Talk:Snakebite

message: I am delisting this as a good article, for the reasons in the to-do list above.  If the article failed only one of those criteria I would not delist it, but I feel the prose/SP&G problems and a significant aspect of the topic being missing are major enough problems. Joe D (t) 05:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisting GA

message: This paragraph states that king cobras and black mambas will defend their terrtories in the context of creating ground vibration while walking. I think this is a bit misleading. The sources (national geographic) say "Black mambas are shy and will almost always seek to escape when confronted." and "Fortunately, king cobras are shy and will avoid humans whenever possible, but they are fiercely aggressive when cornered." The easter brownsnake of australia is known to be territorial as well. But I read in this article that brownsnakes advanced towards the observer in an offensive way in only 3 out of 455 close encounters during research, which gives a different picture. There seem to be a lot of myths around about the agressiveness of snakes so I think it is important to be extra cautious which such statements.
80.171.228.210 (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevention 

message: The article says this:
Approximately 85% of the natural snakebites occur below the victims' knees
And then in the next paragraph this:
approximately 65% of snakebites occur to the victims’ hands or fingers
One of them has to be wrong.
:Why not simply remove both numbers? topace10 14:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it should be better worded, I can say with certainty that there is no contradiction (I authored much of the article). What is Jwinius is saying is true.--Mad Max 06:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistancies 

message: I want to ask this question for every possivble "bite" or "sting" from an animal. Exactly why is it that the immune system is unable to  eradicate the threat from the venom of whatever creature it was that injected the venom?
:That's not completely true. It's possible to build up immunity against poisons like snake venoms by regularly injecting yourself with venom, starting with very small doses and building that up over time. Bill Haast is a famous example. However, when you stop the regular injections, the immunity begins to disappear. The venom vs. immune systems battle has been going on for many millions of years in an evolutionary arms race with natural selection always favoring venoms that are stronger than most of the immune systems around them. The immune systems are always playing catch-up. --Jwinius 12:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immune System 

message: Hi, I'm looking for help on the Snake-Stones article. Desipte the advice given here against using black stone to treat a snake bite, it seems like it's still a widely used treatment promoted by state health care, charities and the International Labour Organization. One medical study found benefits in using black stone. 
If you can help with the medical aspects or the article in general (it's the first that I've made major edits to) then I'd be very grateful. I'm monitoring Talk:Snake-Stones regularly. Thanks, Hamster128 10:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cleaned up that Snake-Stones article. (I finally got around to creating a login to do so coz it needed so much re-arranging - I had just been doing some anonymous edits on Snakebite as 202.159.176.143.) If you actually read the cited references, you realise that the article was shockingly misleading and inspired by POV. The only study that found black stone benefits found that rope or cloth 'tourniquets' and other Tradition Medicine were better than black stone treatment. Reading between the lines, imho it seems that any procedure that calms and stills the patient would have the same or better effect as a black stone. BenevolentUncle (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snake Stones 

message: The "Global evaluation of snakebite" table has a footnote that says "Population at risk". This footnote is rather vague. Which population - snakes or people? At risk in what way? --B.d.mills 22:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear fottnote in "Global evaluation of snakebite" table 

message: Regarding suctioning by the use of pumps, it is true that several organizations have updated the snake bite treatment to exclude suctioning based on the results of the one study, cited below and in the references to the main article.  There is no reference provided to support the statement that suctioning may cause harm or accelerate or facilitate the spread of venom. That sentence should be referenced. Wikismart is on the mark when wondering what happens within three minutes, as many first aiders assume that the suctioning is effective under three minutes, while that remains unverified.
On the other hand, the experiment was a simulation in a controlled environment, and not a representation of the real life performance of the Sawyer pump extracting venom.  Where is the scholarly discussion about in what sense is saline solution with albumin, used in the experiment, similar in chemical and physical properties to the actual snake venom?  A mere difference in density or flowability might explain the results.  What if the chemical properties of the complex organic compounds known to be present in venom cause the venom to be much slower in spreading (than the mock venom)?  What if the venom's compounds were of such a nature as to be much more easily withdrawn through pneumatic action?  
Finally, to change the "modus operandi", the treatment algorithm for snake bite because of the results of one study, which appears to date not to have been reproduced, is not good practice, unless there were clear and convincing evidence of injury from the practice.  What if after the published results regarding cold fusion, everybody in the world canceled their electric service in expectation of unlimited nearly free energy?  Of course the results were not reproduced.  In this case, we have one experiment which is being interpreted to mean far beyond what it actually proved: very little.
At risk of being attacked, I recommend trial of actual venom in animal subject of proven human-like physiology, such as small mammals.  The trials need not be fatal.  In this way, the effectiveness of suction devices could be compared nearly "apples to apples."
74.165.119.53 17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suction Study Methodology Recommendations 

