Talk:Fever/Archive 1

Rectal/oral temperature
I've read elsewhere (WebMD primarily) that rectal and oral temperatures can differ by up to a degree F. This makes the listed categorizations of low grade/moderate/high grade somewhat ambiguous, especially to someone perusing Wikipedia to get high-quality information. Could someone with deeper knowledge of the subject please clarify this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.32.214 (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2005 (UTC)

Big Mikey Sweet disease
Is this a real disease? I looked and couldn't find any other information about this. It is currently listed as one cause of fever. The name strikes me as a little fishy.

68.110.100.32 19:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Oxaric


 * Has been removed.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 02:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Treatment section
The treatment section is a bit unclear - when you have a fever, do you want to keep warm to help fight off the infection? Or is it more complicated? --SPUI (talk) 18:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems fever is an evolutionary anomaly. Reducing fever (e.g. with paracetamol) does not affect the prognosis of febrile disease. JFW | T@lk  20:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * In animal studies, animals who had their fever's broken by drugs were significantly more likely to die from infection compared to those animals who were allowed to express the febrile response. Technically, fever is nothing more than an increase in thermoregulatory set-point.  People expressing the febrile response will report to be feeling cold, even though their body's temperature may be over 40 degrees celsius. I'm not a physician, but I would suggest that you would want to increase the room temperature until you no longer feel "cold."  The less energy that your body must use metabolically to meet the new thermoregulatory set-point, the more energy it can use when trying to fight the infection off.Taylor Sando 17:28, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * Please cite sources for this. I have not heard of evidence suggesting that we should increase the room temperature when someone has a fever instead of given anti-pyretics. Also note that unless there's some good evidence, we'll have to remove the diagram you just inserted in the article. Alex.tan 02:06, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * The evidence on the diagram for hyperthermia and hypothermia is basically a graphical representation of the very definition of them respectively. The body maintains a roughly constant internal body temperature around 37 degrees Celsius.  This fact surely can’t be disputed, right?


 * Ok, following from that, we know that anything that increases body temperature above this set-point will activate thermoregulatory mechanisms (Vasodilation, sweating, decreased motor activity, etc) to bring the temperature back down to the set-point value of 37 degrees Celsius. Therefore, when you turn up the temperature in the room, or you exercise, you are inducing hyperthermia on yourself and your body will attempt to counteract this increase in body temperature.


 * Same with hypothermia, anything that decreases body temperature below the normal set-point will activate thermoregulatory mechanisms (vasoconstriction, decreased sweating, increased motor activity, etc) to bring the temperature back up to the set-point value of 37 degrees Celsius.


 * Now for the evidence for fever being an increase in set-point. I would draw your attention to two papers.  The first: Feng, JD, Price M, Cohen J, and Satinoff E. (1989) prostaglandin fevers in rats: regulated change in body temperature or change in regulated body temperature? American Journal of Physiology: Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology 257: R695-R699.  Here is the abstract: “Experiments examining the effects of central injections of E-series prostaglandins (PGE) on body temperature have only been done in the light part of a light-dark cycle. The present experiments examined the characteristics of fevers in rats after intraventricular PGE2 injections in both light and dark in a 12:12 h photoperiod. In the light, the change in body temperature (Tb) after 0.5 microgram was not significantly different from the change after vehicle injection. After injection of PGE2 (1, 2, 4, and 8 micrograms), Tb rose in a dose-dependent fashion. Mean initial Tb in the light was 36.4-36.6 degrees C. Tb rose a mean of 1.5 degrees C after 1 microgram, 1.9 degrees C after 2 micrograms, 2.7 degrees C after 4 micrograms, and 3.5 degrees C after 8 micrograms PGE2. A dose of 16 micrograms gave almost identical results as 8 micrograms. In the dark, mean initial Tb was 37.4-37.7 degrees C. Tb rose less than 0.8, 1.1, 1.4, and 2.3 degrees C after 1-8 micrograms PGE2, respectively. Thus there were two distinct dose-response curves for day and night. Nevertheless, peak Tb values attained in the two conditions were not significantly different from each other at any given dose. These results show that a particular dose of PGE2 raises Tb to a particular level, largely independent of either the Tb at the time of the injection or the phase of the light-dark cycle. However, the change in Tb at any dose depends strongly on initial Tb. Therefore, we urge researchers in the pharmacology of thermoregulation to report initial and final Tb values as well as changes in Tb. “


 * The take home message is “peak Tb values attained in the two conditions were not significantly different from each other at any given dose.” Rats have higher body temperature in the Night then they do in the Day, this reflects their thermoregulatory set-point.  If fever was an absolute rise in body temperature, the Dark phase group would have shown a higher peak body temperature compared to the Light phase group.  Think of it this way.  If fever was always a temperature increase of say, 3 degree Celsius, and the light group’s normal body temperature is 36 degree Celsius, while the dark group’s normal body temperature is 37 degree Celsius, then the light group would have had fever numbers around 39 degrees Celsius, whereas the dark group would have had fever numbers around 40 degrees Celsius.  This did not occur.  The light group and dark group’s peak fever body temperatures were not significantly different from each other.  This reflects an elevation in set-point, rather than an absolute rise in body temperature.


 * The second is a review article: Moltz, H. (1993) Fever: causes and consequences. Neuroscience Biobehavioral Review, 17(3), 237-269. Unfortunately, I don’t have this on me right now, but in this review paper it talks about Ectoderm (Cold blooded animals incapable of metabolic thermoregulation) thermal preferences after injection with an endotoxin.  The experimental group was compared to controls that did not receive the injection.  The experimental group showed a clear preference for higher temperatures compared to the control group.  This preference lasted the course of the endotoxin challenge.  This reflects a temporary elevation in the thermoregulatory set-point.


 * Therefore, the diagram is backed by experimental evidence.


 * As for the claim that fevers should be encouraged, or that a person should attempt to increase their body’s temperature during a fever. This is part speculation, and part based on experimental evidence.  If you read the review of Moltz, you will find animal studies that relate to this very situation.  Animals were injected with an endotoxin.  The control group was left alone, while the experimental group was given anti-pyretics, such as acetaminophen.  The experimental group had significantly more deaths and complications compared to the control groups.  This suggested an adaptive role for fevers.


 * In fact, fevers have a long evolutionary history, with many species, both vertebrates and invertebrates expressing this during immune challenges. This is not surprising because fever is part of the Acute Phase Response and Innate Immunity.  It is a non-specific mechanism to fight immunological challenges.  One thing that this increase in body temperature is thought to do is decrease plasma iron concentrations (bacteria need it to divide).  There are a lot of other things, however, like I said, I don’t have the papers with me right now. Whether or not a person should be given an anti-pyretic is dependent on the person's age and the severity of the fever.  People suffer from convulsions if the internal temperature become greater than 41 degrees Celsius (106 degrees Fahrenheit), therefore, I would assume you would want to break the fever if your temperature is approaching this threshold.


 * On the topic of a cancer treatment, I certainly don't think inducing fever to treat cancer is a suitable option. The innate immune system generally does not fight cancerous cells.  This is usually the job of the adaptive/specific immune system.  Although there is quite a bit of overlap between the two systems.   Taylor Sando

Is there a reason that specific drugs such are paracetamol are not mentioned in the treatment section? 129.27.12.20 07:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

About measuring the temperature
When it comes about measuring temperature there should be complete knowledge about body temperature. there are two types of temperature 1. Shell temperature 2. Core temperature Shell temperature is the temperature of the surface of the body which can be measured from the axilla or oral. It is always a degree F less than the core temperature. Core temperature is the temperature inside the body. It is the actual temperature of our body. It is the temperature which is measured in the rectum. When we see the oral temperature we must add one degree F with that so that we can have the actuall temperature of our body — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.53.162.55 (talk) 05:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

History of Fever
Though I find the science interesting, I came to this page looking for a history of fevers, beliefs about them, evolving treatments over time, etc. Specifically I wanted to know what sorts of disfigurement untreated long-term fevers can cause. If anyone has some knowledge or resources to add to this entry apropos of a more cultural view of fever, I would be much obliged.


 * History of medicine... hard to find good source material here. As for "long term disfigurements", these depend on what causes the fever. Fever itself is harmless, although amyloid occurs in people with non-stop inflammation for many years. JFW | T@lk  01:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that while placing a cold, wet cloth on someone's head may briefly reduce the patient's temperature, if the cloth is not removed and/or the moisture is not allowed to evaporate, it can actually raise the patient's temperature by trapping body heat. Using an ice pack instead would, I think, be far more beneficial.

Ice would be even worse? I thought the water had to be lukewarm to cold.

Fever In my personal opinion is a response to the increase in blood density. Essentialy what happens is the heart responds to the increase of the virus as an increase in blood. This makes the heart pump harder,just like pooring more water into a balloon makes it hard to squeeze a balloon. Its also why aspirin helps reduce fever by thinning out the blood, making it easier for the heart to relax and pump.

I would really like a doctor to check with patients who die in viral contaminations like swine flu to see if the patient is loosing weight. I can specificaly predict how much weight the patients who die from a virus are loosing. They should be loosing weight during the fever outbreak. They will gain weight right before symptoms start do to the virus increasing in size.

