died.  Although he was only of modest size and weight, Edward's health had been considered good until his last illnesses, i.e. no long term evidence of a history of tuberculosis.  Will look for a source I read not long ago.  WBardwin (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is something from the web:  There are varying schools of thought about the cause of Edward's death -- like many young Tudors before him, he wasted away prior to his death, and his final illness has been traditionally believed to be tuberculosis. However, he had also contracted either smallpox or measles in the year before he died, and his wasting could also be attributed to diabetes, which frequently becomes severe during the growth spurts of adolescence. It is known that he was treated with medicines that contained arsenic, and that he had many of the symptoms of arsenic poisoning while on his deathbed (his hair and nails had fallen out, he was covered with ulcers, and there was a peculiar smell, similar to garlic, on his breath). Many medicines used at the time contained arsenic, and it was sometimes added to wine as well, so whether Edward's death was hastened by deliberate poisoning or not is questionable.   But I read quite a comprehensive discussion of Tudor health in hardcopy.  Somewhere............WBardwin (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Catch-all phrasing in early disease

message: This is an interesting map  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A map

message: When the subject is a horrible virus that has no ecological niche other than to cause pain, suffering, and death, is the taxo box a thing that is really useful to have?  It's not like the life form (if a virus can be considered "life") contributed to biodiversity or the functioning of the ecosystem.  It is thus unlike other species that humans have eradicated.  The genocide committed against the smallpox virus was undeniably beneficial to humanity, with no effect on the biosphere - unlike the Dodo, the Scimitar Oryx, the Guam Rail, and the Mason River Myrtle.  
Is there a property of the taxobox (or could there become one) to show an intentional, humanitarian eradication of plagues?  This would also fit in the box for polio, where it would read something like "Critically endangered - but not yet accomplished."  ☯ Z.S. ☠ ......(talk) 02:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy Box 

message: I can provide the citation needed for the following:
If successful, a red and itchy bump develops at the vaccine site in three or four days. In the first week, the bump becomes a large blister (called a “Jennerian vesicle”) which fills with pus, and begins to drain. During the second week, the blister begins to dry up and a scab forms. The scab falls off in the third week, leaving a small scar.[citation needed]
It can be found at:
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/faq.asp
If the vaccination is successful, a red and itchy bump develops at the vaccination site in three or four days. In the first week after vaccination, the bump becomes a large blister, fills with pus, and begins to drain. During week two, the blister begins to dry up and a scab forms. The scab falls off in the third week, leaving a small scar. 
Jdselbin (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Jdselbin, 28 December 2010 

message: It would seem that Smallpox or Variola are no longer in the latest edition (12) of the Pink Book Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases.  [CDC Pink Book] The references to PinkBook are no longer valid.  Any suggestion as to references?  Jim1138 (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Arrg, darn CDC, I do not know why they insist on perpetuating linkrot. Added an archived link of the previous version, as it would seem that they are not planning on updating the information anyway.--DO11.10 (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smallpox no longer in PinkBook 

message: "The earliest procedure used to prevent smallpox was inoculation (also known as variolation). Inoculation was possibly practiced in India as early as 1000 BC,[31] and involved either nasal insufflation of powdered smallpox scabs, or scratching material from a smallpox lesion into the skin. However, this idea has been challenged as few of the ancient Sanskrit medical texts of India described the process of inoculation.[32] "
Does this mean that the fact of inoculation for smallpox may be in error, or the methods used to inoculate may be in error, or the description of the methods may be in error. This paragraph is a good poster child for the need to reread and rewrite submissions before they are submitted...
Avram Primack (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This paragraph is confusing or contradictory 

message: From the article....
"Human history
The earliest credible clinical evidence of smallpox is found in the Egyptian mummies of persons who died some 3000 years ago. Historical records from Asia describe evidence of smallpox-like disease in medical writings from ancient India (as early as 1500 BC) and China (1122 BC).[43] Small pox inoculation was first used by Hindu physicians since 1500 BCE.[44] As with other medical customs, the inoculation was associated with a Hindu.... "
First.... should be consistent.... has BC, and BCE... which are the same but mean different things to different people....
Second.... 3,000 years ago was 900 BCE, so the first sentence sets a date of discovery in Egypt after the reputed development of the Indian vaccine in 1500BC or BCE, which is 3600 years ago.... someone who knows what the dates should be should fix this confusion....I suspect that the 3000 years ago really means 3000 BCE (my preferred notation).
Avram Primack (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have fixed the BC/BCE issue for now, but I am sure many editors with drive by to change to these back and forth (thus the rampant inconsistency). As for the other issue, while there are other earlier written descriptions of a smallpox-like disease (India 3600 years ago and China ~3200 years ago), we can only speculate that these are actually smallpox cases. The mummy smallpox case (from ~3100 years ago, he died in 1145 BCE) is the first case that is clinically evident (i.e. we can still see the disease on the mummy and identify it as definitely smallpox today). I hope that helps clarify things. If you have suggestions as to wording that will more clearly describe this in the article, then by all means add it in --DO11.10 (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  These dates must be wrong 