message: I am amazed to find an article on snakebite with many lines about outmoded treatment and first aid but without even a single mention of antivenom. Obviously a person needs to know what is possible and available. AshLin 19:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need for a section on medical treatment

message: How about something on history and culture of snake bits?  They do play a prominent role in human history.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there, I add a section but it could probably use some expanding, but I don't have that much free time these days. I think with the addition of this section, though, this article pretty comprehensive, covering every important topic I can think of. Cheers! --98.232.98.144 (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional sections

message: Um, could we possibly move this image off the page and perhaps link to it for those who are really curious about what it looks like? It nearly made me empty my stomach. 92.41.57.189 (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I say keep it.  WP is not censored, and frankly, people need something to show them just how bad a bite can be - 80%+ of US snakebite is due to dipshits picking the snake up, trying to catch it or trying to kill it. Besides, it's not even close to too much gore. Mokele (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Why would you not expect it on a page about snakebite? Mokele (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Snake bites actually result in a fair number of deaths worldwide. While they may not be an issue in North America they are in other countries and yes this happens. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that encouraging better medical responses and dissuading people from playing with snakes is more important than preserving the contents of readers' stomachs, not that anyone has actually reported vomiting. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and if that picture does anything to reduce the number of kids needing amputations then the real world will be better. In Australia, we have pictures like that on the sides of cigarette packages - sometimes you need to tell it like it is. I think a bit of personal discomfort is less important than reducing the incidence of amputations.
The image is totally unnecessary in relation to this article and such things will probably increase the scare factor. This should be removed  . Such necrosis after snakebite is extremely rare in snakebite in India. Also most people in this thread want this removed. Can someone please remove it.? Drsoumyadeepb (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Many of the sources comment that amputation is occasionally required due to snake bites plus snake bites kill nearly 100,000 people a year. People who are bitten should not be too reassured and should be made to realize that treatment may be needed and may save their life. I think this image makes it clear that not all snake bites are benign. IMO a reasonable compromise is to not put it in the lead but I am not sure we should remove it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Tissue Necrosis Image