What i believe is happening is the fever may be the cause of death, as 100 degree + temperature evaporates water, what happens is the fever evaporates water in the blood supply wich essentialy the body registers as blood loss. So essentialy I would check and see if your patients who are dying of fever outbreak are loosing weight in the range of 3 quarts (i believe this is the max amount of blood someone can loose (its either quarts or pints cant remember offhand). If you boil blood and boil it for about an hour or so, you will see that high temperature EVAPORATES blood supply because blood is composed of large amount of water.

If thats the case then blood tranfusion during fever may help stabilize patients, i would recommend blood dump and transfusion as chemicals present in the blood supply may be also exasorbating the fever. Also check to see if your patients suffering from symptoms like chest pains, labored breathing are gaining weight. If thats the case then drawing blood may help your patients as obese people have the same symptoms due to the increase of amount of blood in thier body and thier heart having a hard time pumping, cardiac arrest being a typical symptom of overweight people. It may be possible to help patients by doing a blood dump and transfusion as another part of the fever may be chemical related and do to the new chemicals in the bloodstream during fever.In that case something like the flu needs to be treated like a poision and removed from the patient.I am not recommending you try any of this on a human, im hoping that hospitals will invest in veternarian medicine as you can learn alot by curing animals without expensive lawsuits.

You will want to make sure the blood is warm to avoid anapalactic shock if you attempt transfusion and make sure the patients body temperature and heartrate remains normal.

essentialy the reason i believe you get symptoms such as runny nose, vomiting, etc during viral outbreaks is simply put the virus grows in the body and tries to get rid of the infection. people can get ill from vomiting from dehydration as its important to eat in order to survive (drinking and eating), the vomiting essentialy helping starve the patient because its rejecting nutrients and calories the body needs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.230.129 (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. I just want to point out to anybody reading the talk page for research purposes that this user's beliefs are reminiscent of medicine in the dark ages and have absolutely no basis in modern medical knowledge. With the exception of really prodigious cancerous tumors, few if any fever causing agents would be heavy enough to cause the kind of weight difference described here. Yes, a person may lose weight over the duration of a long fever, but primarily because caloric intake during fever is usually miniscule compared to the energy required to produce the heat (though also potentially through dehydration if the fever cycles to cause repeated instances of profuse sweating or the patient does not replace fluids lost through vomitting, diarrhea, and normal bodily function). If you pulled every virus out of an average fever stricken patient and piled them together you probably still couldn't see them, nevermind get a meaningful weight. The treatments suggested here are not only quackery, they're potentially very dangerous.162.95.148.252 (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Autoimmune disorders
Assuming the fevers are part of an immune response, can fevers be wrongly created (in the face of no real pathogens) when patients have immune disorders (allergies, lupus, etc)? jengod 07:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * They can indeed. Many autoimmune conditions (such as the lupus you suggested) may feature low-grade fevers. So can some tumours, particularly Hodgkin's lymphoma (Pel-Ebstein fever), presumable also due to the secretion of pyrogenic cytokines. Allergies do not typically cause fevers. JFW | T@lk  20:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Overlapping Image
One of the first images on the page is overlapping some of the text. Unfortunately I don't know wikipedia well enough to be able to fix this on my own, otherwise I would.Veluet 18:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It appears there could be a conflict between the two floating boxes on the page (the symptom box and the image box) and so the image box doesn't float correctly. I fixed it by moving the image lower on the page. Noelle De Guzman 08:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Some incorrect information
I believe that this page's temperature for a serious fever is far too high. The page lists 107.6 Fahrenheit as definitely harmful. 103 Fahrenheit is more realistic. See

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fever/DS00077/DSECTION=2

Someone could see this info and interpret anything below 107.6 as not truly serious. I hope it will be changed.


 * The paragraph preceding that describes anything above 104F as 'high grade fever'. AFAICT, the figure of 107F refers specifically to the temperature at which the heat is likely to cause tissue damage. However, I removed the 'would most certainly be harmful' from that sentence because it's too easy to misread it as meaning that temperatures below 107F aren't harmful. --Calair 03:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Altered States of Consciousness???
I arrived here via a link from altered states of consciousness. I was hoping that maybe, there would be information explaining how and why fever induces altered states of consciousness. What we have here is a medicine centric POV, which is probably as it should be, but this entire article is totally useless for Shamanic or Psychonaut POV which is sad. Prometheuspan 23:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that my state of consciousness was once altered while I had a fever. I couldn't speak or think straight and I saw purple triangles everywhere, yet I see nothing about altered states of consciousness in this article. CorpseJester (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The references in the article
Currenty this article contains ten references to original scientific works, three review articles and one textbook - I just added the latter, for my addition of the source of the endogenous pyrogens. While I do not doubt these sources, I think this kind of article would better be based on textbooks and refer to original research only in specific cases. I can find original articles with data supporting all kinds of theories, that does not mean these theories are generally considered true. // Habj 09:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed this as well and was going to make a comment. We have some seemingly selected-at-random review articles arguing for or against treating fever, some from rather obscure journals.  As a nonspecialist I have no way of knowing to what extent these represent any sort of consensus, versus merely the opinion of one author.  I'd be more confident with, for example, a review article published in a top-tier journal, or some sort of treatment recommendation from a mainstream professional body. --Delirium 13:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you might have noticed that 5/6 refs are about the purpose of fever, discussed in the topic right below this one. This was controversial. It's my opinion that the section reflects general belief: however, while I was doing a big pubmed screening, I didn't find any top-quality review papers about it, just measly obscure ones...--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite
I've rewritten and reorganised some parts of the article, deleting unnecessary content where I considered feasible. I added a measurement chapter, causes chapter, treatment chapter, and a chapter on the usefulness of fever, articulating the mainstream theory that it is not usefull (indeed, as Jfdwolff calls it, an "evolutionary anomaly", or remnant).

I concurred with the previous editor that the references where a bit copious, so here they are below :-) . Please feel free to use them as citations for specific or controversial claims where necessary, or if you have actually read them and based your changes to this article on them. --Steven Fruitsmaak 16:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see some specific references for the section on the usefulness of fever. All of the other advice I can find on the web indicates that it is useful, e.g. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003090.htm http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fever/DS00077 -- rasgoo 07:20, 28 Jun 2006 (UTC)
 * After a look in the literature, I was indeed forced to change my opinion!--Steven Fruitsmaak 15:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the usefulness section is stylistically horrible. I made a few edits to the first sentence, but once I started, I decided it needed such extensive work that I didn't feel comfortable continuing. --DelCavallo 17:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Prostaglandin E2 as possible source of pain in fever?
The article mentions PGE2 as one of the final stages in the induction of fever; fevers are also commonly associated with pain and discomfort over the whole body. I posit that it's the prostaglandin E2 that causes that pain, as it's part of the pain mechanism as well; NSAIDs act primarily by suppressing cyclooxygenase in the body, and thereby the resulting prostaglandins, which would explain both the pain relief and the reduction of fever.

As I'm neither a doctor nor a pharmacologist I would like some feedback from other Wikipedians on this matter before we put it in. If there are references that might explain the role of prostaglandin in fever and fever pain in more detail, please direct me to them. Rhombus 19:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Primary Sources
 * Cao, C., Matsumura, K., Yamagata, K., and Watanabe, Y., (1996) Endothelial cells of the rat brain vasculature express cyclooxygenase-2 mRNA in response to systemic interleukin-1B: a possible site of prostaglandin synthesis responsible for fever. Brain Res 733, 263-272.
 * Castellani JW, Young AJ, Sawka MN, Pandolf KB.(1998) Human thermoregulatory responses during serial cold-water immersions. J Appl Physiol, 85(1), 204-209.
 * Feng, JD, Price M, Cohen J, and Satinoff E. (1989) Prostaglandin fevers in rats: regulated change in body temperature or change in regulated body temperature? Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol 257: R695-R699.
 * Jakobsson, P. J., Thoren, S, Morgenstern, R., and Samuelsson B. (1999) Identification of human prostaglandin E synthase: A microsomal, glutathione-dependent, inducible enzyme, constituting a potential novel drug target. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 96, 7220-7225
 * Milton, A. S. & Wendlandt, S. (1970). A possible role for prostaglandin E1 as a modulator for temperature regulation in the central nervous system. J Physiol, 207(2), 76P-77P.
 * Milton, A. S. & Wendlandt, S. (1971) Effects on body temperature of prostaglandins of the A, E and F series on injection into the third ventricle of unanaesthetized cats and rabbits. J Physiol, 218, 325-336.
 * Nakamura, K., Matsumura, K., Kaneko, T., Kobayashi, S., Katoh, H. & Negishi, M. (2002) The rostral raphe pallidus nucleus mediates pyrogenic transmission from the preoptic area. J Neurosci, 22(11), 4600-4610.
 * Nakamura, Y., Nakamura, K., Matsumura, K., Kobayashi, S., Kaneko, T. & Morrison, S. F. (2005) Direct pyrogenic input from prostaglandin EP3 receptor-expressing preoptic neurons to the dorsomedial hypothalamus. Eur J Neurosci, 22(12), 3137-3146.
 * Opp M. R. & Krueger J. M. (1991) Interleukin 1-receptor antagonist blocks interleukin 1-induced sleep and fever. Am J Physiol, 260(2), R453-R457.
 * Scammell, T. E., Elmquist, J. K., Griffin, J. D., & Saper, C. B., (1996) Ventromedial preoptic prostaglandin E2 activates fever-producing autonomic pathways. J Neurosci, 16(19), 6246-6254.
 * Scammel., T. E., Griffin, J. D., Elquist, J. K. and Saper C. B. (1998) Microinjection of a cyclooxygenase inhibitor into the anteroventral preoptic region attenuates LPS fever. Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol. 274 (3), R783-R789.
 * Vane, J. R. & Flower, R. J. (1972) Inhibition of prostaglandin synthetase in brain explains the anti-pyretic activity of paracetamol (4-Acetamidophenol). Nature, 240, 410-411.

