Talk:Antivenom

message: The article says "Although individuals can vary in their physiopathological response and sensitivity to animal venoms, there is no natural immunity to them in humans" I think this is false, I think that there are plenty of animals with venoms that are used for hunting and defense that do not affect humans, one example is Cephalotoxin, which kills crustaceans in a matter of seconds but causes only minor irritation and allergic reactions in a small minority of people, most of us are completely naturally immune. --20:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds plausible. The passage is not referenced and may be an assumption. If you have a reference, then by all means rewrite it. --Jwinius (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  It this true? 

message: "...historically the word antivenin was predominant around the world; however, this usage is archaic in English." You're quite correct that antivenom is now the preferred term and that's what the page should be called, but antivenin is still in widespread use, hardly archaic. Rubiscous (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This happens, I think, because of the divide between people doing active research (who are more likely to be aware of changes in terminology) and people doing only clinical work. Also happens because people who learned the old term will insist that people they teach or supervise use the old term, often without knowing which is currently considered correct. For example, the "correct" or "official" name for Down syndrome is Trisomy 21, but you'll only see that in research. Cyraxote (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archaic? 

message: This article could be re-classified as B-class with only a small level of improvement in sourcing.  B-class usually requires at least one source per section.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Antivenom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151018201018/https://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9277&feedId=online-news_rss20 to http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9277&feedId=online-news_rss20
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 08:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I wrote a line about the Venomyx Therapeutics. This was reverted as being spammy. However, I wanted to put the focus on the production method, rather than the company. Their production method uses microbial fermentation rather than animals (horses, sheep, ...). That is a significant improvement in itself. 
This neither mentions this old production method (using animals) nor does it mention the alternative production method (using microbes). 
See also single-domain antibody and this WIRED-article: Bacteria are brewing up the next generation of antivenoms (and yes I know that this isn't a suitable source for medical articles, but it gives an idea, suitable references could be found simply by searching on the terms mentioned in that article -i.e. "microbioal fermentation", ...). 
Look into it and add the missing info into the article.
Genetics4good (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Production method

message: In the table, what does "Country" represent?  Is it where the antivenom is manufactured, or available, or where the specific venomous animals are found?  --Son of Grobx (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table  

message: I mentioned a different method of production involving production from bacteria (i.e. genetically modified E. coli)Bacteria are brewing up the next generation of antivenoms
Should be worked out much better though,focusing on both the Venomyx and the VenomAB method.
I thinkin it generates monoclonal antibodies, which are also superior in quality to the antibodies produced from domestic animals.
I haven't found any scientific paper as of yet on the Venomyx method, so that needs to be found and added. I did found this:
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/04/22/synthetic-biologists-fight-snake-venom-engineered-dna/ which also seems to use a genetically modified strain of E.coli, like Venomyx, so perhaps useful to examine all publications from Paulo Lee Ho (Butantan Institute), along with publications of Daniel Dempsey, Deepankar Roy, Alex Capovilla and also Technical University of Denmark (for the VenomAB method). --Genetics4good (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Different production method

message: It’s not because all antivenom is expensive to make."
I propose to rephrase the sentence here, to read "Antivenom undergoes successive markups after manufacturing, by licencees, wholesalers and hospitals." LeggyLettuce (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Why A Single Vial Of Antivenom Can Cost $14,000