message: Ok, all of this "Site x has the _ most venomous snakes" needs to be completely removed.  As I've detailed on other pages, these lists are utter crap.  Even the page linked to by the IP editor says as much.  Venom toxicity varies with species, subspecies, region, population, family line, and even within the lifetime of an individual.  And that's not counting that different species will have different deliveries - a tiny elapid may be capable of only subcutaneous injection, while some of the large vipers are easily capable of intramuscular injection (and Bushmasters are large enough with long enough fangs to possibly manage an intraperitoneal injection on a thin victim).  And finally, the lists of species are woefully sparse - proclaiming the "10 deadliest" is like saying "We had 10 people out of 100 run this race, and will proclaim with winner the fastest, even though it's very possible that someone in the other 90 is faster".  Any sort of "Ten Deadliest ____" is the sort of schlock you get from low-budget TV documentaries short on science and long on hype - no serious academic wastes time on such drivel, and neither should we. Mokele (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Four days ago I registered on the Venomdoc forum to have the site's owner, Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry, clarify how he obtained the data for his list. Since he's an authority on this matter I also wanted to provide him a link back to this article to encourage his feedback, but so far haven't been able to post anything because the forum's admin hasn't confirmed my account. Dr. Fry states that the relevant "publication list will be up shortly," but the publication list has not been added for at least a year, so I don't exactly have my hopes up that it will suddenly appear (I understand that he's a busy man, so all due respect). Now, since the Venomdoc chart has not been formally published anywhere and its sources are not known to us, the chart cannot be used as a reference as per WP:RS. User  insists on adding it, but apparently is either unwilling to follow WP guidelines—especially considering that I provided a link in an edit summary—or either doesn't understand them or  missed the link before. I'm now letting him know of this discussion through his talk page. In any case, I think it is fair to reinstate the old sources once the article protection expires in the case of 76.78.238.204's absence, especially considering that Molecular & Cellular Proteomics is the leading scientific, peer-reviewed journal in proteomics and cites the 2001 book Australian Animal Toxins by Drs. Struan Keith Sutherland and James Tibballs as its source for the venom claims.--71.121.211.26 (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been able to reach Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry yet nor successfully register at his site's forums, and without  participating in this discussion I believe the best thing to do would be to simply add the old citation back. Any input? --71.121.211.26 (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't remember what the original wording was, but as long as we stay away from "___th most venomous" and suchlike, it'll be fine. Mokele (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

text: And what, exactly, do you suggest?  Yes, mice are not humans, but differences are pretty minor, and the vast majority of the time, mice are an accurate reflection - why do you think we use them in drug testing?  Any other species is either unethical to use (humans) or far too expensive (lab mouse = $0.50, lab monkey = $5000).  And just seeing what happens in real bites doesn't actually tell you anything.  How many are dry bites (often a substantial portion, anywhere in the world)?  How do you know how much venom is delivered (impossible to ascertain from a wild bite)?  And what about individual variation in body size, resistance, etc.?  Mice aren't perfect, but a controlled lab study is a thousand times better than handwaving through actual bites on humans with no knowledge of the most important factors. Mokele (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

text: 76.78.238.24, based on your edits I'm assuming you're the same editor as 76.78.238.204? If so, please notice the wording of both article versions: "10 of the world's most venomous snakes, as measured by LD50 in mice..." cf. "as measured by LD50 in mice..." Notice anything? Both make it perfectly clear that measurements are based on LD50 in mice. Your edit did nothing to solve the "problem", so I'm not entirely sure where you want to go with this one. The issue at hand is that you replaced a perfectly valid source with a self-published source. The issue is not that the relevant toxicity measurements weren't conducted on human subjects (and thank goodness for that!). Ad hominem attacks won't change this. Granted, I'm not a herpetologist nor a medical researcher, but I can assure you that I'm informed enough to know that mice aren't people. I wrote the cautionary "Most venomous snakes" section at the venomous snakes article, although I see you've edited that as well. The point I wanted to make clear is that the former source, MCP, is preferred according to Wikipedia guidelines — I also want to encourage better editing practices on your part. In any case, I'm glad to see you're finally participating in the discussion. While I was initially planning to reinstate the old version, I now wouldn't mind if that entire sentence (and any mention of "most venomous") were removed outright. --71.121.211.26 (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "most venomous" = TV over-hyped documentary crap 

message: This is by no means critical and I think the article is just fine without it, but how about a quick sentence explaining the term "snakebitten?"  Ya know, unfortunate, having no luck...--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: This image is not accurate - it portrays countries such as New Zealand and Ireland, which have no snakes at all, as having more than 1000 snake bites per year. I think it needs to be removed or have changes made to it, as it is very misleading.
121.98.223.66 (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, the way the map is set up the information isn't necessarily inaccurate. Instead of presenting statistics on individual countries, the map presents regional data (the countries are organized by the Global Burden of Disease grouping). Thus, while Ireland may have no snakes — and as far as I know, neither does New Zealand, Greenland, Madagascar — the territory falls within Group 10 (Western Europe). While this may not be ideal, it is the way the authors of the cited study presented their data (cf Figure 5, essentially the same map). Perhaps the map could be changed in some way to clarify the information, such as highlighting of regional borders instead of individual country borders, or else the file summary might clarify some relevant points.--76.121.180.74 (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context of the study you refer to the map isn't inaccurate as the rationale behind it is explained. Indeed, the same study shows further maps which make it clear that certain countries within GBD regions have no snakebites. In Wikipedia no such explanation is given. I don't think casual users of Wikipedia should have to consult source material to give them an accurate key for an image.202.180.74.185 (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What are your suggestions? Anyway, as a Wikipedia user you're free to edit the map if you're familiar with vector graphics. (Edit: I went ahead and edited the map without changing too much, but as my vector graphics skills are a little amateurish there may be some code errors. Hopefully it renders correctly for everyone.)--24.89.159.250 (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove "Number of snake envenomings" image? 