Secondary Sources
 * Engblom, D., Ek, M., Saha, Sipra, S., Ericsson-Dahistrand, A., Jakobsson P.J., Blomqvist, A (2002) Prostaglandins as inflammatory messengers across the blood-brain barrier. J Mol Med, 80, 5-15.
 * Moltz, H. (1993). ''Fever: causes and consequences. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 17(3), 237-69
 * Waag T, Hesselberg O, Reinertsen RE. (1995) Heat production during cold water immersion: the role of shivering and exercise in the development of hypothermia. Arctic Med Res. 54(2), 60-64.

Effects of prolonged fever
What are the effects, if any, of having a very high or prolonged fever? I've heard of everything from mental retardation to death, and I was hoping this article could help set me straight. Shouldn't there be a section? BethEnd 05:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Seconded. I know it does cause mental retardation, though, because my dad's friend's daughter (she's twenty now) had a fever when she was around nine. Since she's Asian, her family is Asian, so instead of taking her to the doctor, her parents just made her sleep. Well, something major happened (overheating or something like that) and she 'burned up' (from not receiving adequate treatment for recovery). By the time her parents took her to the hospital, it was too late. Now she's mute and has all these involuntary movements. She can't speak or think or walk, much less drive a car or go to school. She can still eat and laugh and see things, but always slowly and always with added involuntary movements, so she's mentally retarded. Why sigh, cutie pie? 21:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Study identifies source of fever
“Our laboratory identified the key site in the brain at which a hormone called prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) acts on a target, called the EP3 receptor, on neurons to cause the fever response.” Brian Pearson 23:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Should generally not be suppressed?
I question this information. I doubt there is a concensus among doctors and within the medical science on this point. These sentences should IMO be rephrased. // Habj 09:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've heard (anecdotally) of people suffering brain damage an even dying from fevers. Dehydration is one mechanism, but I've heard that going above a certain temperature is harmful to the brain. I won't add to the article as "a smart person told me" is not a great source. But a section on the dangers of fevers - or at least why doctors stress the control of fevers - is important, I believe. The info I'd really like to have is: should I let my temperature rise to a certain temperature, by not treating the fever too aggressively?


 * This begs the question: if fevers are dangerous, why have we evolved to have them. Perhaps some diseases interfere with the normal temperature regulation, e.g. by releasing pyrogens; or else the reaction we've developed gives an evolutionary advantage by dealing with common illnesses, but it's not sophisticated enough to not go overboard with really nasty illnesses. Another thought is that a bit of brain damage or other side-effects are not complete disasters from an evolutionary point of view. That's all speculation of course, and I don't think they're adequate explanations, but I'd be surprised if there weren't citable info on this somewhere.


 * Btw, re the bit that says Most people take medication against fever because the symptoms cause discomfort: In my personal experience, it's hard to sleep with an untreated fever. Taking paracetamol helps me sleep, and when I awake I usually feel a lot better. I suspect that in mild fevers at least, the pain relief and resulting rest contributes to recovery. But again I don't have sources. --Chriswaterguy talk (currently in Jakarta with a fever) 06:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * JFW mentioned in the "Treatment section" above that "it seems fever is an evolutionary anomaly" 187.106.53.120 (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

History and other cultures needed
"Give me a fever, and I can cure any illness" -- Hippocrates.

This article is much too narrowly focused exclusively on current Western medical conventional wisdom.

Humans have been getting and dealing with fevers since the beginning of time. The article should tell us the history of how healers have viewed and dealt with fevers for the last few thousand years, in cultures around the world.

My impression is that where fevers are currently viewed by conventional medicine as an inconvenience to be suppressed, previously they were generally viewed as part of the cure and often encouraged/enhanced by bundling, sweats etc. -69.87.199.175 (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Any particular reason you aren't fixing this omission yourself? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Temperature accuracy?
The given Farenheit temperatures considered normal and for different states of fever all seem a little high (about 1 degree). Clicking on the low-grade link takes you to an article that lists a low-grade fever as one never exceeding about 101 degrees Farenheit, yet this page says a low grade fever is defined as one not exceeding 102.2 degrees. Also, most things I've read say normal oral temperatures are about 98.6 degrees, not 99.5 degrees. Can someone with more expertise advise on this issue? 70.250.179.232 (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First, the actual median oral temperature for humans is 98.2 F, no matter what old textbooks say. The 98.6 number comes from a sloppy conversion of 37 C to F -- except that the original number, from a 19th century study, was 37 C, not 37.0 C (as in:  "37 C, not 36 or 38," instead of "37.0 C, not 36.9 or 37.1").  The correct conversion is 98 F (not 96 or 100).  Fortunately for us, the antique work has been entirely superseded by modern studies, which give us a median of 98.2 F.


 * Importantly, there is a significant range. You, personally, might run a little hotter or a little cooler than average.  Furthermore, your temperature changes from day to day.  This is why this article gives the normal oral temperature as 98.2±1.3 F.  This means that 99.5 F could be a perfectly normal temperature at times.  So could 96.9 F.


 * So if you have a temperature of 99.5 F, then you have to decide what that means for you. If you're naturally a little cooler than average, plus you haven't eaten for a day or just woke up in the morning, and you have a temperature of 99.5 F, then you might have a fever.  If you're naturally a little warmer than average anyway, plus you've been exercising outside in the middle of the summer, then 99.5 is exactly what you'd expect.


 * Although most clinicians use the simpler rule of thumb (100.2 F is not a fever; 100.4 F is), the existing studies indicate that anything outside of the ±1.3F range is a clinically significant variation.


 * Hope this helps, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing--that was a whole lot more helpful than the article. Would you considered doing some editing to add your clear thinking in there?


 * I find the "is a fever/isn't a fever" classification rather silly for a general discussion of the phenomenon. Certainly there are cases in which someone is mildly sick, and their temperature is slightly elevated compared to what it would have been otherwise--perhaps to 98.5 F instead of 98.3 F.  If the cause of that is milder version of the same kind of mechanism that causes fever of 102 F, I would want to describe it as a very mild fever, even though I can understand why a clinician would not want to even consider recording it as a mild fever, because she would not have a way to know it was caused by illness.  So yes, medically, that's not a fever.  But it's an illness induced elevation of temperature, and it seems silly to use a different word (or collection of words) for it at an arbitrary threshold.Ccrrccrr (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you feel like you understand the issues better. There's no practical way to differentiate between a slightly raised temperature due to a raised set-point (a fever) and a slightly raised temperature due to any other cause (technically not a fever, and appears in some illnesses).  You will never know what the temperature "would have been otherwise", so you can't compare those.
 * Also (in the absence of other signs and symptoms) having your temperature go up a tiny bit, no matter what the cause or mechanism, has zero real-world implications, so setting a threshold related to significance is probably appropriate. The major point in my last sentence above is that the threshold isn't arbitrary:  it's been confirmed by practical research.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree 100% with what you are saying, but I think I'm talking about something different. I agree that there's no practical way to differentiate between a slightly raised temperature due to an illness-induced increase in setpoint from a slightly raised temperature due to any number of other factors.  And I agree that there are, at least with present methods and equipment, no practical consequences to a "fever" below the threshold, which you are right, is not .  But I'm not talking about how to organize clinical practice.  I'm talking semantics.


 * Will you indulge me in an analogy? Suppose this were an article about thermal expansion of metals, and (for some reason) we were talking about a 1-m steel bar, and suppose that the state of technology at the time of the conversation were such that one could not reliably measure a change in the length of the bar smaller than 0.1 mm.  Then suppose we discuss what happens when we heat the bar by 4 C, which (if I got my numbers right) would lead to a 0.05 mm elongation.  I would argue that according to our physical theory, the bar has undergone thermal expansion of 0.05 mm, but that that's only a theory because we can't measure it.  It seems like the approach taken in the fever article is analogous to saying that the bar probably has expanded by 0.05 mm, but that since we can't measure it and because it's of no practical significance, we shouldn't use the name "thermal expansion" for that phenomenon.


 * The analogy isn't perfect, because we can measure body temperature to much better accuracy now than we need, but there are too many other factors influencing it. I wasn't sure how to incorporate that aspect in my analogy, and I didn't bother because it didn't seem important to me.  Perhaps the steel bar is on a ship in heavy seas?  Or perhaps we are measuring thermal expansion of alligators and they keep wiggling around.