message: How Did all of this affect the peop;e who had smallpox?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.129.253.102 (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smallpox 

message: The assertion that "the arrival of smallpox in Europe and south-western Asia is less clear. Smallpox is not described in either the Old or New Testaments of the Bible, or in literature of the Greeks and Romans" seems contradicted by the consensus that both the [] and [] plagues were smallpox, unless these were of the 'isolated incursion' type ascribed in the article to having occured during the "middle ages."  Is it likely that the disease was well-established in Europe by late antiquity, but with less historical evidence corroborating such than in the more thoroughly-documented outbreaks of the middle ages?  If so, should the history section of the article reflect this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.251.247 (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presence in Europe 

message: Among the list of U.S. presidents who suffered from smallpox, it might be interesting to include the fact that John Adams, as a young man in 1764, was inoculated against smallpox in Boston.  He wrote a series of fascinating letters about the experience to his future wife, Abigail Smith:
http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=L17640407aa
http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=L17640407ja&archive=&hi=&mode=&noimages=&numrecs=&query=&queryid=&rec=&start=1&tag=
http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=L17640413ja&archive=&hi=&mode=&noimages=&numrecs=&query=&queryid=&rec=&start=1&tag=
http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=L17640417ja&archive=&hi=&mode=&noimages=&numrecs=&query=&queryid=&rec=&start=1&tag=
76.102.66.215 (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 9 June 2012 

message: The above edit request suggests there may be problems in this article with close paraphrasing.  The changes that would convert text in this source to text from the current article are superficial:
I haven't checked whether the source has a Wikipedia-compatible license, but at the very least the source should have been cited.  I've little time to follow this up now... Just a heads-up for contributors and future FA reviewers.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe CDC content is in the public domain.--Garrondo (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Close paraphrasing 

message: In the history section, the date of introduction from West Africa to South America is erroneously given as 19th century. Actually, it arrived in Mexico in 1520 or so, which is the 16th century. 2001:470:7:A2D:0:0:0:2 (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to the last sentence in this section Smallpox#History? The variola virus was transferred from West Africa to South America in the 19th century. Might be a specific strain. I requested clarification at the end of the sentence. Jim1138 (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly. I think it's a typo or transposition. The rest of the article details the introduction as 16th century. 2001:470:7:A2D:0:0:0:2 (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Error Correction Please, Date of Introduction to New World

message: In the Religion and mythology section,  I believe that the 'too' of the sentence 'These shrines were worshipped and made offerings too while the victim was sick' should be 'to'. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:7:A2D:0:0:0:2 (talk • contribs)  
:Edit made by User talk:GrahamColm Jim1138 (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request on 22 October: simple grammatical error 

message: I am removing this category, because while smallpox may be eradicated, it is not on any of the IUCN red lists! Try searching for it here if you don't believe me. 71.188.115.167 (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Now the table says "extinct", which is false. It may have no official IUCN status, but it is "extinct in the wild", not "extinct". Samples of the virus still exist, and it may be (maliciously or by accident) reintroduced to the wild.--Azarien (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Save that there have been zero confirmed smallpox cases since shortly before it was announced globally eradicated. Zero. None. At all. Every case turned out to be some other pox virus.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: IUCN Red List Extinct in the Wild