message: A review of envenomation:  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: AAFP review

message: *
*
*
*
*
*
*
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Review articles

message: I precised the given ratios as ratios given for USA only, since the given references are only showing USA figures. For other countries, the male/female ratio as well as age structure can be different due to different lifestyle etc. (e.g. going to toilet outside the house, female workforces on the fields or mainly ladies collecting firewood, etc.).
I didn't find so far a valid global figure for male/female ratios or age structures, but it seems the ratios/age figures vary widely from country to country (predominant male victims but at different ratios), a reference for Asia could be e.g. http://www.indjst.org/archive/vol.2.issue.9-10/oct09meenakshisun-30.pdf , there especially p. 70, in case someone wants to add Bangalorius (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epidemiology - facts and figures 

message: According to this paper, the studies which Ernst & Zug (1996) conducted on the median lethal dose (LD50)  of almost every single medically important species of snake is more accurate than what was reported by the Australian Venom and Toxin Database (AVTD). The utilisation of 0.1% bovine albumin has proven to produce consistent results over and over again. Saline used as a diluent produced vastly differing toxicity ratings in studies conducted not just by the Australian Venom and Toxin Database, but by Spawls & Branch, Shermin A. Minton, and even Brown. For example, Naja nivea has a 0.72 mg/kg via subcutis according to the AVTD, while Brown lists a value of 0.4 mg/kg subcutis. Brown administered doses of a multitude of venomous snakes in the same species of mice of the same weight - and guess what? He got such varying results that he couldn't list a single approximate LD50 value for any of the species he used as part of the study. He listed all the wildly varying values in his work. It is generally now accepted among the herpetological community at large that 0.1% bovine albumin is what should be used in such toxinology research as the results of the testing is consistent and not wildly ranging in its results. --DendroNaja (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The AVTD is an established and consensus list. one cannot just erase it from the article. you erased it by commenting that a new study is here , and yet you bring a study from 1979. The consensus most venomous snakes appear on both lists.79.182.111.44 (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: User:79.182.111.44 your ability successfully argue a position is hampered by changing IP addresses. I suggest you create an account and seek consensus as it appears you have some knowledge in this area. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason DendroNaja wants to dump this Authoritative list, is because his favorite snake (Black mamba) is not listed in it. Pure vandalism.79.182.49.102 (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  LD<sub>50</sub> measurements 