 * Does it makes sense that deciding when something is big enough to be of practical importance, and deciding what name to use for it, might be different decisions, at least in the world of abstract intellectual pursuits, if not in a busy hospital?Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your point; you want "fever" to be used interchangeably with "elevated set point". We don't use the terms that way.  Fever is an elevated set point that matters.  An elevated set point that doesn't matter is just an elevated set point.  Making the distinction is useful, and we have language that allows us to communicate both concepts.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming that I explained my point clearly this time. Now we are having the conversation I hoped for.  Who are the "we" who don't use the terms that way?  Do you mean the the medical profession?  Or do you mean the way the English speaking population uses it?  Or the editors of this article?  Or educated people, as opposed to the person who needs this explained to him?
 * Next question along these lines: Is this an article about medical terminology, or an article about a phenomenon, which should perhaps have a section on medical terminology?
 * I don't mean to burden you, WhatamIdoing, with answering all my philosophical questions about this article--I'm raising them for anyone who is willing to discuss them. Thank you for engaging in that discussion, and thanks in advance to others who do too.Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer your question about 'we': Imagine that you could reliably identify a tiny (we'll say 0.1 degree C) abnormal increase in the thermoregulatory set point.  You report this:
 * "Mom, I feel fine, but I'm running a fever. I should get to stay home today and eat soup and watch old movies.  My temperature should be 36.8 C, and instead it's 36.9 C."  What would your mother say?
 * "Doctor, I feel fine, but I'm running a fever. My temperature should be 36.8 C, and instead it's 36.9 C."  What would your physician say?
 * "Researcher, I feel fine, but I'm running a fever. My temperature should be 36.8 C, and instead it's 36.9 C."  What you do you think the researchers would say?
 * I think the answers would be "You're not sick," "You're not sick," and "True, but who cares?".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The last of those three would depend on what the researcher was researching, but otherwise I agree.129.170.66.23 (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not persuaded by the arguments presented above, but since nobody has expressed any support for my ideas I'll drop them.Ccrrccrr (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Normal body temperature
The numbers for normal body temperature get changed periodically, usually in ways that are obviously wrong. Today's, however, is an assertion that 37.2C during the morning is a fever, despite the fact that this is well within the normal range of 36.8C±0.7.

Can this change be sourced? I ask because I can source the normal range, and my source for the normal range specifies that temperatures were measured in the morning (although after breakfast). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Too hard to understand
This article is not written in an encyclopedic style. (Regret I don't know the tag to add.) It's too technical for non-medical people to understand. It needs sentences along the lines of "When the body's immune system detects the chemical signature of certain bacteria, it sets off a chemical chain reaction which induces a fever. Scientists believe that the body does this to help it fight the infection (the bacteria don't like the higher temperature, but the immune system does) but nobody really knows for sure." I can't add sentences like that because I'm not an expert and the article is too difficult for me to understand it well enough to be able to simplify it. Somebody please do the necessary. Macguba (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC) PS - Must declare an interest here ... I'm currently suffering from one.


 * I hope that you feel better soon.
 * I think this is written in an encyclopedic style: It is a formal, impersonal, dispassionate summary of information.  Do you mean instead that it's not written simply enough?  Perhaps you would like to try this version.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's too technical to be encyclopedic. (It is indeed formal, impersonal and dispassionate and is encyclopedic to that extent.)  It is of course difficult to judge the right level for any article.  One test is the prevalence of 'link words', and density of them in this article is much too high.  I haven't encountered the Simple English version of Wikipedia before, thanks for the link.  You won't be surprised to learn that I think it's good as far as it goes, but that isn't far enough for me.   Macguba (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC) PS Feeling much better, thank you.

Body temp?
>(generally and problematically considered to be 37 °C ±1 °C, see below for specifics) >The common oral measurement of normal human body temperature is 36.8±0.7 °C (98.2±1.3 °F) >Normal body temperature may differ as much as 1 °F (0.6 °C)

There is a lot of conflicted numbering in this article re: normal body temperature. TheHYPO (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your problem. 37-38-39 is a standard rule of thumb, and is based on core (anal) temperatures.  36.8 is the median oral temperature for healthy adults.  A normal, healthy temperature varies based on time of day and several other factors.  And any given human's body temperature may be different compared to the next person.  Where's the "conflict"?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you were more specific as to what you meant in terms of conflicted numbering? The point the article is making (and what WhatamIdoing is pointing out) is that there can only be a range, since we are dealing with a normal distribution curve that varies inter- and intra- individual.--Cpt ricard (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
There has been a lot of confusion over the difference between hyperpyrexia and hyperthermia. Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, 17th Edition. Chapter 17 explains the differences between fever and hyperthermia as "Fever is an elevation of body temperature that exceeds the normal daily variation and occurs in conjunction with an increase in the hypothalamic set point" and "Hyperthermia is characterized by an uncontrolled increase in body temperature that exceeds the body's ability to lose heat. The setting of the hypothalamic thermoregulatory center is unchanged." It goes on to state "A fever of >41.5°C (>106.7°F) is called hyperpyrexia". To get rid of this confusion, I feel that the hyperpyrexia page should be merged into the fever page since hyperpyrexia is merely a stage of fever and the hyperpyrexia page provides no referenced information and is a stub anyway. Any objections? --Uvadaniel (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That makes a lot of sense. My only concern would be someone who searches for hyperpyrexia, gets a redirect for fever, skims 20% of the article and concludes that fever and hyperpyrexia are synonyms.  We'd need to make sure the lead includes adequate clarification.Ccrrccrr (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems strange: the tag proposing this got removed, even though the only comments were in favor of the merger. Any explanation?Ccrrccrr (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, hearing no objection, I'm going to restore the merge tag.Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like the discussion is between hyperpyrexia and fever. Hyperpyrexia is just a high temperature.  Hyperthermia is different and I have made a number of changes to reflect this.
 * I think we should merge hyperpyrexia and fever. Hyperthermia should be kept separate.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Done Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Because of", not "despite"
"A feverish individual has a general feeling of cold despite an increased body temperature..."

This should be "... general feeling of cold because of the increased body temperature..."

The feeling of cold is because the world around you is getting relatively colder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvioricardoc (talk • contribs) 15:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Becasuse of would be wrong. It's because the person's temperature is below his or her setpoint.Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, why hasn't this been challanged for over 2 years? The human body detects temperature by the amount of heat loss from the body. When the environment is colder than the body, more heat is lost. It doesn't matter if the environment is actually colder than usual or the body is hotter than usual, so the fact that you feel cold when your body temperature raises makes perfect sense.


 * I don't have a source to present, so I'll just put a Citation needed tag there for now. Onpon4 (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Milk Fever
Milk fever is simply the common name for hypercalcaemia, it doesn't actually have anything to do with fever. Not sure why they call it milk fever, but it doesn't belong on this page.

Rachel, 10 June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.208.77 (talk) 07:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

99+/-2
The statement that normal is 98.6 F is wrong. The statement that normal is generally and problematically considered to be 98.6 F seems to be true.

The statement that normal is somewhere in the range 99 +/- 2 F is true, but it's not very useful, as that is too wide a range. You could equally accurately say normal is generally considered to be 100 +/- 10 F.

The statement that normal is generally and problematically considered to be 99 +/- 2 F is probably false, as I've never seen 99 +/- 2 proposed anywhere but WP.

I would suggest that we state the problematic 98.6 F, along with the "generally and problematically" language that is there. Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to add: I'm not attached to having 98.6 F in there, and I've never tried to make that edit.  What I do think is that having 99 +/- 2 F in there is a bad idea.  WP should not present an idiosyncratic angle on things even if that angle is correct.  And it particularly should not present that idiosyncratic angle after the words "generally considered."  Ccrrccrr (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 99±2 F is the mathematically correct conversion of 37±1 C, taking significant digits into account (which is exactly what the "98.6" myth fails to do).
 * The problem with naming 98.6 in this particular sentence is the bit about ±1 C: a range ("approximately 36 to 38") cannot be converted to a non-range (98.6).  We either need to dump the range from both C and F, or use the range for both C and F.  I'd be happy with dumping the range from both numbers, as the single point is both more commonly believed and more obviously wrong.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good solution! I'll go ahead and implement it, though I would invite more discussion.Ccrrccrr (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

val

 * ''(I moved the below into a new section from 99+/-2, so as not to change the topic of that section -    — SkyLined (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC))

May I suggest you use $99 F$   ($99 F$) so the numbers on this page look the same as those on other pages? Thanks! — SkyLined (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is just a discussion page--I don't think much effort on typesetting is worthwhile here. You are welcome to edit my comments if you wish to typeset them better, but I think all of our efforts should be focused on improving articles.Ccrrccrr (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say "please use val for number on the Fever page", so it looks the same as other pages on Wikipedia. Of course you're free to do whatever you want here! — SkyLined (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I did consider that that might have been what you meant, but in a quick scan of the article it looked to me like it is being used there. Is it being used wrong, or are there spots where it's not being used?  Ccrrccrr (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope: it is being used correctly because I recently edited|| the page myself to have it use val :) - I was just trying to make sure that in the future, it will stay that way, so I don't need to watch the page and modify future edits myself. Sorry about the confusion!    — SkyLined (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah hah! It all makes sense now.  Thanks for your patience in clarifying!! Ccrrccrr (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Mis-type in 3rd paragraph?
"Fever differs from hyperthermia in that hyperthermia is an increase in body temperature over the body's thermoregulatory set-point, due to excessive heat production or insufficient thermoregulation, or both."