message: I wonder if someone with expertise in the field could comment on the possibility that the virus could be recreated, even if it was globally extinct (all stockpiles destroyed), using knowledge of the genome.
A Wikipedia search shows that the viruses genome consists of only 186000 base pairs. I presume it's been sequenced on more then one occasion, and that sequence is in the public domain. 
Doesn't this mean that, knowing the genome, anyone with the right equipment could re-create smallpox from scratch? I know the technology exists to generate custom DNA sequences and the 186000 base pairs would easily fit on an old floppy-disk. If you insert the custom DNA into an appropriate host cell, it would start spitting out smallpox. Right?
Am I missing something that makes the above scenario implausible?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JefeMixtli (talk • contribs) 01:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory, yes, one COULD build it from the sequenced data. However, you have to consider, "from scratch", you're putting together 186000 base pairs. Individually. "Letter" by "letter".Wzrd1 (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recreation of the virus, from scratch, using its genome 

message: It appears Hilda Whitcomb was the last person to be infected with smallpox. She was Janet Parker's mother, and contracted the disease after Janet, but Hilda survived. Janet's father died of a heart attack while watching Janet die, and never developed any signs of infection before he died. I don't know of any other publicly documented cases of smallpox after Janet Parker. 
I'm not sure accidents with the military stocks in the USA or Russia would necessarily be made public, especially if they were the result of illegal bio-weapons research, like what happened in the Sverdlovsk anthrax leak. So, there may be others who have contracted it, but for now, the last known documented victim was Hilda Whitcomb, who survived.
Badon (talk) 09:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The disease is HIGHLY contagious. So, if there were some accidental release from the secure labs, it would quickly be apparent, as it would rapidly escape any containment attempts easily. It comes down to ease of transmission (quite easy) and length of time for incubation before becoming both ill AND contagious (a contagious person who is not feeling ill successfully spreads the disease far further than a person who is ill and contagious). The last biowarfare estimate for smallpox was on the order of it breaking out of a "sealed" state/province in two weeks at a maximum, with nine days being a mean anticipated breach of quarantined region, but that data is a bit old.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hilda Whitcomb 

message: I was looking for information on the life cycle of this disease.  I remember from school (a long time ago) that humans were part of the life cycle of the disease it is briefly mentioned but not explictly described ````  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.74.105 (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The disease is a human specific pathogen. While other mammals, especially primates may contract the disease after being inoculated in the lab, "in the wild", the disease was 100% human specific. No secondary hosts, no secondary infectious path. Strictly human to human, either directly, respiratory aerosol or fomite.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information on Life cycle 

message: In the second paragraph of the introduction, the article states that V. major has a 30-35% mortality rate, and that V. minor has a 1% mortality rate.  In the third paragraph, it says of all those infected, 20-60% are killed.  These quotes are inconsistent (omitting unstated and very strange error bars in the data presented in paragraph 2) and ought to be fixed by a knowledgeable editor. DAID (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mortality in Introduction 

message: This article (especially the Prevention section) may contain content identical or similar to another topic.  
Please see Talk:History of smallpox
Mathglot (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem. This is not a paper encyclopedia and there is no shortage of space. Content is duplicated across many articles. One of the advantages of Wikipedia is that, to some extent, we can avoid cross-referencing. I like to see different approaches to the same subject. Clearly, some stubs should be merged with more established articles, but this is not the case here. Graham Colm (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant articles on variolation/inoculation 

message: I think it would be worthwhile to mention in the main paragraph of this article that smallpox has not been completely eradicated, and that it still exists in laboratories. The reason smallpox is kept is mainly study- and research related. People reading the main paragraph will end up feeling that humanity has completely "wiped out" this virus.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.82.155 (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smallpox still exists and why it should 

message: The article says the scabs were discovered in March 2004. However, the footnoted source, a "USA Today" story, says the date was December 2003.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.241.240 (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-eradication New Mexico discovery of scabs 

message: *Support in the infobox Smallpox still exists in a few laboratories around the world. It is a horrible disease and this is a featured picture showing it. The image is both educational and would be very important if the infection was ever to occur again (thus important from a public health perspective). The dimple in the middle of the bumps are an important part of the diagnosis and this image is the only one that shows it clearly. I prefer the non cropped image but I am also happy with the image with the eyes blacked out or the cropped one just showing the shoulder. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Would additionally be happy with the image suggested by Axl, however fell this image should still stay in the article however to be placed lower. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: *Support. It's the child's distress that is so disturbing. Previous talk page comments should be considered here:; here: ; here: ; and here:  Malke 2010 (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I support using the cropped image. There is no loss of educational value and it is considerably more neutral. The afflicted ones age, ethnicity, and gender are superfluous distractions. "A picture is worth 1000 words", but the 1000 words need to be relevant prose. Our focus ought to be the unique characteristics of the disease and its impact on an infected person. Instead, we see a little girl—a child from Bangladesh. There's much more "educational value" in showing these blisters on someone's palm, or sole—although much less shock value. When I see an image like this, I assume the author meant to invoke emotional stress. It's misguided artistic liberty—I do not recommend or condone. :) John Cline (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Support cropping image