message: I have been looking at the list that Ernst and Zug published in their book "Snakes in Question: The Smithsonian Answer Book" from 1996. and it simply didn't make sense.
First of all the list posted in the article is not the list published in the book. This is the list in the book, you can verify it in google books (see the first 3). 
As you can see , this list is very strange. it is widely known that the inland taipan has the highest LD50 in mice. so what's with the Hook-nosed sea snake (Enhydrina schistosa) and even Russel's Viper (Vipera russelii) doing above it?  with crazy LD50. and other snakes don't belong there like the black mamba, boomslang or Tiger rattlesnake (Crotalus tigris). I was scratching my head about this.
I found the answer from Associate Professor Bryan Grieg Fry the venom expert. he answered somebody on his blog regarding that exact list in the book :
I will give few examples you'll get the picture:
* Tiger rattlesnake (Crotalus tigris) ,  'Snakes in question' quotes it LD50 of 0.06. if you go to a peer reviewed paper you see what they did : "This is based upon its venom’s high lethality, rated the highest of all rattlesnake venoms (LD50 value for mice is 0.07 mg/kg intraperitoneal, 0.056 mg/kg intravenous, and 0.21 mg/kg subcutaneous)7–9."
* Inland taipan (small scaled snake),  'Snakes in question' quotes it 0.03. published peer review paper 0.01 (bovine serum albumin) and 0.025 (saline) both subcutaneous.
* Hook-nosed sea snake/Beaked sea snake (Enhydrina schistosa), 'Snakes in question' quotes it 0.02. published peer review paper 0.173 (bovine serum albumin)  0.164 (saline) both subcutaneous. another peer review here is the same. Another scholarly paper 0.1.
* Black mamba, 'Snakes in question'  quotes it 0.05, every other published source quotes subcutaneous LD50 around the same level Dr. Brian Fry 0.32 subcutaneous, 0.25 intravenous, 0.941 intraperitoneal, Spawls & Branch and Minton & Minton both listed the SC 0.28 and so does reptile magazine 0.28,
The best place to see the difference quotes between  subcutaneous/intramuscular/intravenous/intraperitoneal is Dr. Fry List put in categories http://web.archive.org/web/20120413182323/http://www.venomdoc.com/LD50/LD50men.html
So there's our problem.
I agree with the above post, LD50 is most accurate to 'real life' when tested using bovine serum albumin. This peer reviewed paper indeed says this as well and gives a good list, mostly are australian snakes:
http://www.kingsnake.com/aho/pdf/menu5/broad1979b.pdf
The Australian research Unit lists more snakes, but only with Saline solution
http://web.archive.org/web/20140111053927/http://www.avru.org/compendium/biogs/A000084b.htm
Fry list is also very good but I'm guessing its using Saline
http://web.archive.org/web/20120413182323/http://www.venomdoc.com/LD50/LD50men.html
What i suggest for the wikipedia article is to make a list Using Fry's categories + Saline and bovine serum albumin subcutaneous quotes side by side.
The "Snakes in Question: The Smithsonian Answer Book" from 1996 is useless and misleading.109.66.173.51 (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The study of snake venom toxicity list done by Ernst & Zug et al is the most accurate and comprehensive list ever compiled, based on the method that was used to determine LD50 values. I am going to remove the "lists of most venomous snakes" due to the variation in toxicity that occurs from study to study based on a number of factors. It is also unencyclopedic. The quantity and quality of venom from a snake can be influenced by the age of the snake, diet, season and climate, altitude, as well as various other factors which in turn affect the lethality of the venom. Furthermore, venom processing such as drying and storage may also affect the biological activity of the venom following collection. Apart from the venom itself, the LD50 determined in experimental animals is also affected by the varying characteristics of the animals being used for lethality assessment and the methodology employed. The varying animal characteristics comprise species, strain, age, weight, sex, animal health, diet, food deprivation and season. The methodology aspects are application route, application volume, ambient temperature, housing conditions and solvent used (we know bovine serum albumin or Fraction V produces the most consistent, reliable and stable results for venom lethality. Using the Chinese cobra (Naja atra) as one example, the subcutaneous LD50 tested on a mammal (domestic cat - felis catus) was 1 mg/kg and the a LD50 of 0.4 mg/kg on a chicken by the same route of administration (Source: Simpson, L.L., and D.R. Curtis. (1971) "Neuropoisons: Their Pathophysiological Actions" New York, Plenum Pub. Corp. Vol. 1. p. 21 ). The same species, N. atra produced a subcutaneous LD50 value of 0.43 mg/kg on a pigeon (C.Y. Lee, L.F. Tseng. "Species differences in susceptibility to elapid venoms" Toxicon. Volume 7, Issue 2, September 1969, Pages 89–93). Still yet, the Chinese cobra's subcutaneous LD50 value against mice is 0.67 mg/kg (Engelmann, Wolf-Eberhard (1981). Snakes: Biology, Behavior, and Relationship to Man. Leipzig; English version NY, USA: Leipzig Publishing; English version published by Exeter Books (1982). p. 53. ). This is something that is repeatedly seen over and over again among all snake venomous snake species worldwide, whether elapids, viperids, crotalids, or venomous colubrids. Determining which is the "most venomous snake" in the world is not a simple task, nor are any studies going to be consistent with one another. You can have one black mamba in the Transvaal that produces a venom that's 0.05 mg/kg lethality rate, while one in Kenya that may produce a LD50 value of 0.25 mg/kg. It is far too variable to make a "list", thus it is unencyclopedic in my opinion. We can only go by the facts on human mortality rates, which snakes cause the highest mortality rates, which snakes tend to be aggressive, which snake produces rapid onset of symptoms and death, which snakes are the major cause of bite incidents, etc. --Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 01:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Not done: This is not the way to encourage discussion to acheive a consensus about such things. Please request a 3O or use the  WP:DRN.  Thank you. —  (t • e • c) 14:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most venomous snakes of the world list - Ernst and Zug (1996). Snakes in Question: - Totally not reliable 

message: I have a direct quote from Ernst & Zug book, page 120 regarding their venomous snake list: "also, the LD50 values are mixed data, derivd from different studies using different sites of venom injection (intermascular, intraperitoneal and subcutaneous)". http://books.google.co.il/books?ei=iidDU6TqKqKv4AT_wIDQBg&hl=iw&id=TuY5AQAAIAAJ&dq=Snakes+in+question%3A+the+Smithsonian+answer+book&focus=searchwithinvolume&nfpr=1&q=Subcutaneous 
On the other hand, Minton book does exactly what is needed for accurate citation, he has a table of modes of injection. for the black mamba it's 0.32 SC and 0.25 IV.
Here you can see the head of the table :
http://books.google.co.il/books?ei=m4JeU4PTMMa1yAPU1YD4BA&hl=iw&id=aEtrAAAAMAAJ&dq=black+mamba+ld50&focus=searchwithinvolume&nfpr=1&q=ld50
And here the black mamba quotation:
http://books.google.co.il/books?ei=m4JeU4PTMMa1yAPU1YD4BA&hl=iw&id=aEtrAAAAMAAJ&dq=black+mamba+ld50&focus=searchwithinvolume&nfpr=1&q=%22black+mamba%22+0.32
We also have a clear quotation for intraperitoneal injection "The IP murine LD50 averaging 0.30mg/kg" taken from "Venomous” Bites from Non-Venomous Snakes: A Critical Analysis of Risk and Management of "Colubrid” Snake Bites... by Scott A Weinstein, David A. Warrell, Julian White and Daniel E Keyler (Jul 1, 2011) page 246
http://books.google.co.il/books?id=tjDQnbmJu0kC&pg=PA246&dq=black+mamba+ld50&hl=en&sa=X&ei=D4FeU8HlIKLq4gSLuoF4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&nfpr=1&q=black%20mamba%20ld50&f=false
User Talk:DendroNaja  has deliberately and fraudulently manipulated this article in order to push false information in the black mamba article . Ernst & Zug did not do the venom studies themselves. Ernst & Zug did not note differnce if Saline or Bovine serum albomin, Ernst & Zug never say that the quote for the black mamba is subcutaneous, which it's clearly not.
The original list should go back to the article, and the LD50 quote for the black mamba fixed. (same ip editor)109.65.184.69 (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The hypothetical debate is over

message: While it seems that the IP editor's position that Dendro was cherry-picking and misrepresenting sources seems to be have been validated by ANI (along with evidence of socking via SPI), I would point out that some of the points he made were not altogether invalid.  For one, on this project, lists of the sort being debated (in articles which are not themselves list articles) are generally avoided as unencyclopedic content.  I see the content under debate has now been spun out to List of dangerous snakes by  and while in principle, I think this could be a useful article, I have to note that the present version has some rather serious issues, and I can see how this content led to disruptive discussions here.  For starters, that new article does not exactly hold tight to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE; a huge eyesore of a table tops the article, containing detailed clinical information that is of dubious encyclopedic value / questionable use to our readers -- given further that about 70% of it's cells lack any information at all, I question it's usefulness.  In addition to this table, numerous sections bellow contain massive, unbroken, and unformatted blocks of text with nothing but clinical details and little in the way of context.   Compounding the issues with readability further is the fact that the prose itself (that which is not dedicated to technical specification on venom amounts and potency) is incredibly weak and sub-par to our general project standards.  If it is to stay, this article is going to need significant improvement utilizing the perspectives of new contributors.  As such, I advise the IP that, though he has come out on top of this recent row (which, I might note, neither party approached in strictest manner as regards civility), he should be prepared for the fact that the article may need to be significantly parsed down to meet summary style, or at least improved drastically or readability.  Snow talk 04:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It was definitely too detailed for this overview article. Summarizing the information in the subarticle further and making it more clinically relevant would be useful. The more esoteric bits can go in the article about the snake itself IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, hey Doc; didn't realize that was you! Never seen your actual username before, I guess.  I take that as a credit to you that with all the broad area of topics you work on, I've never had cause to go to your talk page to talk about further revisions on your contributions. :)  Anyway, I've replicated my comments on the talk page for the new article, and added the appropriate headers and Wikiproject templates.  I suggest to other contributors that further conversation along these lines take place there. Snow talk 05:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Snakebite. 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 https://web.archive.org/20070323132545/http://www.usyd.edu.au:80/anaes/venom/snakebite.html to http://www.usyd.edu.au/anaes/venom/snakebite.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.geradts.com/anil/ij/vol_004_no_002/others/pg001.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It would be nice to have a photo at the top of the article that is more relevant to the content. The article is primarily concerned with dangerous bites by venomous snakes, but the current photo at the top shows a bite from a Montpellier snake. Although nominally somewhat venomous, as the article on that snake says, "The Montpellier snake is not a dangerous snake for humans", and the bite looks rather harmless. The photo shows no clear fang marks or swelling – it looks roughly like a bite from a small rat snake, which is not what the article is primarily about. Although I agree that the picture at the top should not be something completely horrific, like the picture of the necrotic leg shown later in the article, it would be much better to illustrate the article with a picture of a bite that looks more significant. I looked around on Wikimedia commons and found several pictures of snake bites, but none of them seemed very good to put at the top of this article (although one of these might be somewhat of an improvement: :File:Snake bite 5.jpg or :File:Snake Bite injury.jpg or :File:Ictus serpentis 02.JPG). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Foot image bite looks good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo at the top of the article 

message: Is this article in The Lancet a suitable source as per WP:MEDRS for adding information on global incidence of snakebite? Zeromonk (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global mapping 

message: It says "In medieval Europe, a form of capital punishment was to throw people into snake pits, leaving people to die from multiple venomous bites." But if you look at snake pits, you will only find "legends and fairy tales" mentioned. I do not want to imply anything with respect to different parts of the world, but I know Europe, and we just don't have snakes that are poisonous enough (or enough of them) to be able to do this. In any case, you would need a dedicated breeding institution for that, which in medieval Europe definitely did not exist. Let's drop that. And also for the other instances reported as factually, better sources would be welcome -- the one about India does not seem to be particularly trustworthy (it also only reports hearsay). Seattle Jörg (talk) 06:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snake pit 

message: Man 45.117.51.76 (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science 

message: Venomous snakes typically avoid contact with humans. Given the choice, both retreat. Humans are not prey of any venomous snake, so snakebite is usually a defensive reaction. See also dogs and cats, potential predators of venomous snakes. 
A large proportion of persons who have endured a snakebite have deliberately and recklessly confronted a venomous snake are drunk at the time.
This suggests drunkenness and harassment of venomous snakes is a risk factor -- more than would be expected among fishing, hiking, and camping as activities or such activities as farming, ranching, utility work, or oilfield work. Pbrower2a (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drunkenness and harassment