I would think the second "hyperthermia" should actually be "fever". Justdelegard (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit: whoops nevermind. I can't read. hyErthermia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justdelegard (talk • contribs) 00:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Good ref
Will add from this when I have time  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Antipyretics
Various sources address comparisons of acetaminophen and ibuprofen -- e.g., says that they're essentially identical and  says that ibuprofen is a more effective antipyretic than acetaminophen (in children) -- but we don't really have any sources that claim acetaminophen is not an antipyretic. Not even the critical Cochrane review goes so far:  It only says that they weren't able to find enough good trials in children to form an opinion about whether acetaminophen reduced the duration of the fever compared to placebo or no treatment (and that it was about as effective as non-medication treatments, which this article unaccountably ignores).

We do, however, have good editorial reasons to introduce and link the term antipyretic. Therefore, I've restored the term to the lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Cochrane review says "Trial evidence that paracetamol has a superior antipyretic effect than placebo is inconclusive. There is limited evidence that there is no  difference between the antipyretic effect of paracetamol and physical  methods."  Thus I think it is better to just mention ibuprofen but I guess this could just be mentioned on the antipyretic page if it is not already.  Yes agree that the effectiveness of physical measures needs discussion. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Effectiveness in children -- especially when the primary outcomes of the study couldn't be measured -- is not the same thing as effectiveness, full stop. No evidence means no evidence, not no effectiveness.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Endogenous Pyrogen
Under endogenous pyrogens, Tumour Necrosis Factor alpha is listed as both a major and a minor pyrogen. From the text books I have to hand I make it relatively major... But I dunno. Cuddlyninja (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have quotes from a reliable textbook that directly identify it as a major one, we can help sort the issue. Would you mind sharing some quote? -- Cycl o pia talk  16:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

New Article?
If there is sufficient information, would it be acceptable to create a new article on fever dreams, or should it become a subsection of the fever article? Iwishihadabuchla (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What are fever dreams? Do we have a reliable review that discusses them? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In doing research it would appear as if they aren't significant enough to have their own section, let alone an article. There are a few discussions that I managed to find but nothing scientific or offering an explanation as to why they could be considered different from normal dreams. In the few discussions that I have managed to find people say that they are usually more surreal and vivid than the dreams of a healhy person.Iwishihadabuchla (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Addition to usefuleness under pathophysiology
Increased body temperature right shifts the haemoglobin saturation curve so that more oxygen gets delivered to the tissues of the body. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oxyhaemoglobin_dissociation_curve.png

More oxygen to the tissues of the body mean more oxygen available for the myeloperoxidase and NADPH oxidase system of phagocytes to fight off the infecting agent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mskrk6 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is this article biased toward children?
It seems the majority of this article, at least the treatment sections, is biased toward children. Why? Adults certainly get their fair share of fevers too! This needs to be fixed... Sections dealing specifically with children should be labelled as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.42.66 (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Cure for cancer
I'm not familiar enough with cancer treatment issues to know just how widely-accepted the idea of inducing fever as a cancer therapy might be, but... if the only sources for this claim are books like Airola's - which make a great many claims at odds with conventional medicine - then that status should be acknowledged. If there are less controversial sources, those should be listed instead. --Calair 00:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Page is inconsistent presumably wrong?
This needs clarification:

"In healthy adult men and women, the range of normal, healthy temperatures for oral temperature is 33.2–38.2 °C (91.8–100.8 °F), for rectal it is 34.4–37.8 °C (93.9–100 °F),

and in the table next to it:

Temperature Classification Core (rectal, esophageal, etc.) Normal 	36.5–37.5 °C (97.7–99.5 °F)[2]

Perhaps some explanation is needed on why these figures disagree. 34.4 sounds like a pretty low temperature to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.254.64 (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Fever information needs to be re-checked.
okay guys. how do we loose weight during cardio excersize?

we get really hot and sweat. doing this without food, rest, bodycooldown and fluids is really bad for the body as it causes exhaustion. a fever is a fever is a fever regardles of the cause.

First off when you see sweating is an indicator that high level fever is present.

A fever in my opinion is not your body fighting an infection with a simple proof.

Cardio excersize induces fever states, if you check when sweating and you have a high level fever is when accelerated weight loss is occuring. the hotter you get your body, the more you sweat and the more weight you loose. loosing weight is bad for your health if you do so in a fatigued state.

NO CARDIO EXCERSIZE has or ever will treat any disease by inducing fever. In fact you will make your patient worse wich is why doctors prescribed rest in order to cool the body and normalize heartrate.

People die from viral infections and poisioning after a fever do to exhaustion and extreeme dehydration symptoms robbing the body of water wich likely comes from blood supply in the case of sweating and evaporation, thier heartrate and bodytemps lower after being overworked from blood volume increases and hot gasses/liquids in the bloodstream.

Also drinking hard liquor like jack daniels will induce a fever if checked when buzzed and sweating wich is also shows a fever is a sign your body is overheating and toxins are present. A fever is also likely during heartrate increasing drugs like coke, meth, steroids, speed or any drug that causes dehydration symptoms or sweating.

fevers need to be taken more seriously. if the medical community will check during a fever is when dehydration symptoms are present as well as rapid weight loss occurs and fatigue follows, when you see anyone with any dehydration symptom they will have a fever prior or during, especialy during sweating. you will see abnormal heartrate increases with fever/bodyheat increseases and bodyheat decreases and heartrate decreases following with passing out,etc.

heartrate, not sweat is responsible for bodyheat production. in a viral infection excess virus causes the heart to beat harder wich causes pumping friction wich generates heat through pumping friction. just like pumping a pop can will cause the popcan to heat up and explode or rubbing your hands generates warmth. you may pump a popcan and view it under thermal imagine to prove it is heating up.

In addition fevers are prior to heart attacks, heat exhaustion and heatstroke when the patient is sweating if checked.

In my opinion a fever is a sign your body is overheating with dehydration symptoms to follow and illneses. a fever needs to be taken very seriously as the medical community wants to assert more than 1lb of weightloss a week is not healthy, during fever times is when weight loss is accelerated regardless of the cause wich affectively lowers the heartrate and causes fatigue.

a viral infection is deadly as is a fever because symptoms resemble chronic fatigue or fatigue a patient may think nothing is wrong and they are merely getting sleepy when they are going into a coma and getting sicker and sicker from loosing weight rapidly and having thier body starved of water through sweating, evaporation, vomiting and diarrea.

you may treat a fever depending on climate and cold/flu based. food poisioning also likely has fever present during eating food wich can be minimalized by eating small meals and checking your temp before eating making sure it is normal so abnormal bodytemperatures do not effect it.

so i ask any doctor who disagrees or thinks im a nut to simply induce a fever and cure any illness with a fever other than treating obesity wich is a condition not a disease. watch fatigue and dehydration symptoms get worse in your patient and rapid weight loss lower heartrate and bodyheat.

during a fever unexplained weight loss occurs through evaporation and sweating from bodyheat increases. 101 degrees is a fever temperature start and the state water boils and evaporates rapidly. hot and cold climates are not good for the body. if you were to simply walk without food and water or rest or bodycooldown times in 101+ degree desert temperatures you would die of exhaustion from sweating and having a fever when sweating and dropping bodyweight so quickly it exhausts your heart.

if you remember the story of the spartan warrior who yelled nike, he likely developed a high level fever as he started sweating and died from exhaustion and sweating to death.

humans thrive in mid cool temperature ranges just like water thrives in temperatures about 55-65 degrees and do not do well in hot or cold environments be it bodyheat increases or environmental.

unexplained weight gain during fever is caused by excessive thirst from dehydration and overdrinking water wich causes excessive urination symptoms. if you drink 3 cups of water an hour sitting down you will see that your weight blow up like a balloon at the rate of 1/2 lb per cup. overdrinking fluids then causes

obesity affects fever by easily overexhaustion and inducing excersize induced fever.

if you wore 50-100 lb weights on your stomach what are some of the effects? youd have increased bodyheat from overexcersize youd be tired easily youd be thirsty easily youd overdrink from being dehydrated and have unexplained weight gain from water retention. youd have excessive urination symptoms from drinking so much water from being dehydrated. if you want to see how overdrinking water causes excesive urination simply drink 2-3 cups an hour.

These are all the symptoms of "diabetes".

treatment of fever relys on preventing dehydration symptoms

1. keep dry and stay dry whiping sweat. sweat likely spikes fever by blocking pores wich raise fever levels.

2. keep cool or keep warm by normalizing room temp to 55-65 degrees depending on your climate or if you have a cold.

3. normalize your heartrate. drink fluids to reduce heartrate levels to decrease bodyheat a normalized heartrate is one that does not increase or decrease over time much except during normal sleeping hours. Get rest.

4. Drink cold foods, idealy cold slushee calories. dont just drink water during a fever as water has little energy value. get ice cold fluid calories as solids will likely cause diarrea. if you have chronic fatigue and no fever eat as well as caffine and sugar may help your energy levels. drink enough ice cold fluids to replace weight loss and normalize bodytemperatures monitoring weight loss during fever and especialy drink during sweating.

5. Normalize your bodyweight when able and fever and bodyheat are normal through eating + walking, walking enough to reduce mealweight and taking steps to allow rest and cooldown times and maintain your weight. being overweight can cause and exasorbate a fever by causing the patient to overexert and induce excersize fever states easily from carrying so much weight.

If you have nasea symptoms these may be reduced by holding your nose and breathing through your mouth. a fever starves the body of water wich is critical for life as we last 3 days without water, 12 without food. fever related illnesses cause fatigue and lower heartrate levels wich if the patients heartrate is very slow and recovering from illnesses can be very bad. no heartrate = death = cold body. nasea during flu is likely created through digestive problems and hot food, gasses seeping up through the nostrils activate peoples gag reflex just like smelling rotten milk will cause some people to vomit. breath through the mouth and holding the nose should prevent nasea symptoms.

a fever is also a response to low oxygen levels.

During illnesses like cancer, aids, etc. with unexplained weight loss during a fever is when rapid weight loss occurs. replace weight lost during sweating, evaporation vomiting and diarrea by drinking fluids, idealy cold watery slushys and keeping dry and cool.

A fever is simply a sign warm gasses, toxins and poisions are in your bloodstream heating your body. In my opinion a fever is simply the cause of dehydration symptoms. environment can also heat up your body like a microwave oven can heat up fluids and liquids through heat.when you loose water content from your body through sweating and evaporation this likely comes from your blood supply wich means you are loosing blood when you have a fever wich is very, very bad. just like your car or vehicle, if it starts overheating is a precursor to breakdowns and a warning sign your car needs to be cooled the human body is no different and thrives in mildly cool environments and normal bodyheat conditions.

fevers cause problems by accelerating weight loss and lowering bodytemperature and heartrate levels causing fatigue and exhaustion.

you may also see that drug use that amps heartrate can produce fever effects such as drinking jack daniels by drinking a bottle of jack daniels, when your warm and sweating and buzzed you should see you have a high level fever. the more hardcore your fever symptoms are drinking alcohol the worse hangover symptoms will be. this also is likely spiked during walking. alcohol is a stimulant/sedative.

smoking also likely spikes walking excersize induced fever states causing dehydration and weight loss through causing breathing problems.

your heartrate controls bodytemp if checked, heat can also be absorbed from environment:

heartrate increases = bodyheat increases. heartrate is normalized and unchanging much = normal bodytemperatures heartrate is slow = lowering bodytemperatures

your heartrate can affect cognitive levels

heartrate increases = agitation, pain,dizzyness, excitability, dehydration symptoms. heartrate is normalize = peacefull, calm, wakefullness, healthy feelings. heartrate is lowering = passing out, dehydration symptoms, drunken behavior, slurred speech.

water and aspirin lower bloodpressure and likely slow and normalize heartrate during a fever wich normalizes bodytemperatures.

during hypothermia in the cold a patient needs to be dried off and kept warm, eating and drinking will help prevent dehydration symptoms worsing if done while sweating making sure weight lost is stopped monitoring weight loss amounts.

a fever also needs to be taken seriously because illnesses like aids, cancer,etc. all have high level fevers with them and if you have a fever without excersizing you need to see a doctor.

utter asinine stupidity by the medical community i hope a doctor will check and validate weight loss occurs during a fever, the more severe the fever the more rapid the weight loss and severe the dehydration effects are.

you may also verify i am not a fruit by verifying the following.

in treating obesity to reduce "diabetes" symptoms when fever levels are normal i recommend walking 2 hours a day, idealy after a meal enough to reduce mealweight making sure a patient gets rest and bodycooldowns and idealy eating cold foods.

3500 calorie does not = 1lb. the correct figure is 700 calories = 1lb you may prove this by the following: weigh yourself before and after eating a double quarter pounder with cheese at 700 calories you will gain 1lb per burger sitting down.

Water causes weight gain at the rate of 1/2 lb per cup, verified by weighing yourself and drinking before and after. you may also drink 3 cups every hour sitting down to verify water causes weight gain from fluid retention.

keep your patients cool when not excersizing and dry to avoid becoming dehydrated from environmental heat and weight gain from overdrinking.

learn to maintain your weight first and loose a little at a time. rapid weight loss is unhealthy wich is why fevers are unhealthy and cause fatigue and rapid weight loss through sweating and evaporation as well as vomiting and diarrea starving the body of water. make sure you get bodycooldowns walking.

i also eat as a precaution 3-4 hours before bedtime 1 small meal. meal weightgain should be under 1lb per meal. I'm a huge believer people wakeup do to having calories in thier stomach.

what your food weighs if you check including fluids added is the weight you gain from eating a meal unless you allow enough time or cardio after a meal to drop mealweight you can expect to gain weight.

on a digital scale its 70 calories per .1 for a total of ten. foods with water like apples and oranges and top ramen are off on thier weight yeild. 1.2 lb per apple or orange weight gain wich is what they weigh.

in order to loose weight your weight gain must be less than your weight lost in a given time period.

in order to maintain your weight your weight gain must be equal to your weight lost.

i maintain my weight and weight the same at 1400 calories a day,two cups fluids. this may be more for big people and less for smaller people, im 5'11. weather and activity levels can affect weightloss, cool weather will slow, hot weather will speed up.

in many viral outbreaks in tropic areas its highly probable that they had no indoor air conditioning and hot environments exasorbated fever states. rest sitting down, ice cold fluids. a fever should not last that long if treated properly.

diarrea is caused by overheating the body and overeating with too much fluids. its recommend to drink ice cold fluid calories doing a fever and not just drink water if fatigue is present. if vomiting occurs allow it and drink water to replace weight loss or diarrea. if food poisioning is suspected fast for 8 hours and drink ice cold fluids and normalize heartrate and bodytemperature. an enema may help as poisions may be trapped internaly as well as stomach being pumped. do not eat the food type that has carried the food poisioning even if its healthy.

eat bland foods like bread when stomach acids are normalized and slowly work up to solids drinking broths when temperatures are normal.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonramen (talk • contribs) 20:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Um? Not sure what you are recommending. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that he's recommending that we explain the difference between a fever and a temperature elevation caused by exertion, which are completely different mechanisms and which he has wrongly decided are the same. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Intensive care
Fever in critical illness is reviewed here: 10.1177/0885066611402463. Is there any point in suppressing fever with antipyretics? The answer may be "no". JFW &#124; T@lk  22:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Does that source even acknowledge the patient's comfort as a factor to be considered? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The "Usefulness" section doesn't seem to accurately represent the included references. It reads: with some suggesting that they recover more rapidly from infections or critical illness due to fever;
 * If recovering more rapidly means not dying...
 * There were seven deaths in the aggressive group and only one death in the permissive group (p = 0.06, Fisher Exact Test). The study was stopped after the first interim analysis due to the mortality difference, related to the issues of waiver of consent and the mandate for minimal risk. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressively treating fever in critically ill patients may lead to a higher mortality rate. Ssscienccce (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

How Does it Happen, and What is the Process?
The name pyrogen implies that somehow fire is involved, perhaps Aristotle's fire origininating in the heart, or the caloric furnace in the belly. I have read all temperature related pages and that point is still not clear. I guess the editors are afraid of electricity... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.206.184.91 (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Fever in Birds
I've heard that T-cells function better at 39oC. Does this mean that birds with a core temperature of 42 (higher than the temperature of mammals) are any better at fighting infection than mammals? Zagubov (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM. Besides, each animal's biochemistry will be adapted at slightly different body temperatures so, no, I wouldn't say that. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

fever :IS THE “PRESENT DEFINITION, DIAGNOSIS & TREATMENT OF FEVER against principles of physics
IS THE “PRESENT DEFINITION, DIAGNOSIS & TREATMENT OF FEVER against principles of physics

Extended Abstract

Key Words: fever definition, effects of Heat, Heat increases -expand, sweating. Symptoms of heat   decreases -shrink, muscles shiver, principles  of physics, effects of Heat. Heat is a source of energy. Heat increases -expand, sweating, like to drink cool water, like to take bath, increase digestion, do not like to take rest.....  Heat  decrease-shrink, feel tired, muscles shiver ,do not like to drink cool water, do not like to take bath, decrease digestion, like to take rest..... fever definition is against laws of heat and against the principles  of physics. Either fever definition or principles of physics is wrong. Contemporary fever definition refers to just an elevation in body temperature. So the diagnosis of fever is limited to measuring temperature with thermometers and treating of fever completes with heat reduction methods. As the current fever definition, diagnosis and treatment covers only a part of fever-”temperature”, none of the above questions can be answered. So we should have to rethink/analyse the fever definition, diagnosis and treatment. Fever is not just a mere increase in temperature. In some fever there is no increment in temperature at all (e.g.: Inner fever). There may not be any increment in temperature in the beginning and ending days of fever. The Increment in temperature is just a part of the fever.

The properties of fever include internal and external discomfort, uneasiness and difficulties of the patient. Fever consists of increased temperature, fatigue to mind and body, shivering of muscles, reduced appetite, reduced motion and indigestion, etc. There is no specific diagnostic tool for fever. We diagnose and treat one side of fever. When the temperature is reduced, we assume fever is cured. So it is clear that the temperature dependant fever definition, diagnosis and treatment are illogical and unscientific. During fever; we cannot see symptoms of heat   increases (laws of heat and the principles  of physics). At the same time we can see all the symptoms of  heat   decreases and laws of heat and the principles  of physics. Based on this approach, can it give a satisfactory explanation to the following questions about fever?

FEVER: QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED 1. Why the body is not sweating during fever? 2. During fever body temperature is high. But why still the body  tries  the heat generating methods like, shivering, shrinking of blood vessels etc?. 3. As we are aware, there will be more heat on the body during fever. But when we cover our body with a non-conductor of heat, like blankets, we feel very comfort. why we are not feeling discomfort? (By exposed to sun light for some time, it can increase the body temperature. If we cover our body with a blanket, we will feel discomfort) 4. During fever, why we feel lack of appetite and taste ? The motion (stool) also decreases why? 5. During fever why feel to take rest? 6. During fever why we dislike cool drinks? 7. During fever why we do not like to take bath? 8. shivering during low atmospheric temperature or during fever is to compensate the decrease in temperature. If the body temperature falls beyond a level is it fatal? 9. Buffallows manage body temperature by immersing their body in water. But during fever, they keep away from water. Why? 10. Does will the fever kills germs?(The maximum temperature during fever is  41 0c). 11. After eating a good volume of ice cream, people may develop fever, within a few hours. Why? 12. Those who do not have the habit of wetting in rain develops fever within hours, after a long exposure to rain. Why? 13. It is not mandatory to develop fever for most of the people, who have acute infection in the body parts. Why? 14. Why some people develop fever by consumption of medicines/pesticides? What is the germ generated from medicines used to kill germs/pesticides? 15. After getting frightened some people develops fever. Why? 16.Even though now we are living with a lot of fevers with different names like H1N1, Leptospira, dengue, Chikkunm Guniya, viral fevers etc, why the symptoms like fatigueness of mind and body, lack of appetite, lack of taste for food, decrease in motion, dislike of cold items, etc. are common in almost all fever patients? 17. Normaly body temperature is 37 0C and atmospheric temperature is 33 0C in kerala. During fever, body temperature increase to 40 0C and body starts shivering, even with the difference in temperature is just 7 0C .But without fever body may start shivering only if the atmospheric temperature is going below 17 0C, at temperature difference of 20 0C .So during fever just a 7 0C  difference in temperature causes shivering ,but without fever more than 20 0C required to shiver, why?

A medical science avoiding these questions, we are failing to find remedy / treatment for fever. Have you ever think why our body reacts like this? What is the message our body want to convey to us? Is the current treatment and theories correct?

The answer is here. We are in the wrong way and suffering. If we can find out the answers to the above questions, we can very well understand why fever is coming to our body,  ‘ The physics of fever’. Fever definition is against laws of heat and against the principles of physics. so fever definition is wrong.

After scientific studies for a long time, we have developed a theory, which can explain all queries related with fever. we have developed 1150 affirmative cross checking questions. It considers the messages from our body, matching with the laws of heat and the principles of physics and our traditional knowledge. The real science of fever can be termed as the “Physics of fever”. Gate Control Theory is a false theory. As per our  believe, physicians (Allopathic, Homoeopathic, Ayurvedic, etc.,) knows everything  about health, decease and treatment. But a lot of physicians, their family members and their patients have died by fever. The Allopathic physicians do not know much about the termo regulation of fever.They are still in rudimentary knowledge only.For example.

“Our understanding of the neural basis of thermoregulation and fever is still rudimentry. The role of fever in the defence reaction is not clear. paracetamol may cause fever. In practice,as with pain, relief from fever with drugs adds to comfort of the patient.It also impresses the patient and the relatives favourably about the therapeutic capability of the doctor” Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics.R.S.Satoskar, S.D.Bhandarkar,Nirmala,N.Rege-Revised xix Edition.Page159, 160,163,170. (Rudimentary=Anything in a rude state) So there is no scientific base for their argument that the heat during fever has to driven out and their heat reduction methods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fever yacob (talk • contribs) 03:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That rather sounds like a paper written by people, who have a very shallow and flawed understanding of medicine ...and the inclusion mentions of "Allopathic, Homoeopathic, Ayurvedic" is highly questionable. To criticize pseudo-scientific alternative "medicine" as being insufficient, is ridiculous. Those have nothing to do with proper medicine or the science of medicine, and is no more than a straw man argument.
 * I wonder if this has been peer-reviewed (if it has... well, peer-review doesn't guaranty that the paper is well done). Could you please write the full name of the study, and such details, so that I can look it up? Preferably include a link to the paper.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Either that, or it is (very bad) original research. In both cases, I'd say this stuff has no place whatsoever in the article. -- cyclopia speak! 10:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Either original research or an UNreliable source (which isn't properly cited) ...unless Fever yacob can provide more evidence/arguments for it.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Emerg Med Clinic 2013 Nov
The whole addition is about fever. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

grasshopper diseases
In the "Other Animals" section at the end, there is this: "For instance, some species of grasshopper will thermoregulate to achieve body temperatures that are 2 - 5 °C higher than normal in order to inhibit the growth of fungal pathogens such as B. bassiana and M. anisopliae."

The generic abbreviations "B." and "M." mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to anyone who isn't a orthopteran fungal pathologist - and I suspect that most readers (including myself) do not fall into this category. Either these generic names should be given in full, or the last sentence should be truncated before "such as". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.117.27.196 (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, neither do I, but if we leave them in, then perhaps someone who knows what these are will come by and create links to the pages on the right kinds of grasshoppers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I updated the page with the full binomial names of the fungi in question and links to their wikipedia pages.

Herbal treatments
This was recently added and reverted: Many herbal preparations with anti-inflammatory activity were used for treatment of fever in the traditional herbal medicine, but to prove their effectiveness further research is needed.