message: * Oppose. Although I am too young to have ever seen a case, I don't think that the picture is representative of smallpox. The vesicles are more confluent with very little normal skin between, especially on the face—more suggestive of "malignant" smallpox, or the confluent variant of ordinary smallpox.
This image (right) is a better representation of smallpox. Regarding the child's distress in the original image: that is a common (and unfortunate) feature of smallpox. As such, that feature is representative of the disease. WP:LEADIMAGE states "Lead images should be selected to be of least shock value; if an alternative image exists that still is an accurate representation of the topic but without shock value, it should always be preferred.... Sometimes it is impossible to avoid the use of a lead image with perceived shock value if the topic itself is of that nature." I think that my suggestion has an appropriate level of "shock value", lower than that of the original picture. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Axl's rationale is strong. I am old enough to have seen cases of smallpox – the last one I saw was Janet Parker. I would not contest the use of this other image; it's a good example of the lesions as I remember them,  and, more importantly,  the context is not lost. But I would object to the use of the original image as a example of malignant smallpox because this would be speculation on our part. If you check the source and history of the original image you will see that at some stage it has been changed by editing software which has made the girl's eyes much darker. This has made the image, in my humble opinion, more disturbing to those who perceive it as such. Here is a lesson - we should be careful when "improving" images. Graham Colm (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry If I gave that impression. It was not intentional. We have to go by the provenance of the photographs alone. That's why we cannot use our judgement to decide whether a case is the maligant form or not. That was my only point. Graham Colm (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Scray, I think you are wrong wrt policy on personal experience and editor judgement. For original images, we utterly rely on the uploader (and anyone else who offers to help) in identifying and describing the subject. Think of all the birds and butterflies we have. For non-original images, we'd need of course to be careful about disagreeing with what was published with the image, but there's still a level where we need and accept Wikipedian help in identifying things. For example, if Graham had taken and uploaded this photo and attached a detailed description of the case, we'd trust him. We are right, of course, to not present speculation as fact. Colin°Talk 19:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for setting me straight. I see that is the reality in which we must work on images. Pictures are so powerful, and this is so far from the way we source text, that it really has the potential to undermine our work - but this is not the forum to address that issue.  -- Scray (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be nice to have a display of photos that show the various phases like the Dept of Health, State of Illinois has here: . Comparison of it with chickenpox might be a good idea too. If the argument is that the photos are necessary to help readers with recognition, then we ought to have really functional ones. Don't know if we can get permission for these, but it's worth a try. They might already be in the public domain. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: Do we mention the conspiracy theory about how smallpox is a lie made by the pro-vaccination group here, or do you think that there should be a new page for it?
180.200.150.41 (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite certain that such a wild conspiracy theory, that would believe that three thousand years of history was falsified in the recent past just to sell smallpox vaccines that are no longer in common use would qualify as WP:notable.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theory 

message: The claim "over 80% of infected children—died from the disease" is a vast overstatement. The paper cited is referring to a specific time and place. The true case fatality rate among children has been estimated at 20-30%
Bernoulli, D. and Blower, S. (2004), An attempt at a new analysis of the mortality caused by smallpox and of the advantages of inoculation to prevent it. Rev. Med. Virol., 14: 275–288. doi: 10.1002/rmv.443  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.79.153 (talk) 08:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case fatality rate 

message: The leading picture is absolutely inappropriate! I liking watching horror movies and blood doesn't creep me out, but I am trypophobic and I'm still shivering after looking at that picture. If you read this today, go to the front page of the Turkish Wikipedia. They have it as "today's picture"! They have gone way too far. Sorry for my bad English. --77.0.104.38 (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture again 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Child with Smallpox Bangladesh.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 26, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-10-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *The source offers nothing on the subject's fate or identity. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: An amazing picture of a horrible disease. It was also the leading cause of death globally for a while if I remember correctly. National Geo says 300 million in the 20th century alone  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Child with Smallpox Bangladesh.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon