Talk:Phlegm

message: ...drying out and irritating parts of the throat. [15] and[16]. I cannot view the sources for this and am not sure what was meant. I have just cut the last frag and its ref. The person with a BYU account that can access the library might want to look into this.
PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo in air pollution

message: That picture is nasty.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.123.24 (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Who decided to put it there? ~ Wikipedian19265478 (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree also, but also immediately though "oh no, not another 'Wikipedia doesn't censor!' discussion". Jimw338 (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Are there any ill-effects to swallowing phlegm?  Yes, hook worms.Aaronchall 03:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can't be worse than if you hadn't coughed it up, right? ~ Wikipedian19265478 (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Are

message: This article refers (but does not link) to Sputum, any reason for that? Also the difference is not entirely clear even when reading both articles. Clarification would be much appreciated.
:From a quick read of Dictionary.com, it appears sputum is *any* matter that is coughed up, including saliva and foreign material. Whereas phlegm is specifically a thick, sticky, stringy mucus secreted by the mucous membrane. It would seem phlegm is just one form of sputum.
I followed the link on this page to the article on "Sputum." The phlegm article states that sputum is phlegm that has been expectorated, and also that mucus and phlegm are not the same thing. The sputum article begins by stating that sputum is mucus. There is a contradiction here. 167.206.122.66 (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phlegm vs. Sputum 

message: The link to the Traditional Medicine article seems somewhat inappropriate to me.  Not that we should have a bias against Chinese medicine, but having the only link be to such, as well as the fact that the author has businesses selling herbal products, seems against the spirit of Wiki.
From his site:
"Subhuti Dharmananda helped initiate People's Herbs Incorporated, All-The-Tea Company, and Dharma Consulting International. . ."
Hey, other pages, such as the MCS page promote views which benefit other industries (and at the detriment of sufferers, too).  Thus, this is in keeping with the usual wiki standard.  Phlegm is no big deal except when you wake up at night choking on it - which is a good reason not to either sleep on one's back or not to tilt one's face too up too much when sleeping on one's side.  It is annoying when you choke on it.  Then again, having a chronic sore throat when one doesn't even have a cold is also annoying. 24.77.84.175 (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial link? 

message: Please don't include a photo. Ever. ;) 65.92.207.152 00:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people don't want to look at it.  What about if we provide a link to click if people want to see it, and if they don't want to, then they just don't click it? ~ Wikipedian19265478 (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Is it okay to omit the G, as it isn't necessary?
sure, and why don't we just omit the 'k' in 'know' while we're at it. heck! we don't even need the 'w'! The Fletch
:Why don't we also change the ph to a f?  Flem is nice and easy to read.  (Nobody ever said that English actually makes sense!) ~ Wikipedian19265478 (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But, if phlegm had the ph as an f, it would be "Flegm" 152.37.135.51 (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Phlem

message: Enough said. I can't see the value of this except SOLELY as a historical reference. The current reference makes it look like a legitimate part of modern theory and thought related to phlegm. The theory of humours has been disproven beyond all discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.155.96 (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, the theory of Humourism is misconceived and completely ridiculous.  Still, it turned out to be a real die-hard, misguiding medical thinking for over 2,000 years, responsible for endless medical treatments using bloodletting - the most common "treatment" less than 150 years ago.  As such it deserves mention, not for the insights, but for the phenomenal sidetrack.  It should serve as a warning against theoretical speculation not founded in empirical observation, and perhaps inject a dose of humble attitude into everybody regarding the limited insights of today.  After all, which of today's theories may remain essentially uncontested for the next 2,000 years? Power.corrupts (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humourism? 

message: what exactly is a photo comparing it to a quarter proving? not all loogies are the same size. 199.117.69.8 (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  the photo 

message: ... instead of "the respiratory system, excluding that from the nasal passages"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 02:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wouldn't it be quicker, clearer, and more common to say "lower respiratory system" ... 

message: Spores of mold if inhaled can create a nasty infection in those who are not immune to it. I had a job in Green House and I was cleaning up the molded black dead decomposed leaves from the base of the potted plants of Geraniums. As I would touch these decomposed leaves I could see the spores come off the black mold as if like smoke. Inhaling these spores created a nasty nasel and throat infection. I cured this infection simply by eating some of the nasty black decomposed leaves from the base of the Geranium. This made me immune to the spores. 108.81.134.236 (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yellow to Brown Phlegm Cure?.......... 

message: Greetings! I did the following changes to the article:
Four humours were redirecting to humorism that was already linked in the same sentence.
Black bile was redirecting to melancholia. However, melancholia has been described as a mere consequence of excess black bile; the link was not pertaining to "black pile" itself.
Yellow bile was redirecting to humorism that was already linked in the article.
Blood did not define "Blood (humor)" at all. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:OVERLINK 

message: This article would benefit from a section on how excessive phlegm can be treated.  It ought to go without saying that avoiding the triggers is good, but all other things being equal (you can't make the world less polluted or cure yourself of an undiagnosed disease), what can be done to make phlegm/mucus production decrease?  Correctrix (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Phlegm. 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/20101009064912/http://emedicine.medscape.com:80/article/866872-overview to http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/866872-overview#aw2aab6b3
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 02:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What is the reason for the statement, under illness, that "and only bacterial infections, which are rare, are to be treated with an antibiotic". Treatment of bacterial infections is not relevant to either bronchitis or phlegm.203.80.61.102 (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bronchitis