I kind of like the idea of adding a general statement about herbal medications, either along the lines of history or as what is actually used ("what's done" and "what's proven to work" naturally being different things). I wouldn't choose this particular source for it, however. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree a section on alt med would be useful. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Or maybe just a paragraph. I'm not sure that there's a huge amount to be said.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I would agree that a bit about alternative medicines, claimed to treat fever, would be useful ...in the alternative medicine article. I see no reason to mention it here. It has no relevance to the topic.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It may make sense if there are academic reviews on the topic. -- cyclopia  speak!  15:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would it? (remember: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for handwaving WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as many others, only as a proxy to say "we can cut off stuff if I don't like it" - that often misquoted policy actually has nothing to do with such cases. Anyway: My point is that, iff there are several academic reviews, that is WP:MEDRS-compliant sources on the usage of herbal medications to treat fever, then it seems reasonable to include it, with consideration for weight, of course.-- cyclopia  speak!  10:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm handwaving WP:INDISCRIMINATE, am I? That is utter nonsense and quite offensive. Please note that you should always assume good faith, rather than assuming handwaving. I mention WP:INDISCRIMINATE, to point out that there needs to be a good reason to include the information. It's not enough, that it is written about in a reliable source, as WP:INDISCRIMINATE clearly states. I argue that the content isn't worthy of inclusion. You merely claim, rather than argue, that it is worthy. You can do far better than that.
 * You think the content is worthy of inclusion? Fine. Explain why that is so. If there is a good reason, surely you can point it out? All you have done, so far, is to state that it is verifiable, by reliable sources and nothing else. To quote WP:INDISCRIMINATE (emphasis added by me): "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.".
 * This article is about fever. Not "alternative medicine". Whatever folk remedies and the such, that exists/existed, that people thought/think would treat fever and which are either unproven or disproven, is just irrelevant cruft, as far as I can see.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Woah. No bad faith accusations meant, I was just pointing that you were using a policy the wrong way. You are not "arguing" anything, you just said "Why would it?" and then pointed to a (unfortunately poorly worded) policy which is meant to prohibit us becoming a datadump, something that has nothing to do with this. We're talking of very discriminate information here: information that has to pass WP:MEDRS and that also is represented enough in the medical literature to warrant inclusion here. Take care that I did not say that such information exists. I merely stated: if and only if there is such information, then there is a case to put it in the article. You're free to disagree, of course, that's what consensus is about, but be reminded that just your personal opinion that something is "cruft" is not an argument. Note also that, myself being a biophysicist, I'm far from being a fan of alternative medicine. But if the scientific community has, unknown to me, found that some kind of herbal remedy has indeed activity against fever, and this is well covered and studied by the mainstream scientific community, then we ought to include it unless there are serious reasons against. Now let's stop bickering about this and let's go to the facts: Is there such a scientific literature? -- cyclopia  speak!  12:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So you were assuming incompetence, rather than bad faith? Well that is better, but still not terribly good.
 * You say that the information is discriminate, because it passes WP:MEDRS?
 * No.
 * The fact that it passes WP:MEDRS doesn't mean that it is discriminate. It merely means that it is verifiable. That does not make it discriminate. Again "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia".
 * I asked you to explain why such information would be suitable to include, in this article, rather than just claim that it is. You have not done so. I asked you to do more than just make the case that it is verified by reliable sources. Yet again, you fail to do so, but rather do nothing other than try to make the case for it being verified by reliable sources. Why is it that you clearly do not understand a word of what I wrote? Is what I write, really that unclear?
 * As to herbal remedies that are found to be effective against fever...
 * That's not alternative medicine. "Alternative medicine" is defined as "medicine", that is not supported by scientific evidence.
 * To quote Tim Minchin, who states it so much more eloquently than I could:
 * "By definition 'alternative medicine' has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work. Do you know what they call 'alternative medicine' that's been proved to work? Medicine."--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is an enlightening essay that explains quite well what WP:INDISCRIMINATE is really about, and why using it as a blanket argument to remove policy-compliant and relevant stuff from articles is improper. Anyway. Agree on the alternative medicine definition -I was suspecting you were suspecting some pro-AM POV of mine. For the rest, what you write is indeed unclear, because you still arbitrarily assume that the burden of proof is on me, for some reason. While it is indeed true that the mere fact of being true of verifiable is not automatically a safe pass for inclusion, something that is (still hypothetically, please notice) well covered by the scientific literature oughts to be included unless it contradicts some specific policy (UNDUE, NPOV etc.). No, you can't say "it contradicts WP:INDISCRIMINATE unless you can prove it would make the article a mere dump of unrelated stuff -which it wouldn't. So, what is your actual argument against the possibility of this topic being mentioned? -- cyclopia speak! 13:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (In any case, I can't find anything remotely relevant on PubMed that would warrant inclusion, so all this discussion is probably kind of moot). -- cyclopia speak! 13:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not suspect any pro-"alternative medicine" POV from you, nor a anti-"alternative medicine" POV ...and quite frankly I don't care.
 * You point to WP:DISCRIMINATE, but that is pointless. You need to explain what in it, that is relevant to this case, and in what way. You accuse me of using WP:INDISCRIMINATE as a "blanket argument", which is ridiculous and simplistic. You do not explain how my use of it, is wrong.
 * You further claim that the only reason I have given for it not being included, is my mention of WP:INDISCRIMINATE ...which is patently absurd:
 * "The mere fact that certain herbal "medicines" have been used to treat fever, is not of any interest or notability, unless they have been shown to work. To mention it in herbal medicine is fine, but here..."
 * "I would agree that a bit about alternative medicines, claimed to treat fever, would be useful ...in the alternative medicine article. I see no reason to mention it here. It has no relevance to the topic."
 * "Why would it?/.../" (answering the claim that it would make sense to include it)
 * "This article is about fever. Not "alternative medicine". Whatever folk remedies and the such, that exists/existed, that people thought/think would treat fever and which are either unproven or disproven, is just irrelevant cruft, as far as I can see."
 * How is any of that, just mentioning WP:INDISCRIMINATE?
 * It is not just mentioning WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it's arguing for why the information isn't suitable to include. I'm not just saying it needs to be discriminate, I am also arguing for why it isn't.
 * Have you made any argument for why it is discriminate? No you have not. Not even once. Well, you did make an argument about it being discriminate if there is scientific evidence of it working, but as you have acknowledged, that would make it not be alternative medicine, and thus irrelevant to this discussion, so that doesn't count.
 * We are, after all discussing things that have never been claimed to be backed by scientific evidence. On the contrary, it has been clear from the beginning, that it isn't. Your search for backing scientific evidence, is thus rather silly and pointless. You not only do not understand my comments, but you clearly do not seem to have understood any of the other comments, either.
 * Clearly the problem isn't (or isn't only) that my comments are unclear, but that you have difficulties in understanding what people write.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that in any case there are no sources to warrant an inclusion, this discussion is entirely theoretical and as such frankly pointless. But for the future, please notice that "irrelevant cruft" and "not of any interest or notability" are not arguments at all unless you explain why they are: merely declaring them so doesn't make an argument. Therefore what is actually patently absurd is your claim that you gave "reasons", while I'd say that "if the scientific community took notice of it, we should too" sounds more like a solid argument. You are free to ask someone else if you are not sure. That said, I advise you to rethink your battleground mentality and to avoid personal attacks, and let's close this here. Goodbye. -- cyclopia speak! 11:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I accept your criticism that I merely declared the inclusion to be irrelevant. I don't fully agree with it, but I will admit that I didn't make much of an argument ...but it has too little to do with fever, for me to be able to say a lot more than what I did.
 * As to your argument of "if the scientific community took notice of it, we should too"... that is an argument that it is verifiable, and no more. It is not a solid argument. It's an irrelevant argument. It is verifiable that Edward Winslow died of fever. That doesn't make it worth including in this article.
 * As to my battleground mentality... that's in your head. The worst that can be said of my mentality, is that I have been frustrated by your insistence on straw men:
 * You tried to defend the inclusion of alternative medicine, by referring to treatments/preparations that have been proven to work ...which would thus not be alternative medicine and therefore have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
 * You argued for why it is discriminate, by stating that it is verifiable, despite verifiability not being relevant to whether or not it is discriminate. You say I was only declaring it to be indiscriminate, but... that is at least relevant. It's a lot better than to claim it to be discriminate/indiscriminate by referring to something that has absolutely nothing to do with it.
 * I do not see you as an enemy, nor someone I should be rude or aggressive towards (firm/strong/blunt perhaps, but not aggressive). I see you as incompetent, not malicious or worthy of malice.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks again. Please stop, okay? Nobody here is incompetent nor malicious. We will resume discussing what is worth including and what not whenever there will be sources to discuss. -- cyclopia speak! 11:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please show me where I have committed a personal attack.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Guys, this picking at each other isn't helping us figure out what to put in the article.

Generally speaking, if high-quality sources mention something, then we do. Notice that these sources don't need to say that it works: if good sources say "Patients with viruses keep asking for antibiotics", then we mention that. If they say "Gosh, look how many people with viruses are taking echinacea supplements", then we mention that. In this case, if we find good sources that say "People are taking ___ for fever", then we should mention that. My quick search, though, didn't turn up anything like that. The altmed sources I found mostly said to use basic self-care (drink water and rest) and if it got high enough, to take ibuprofen.

So, yes: if and only if we find some good secondary sources on common herbal treatments for fever, then that information would be WP:DUE. But so far, it appears that no such common altmed treatments exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, exactly. I guess we can close this and hat the silly bickering above? -- cyclopia speak! 10:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Why would such information be WP:DUE or WP:Notable, for this article? I admit that such sources would be worthy of mention on wikipedia. I have never denied that. I do however, question why it would be relevant on this specific article. On alternative medicine, certainly, but fever? Well maybe if it is used by very large amounts of people, but that's not really the case, now is it? As with most alternative treatments, it's only a small minority.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a late reply, but here's your answer:
 * Most people use some form of altmed for something, so it's hardly "a small minority". The number of people using Traditional Chinese Medicine exceeds the number of people living in the U.S.  That's not "small", even if the use is small in your own social group.  But even if it were small, it would make more sense to mention it here than elsewhere.  The goal is not to create a walled garden or POV fork where altmed (or any minority viewpoint) is hidden away in other articles.  The goal is to fully describe the subject.  That means describing the ineffective and non-Western things that people do about fevers or other medical issues, as well as describing the things that they used to do (like bloodletting, which should be mentioned here).
 * In this case, nobody's turned up any good sources about alt med approaches (yet), so we can skip it (so far), but in principle, altmed should be integrated into articles about what it purports to treat. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Most people use some form of altmed for something"
 * Citation needed.
 * "The number of people using Traditional Chinese Medicine exceeds the number of people living in the U.S."
 * Well yes, if you count all of the massive number of poor and poorly educated or uneducated people in China, that's true ...but in the developed world, that isn't true.
 * "The goal is not to create a walled garden or POV fork where altmed (or any minority viewpoint) is hidden away in other articles."
 * Please read WP:Fringe.
 * "That means describing the ineffective and non-Western things that people do about fevers or other medical issues"
 * This is an article about fever. Not about how people in the third world try to treat fever.
 * Also: "non-Western"? What do you mean by "Western"? If you are talking about "Western medicine", I can tell you that no such thing exists.
 * There is medicine.
 * It's the same, regardless of where you are or where the scientists who developed it are.
 * "as well as describing the things that they used to do (like bloodletting, which should be mentioned here)."
 * ...in the history section.
 * "but in principle, altmed should be integrated into articles about what it purports to treat."
 * Does the Earth article talk about the Flat Earth idea?
 * No.
 * No it does not, and it should not.
 * Again I would advise you to read WP:Fringe.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Temperature Table Error
The line of temperatures for Hyperthermia appears to have been copied from the line for Fever:


 * Fever	>37.5–38.3 °C (99.5–100.9 °F)
 * Hyperthermia	>37.5–38.3 °C (99.5–100.9 °F)

This appears to be an error, can someone with edit privileges please update the table?
 * It is correct Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

What about WHY fevers happen?
Some pretty good information here, but all it does is list "conditions that can cause fevers", and explains the mechanical action your body uses to increase temperature...but WHY does your body increase its temperature? The only, very brief, mention made is that a fever is "a useful defense mechanism". It is my understanding that a fever is an defensive action taken by your body to increase temperature, because that helps to fight off the disease, either by making it too hot for the bacteria to survive in, by interrupting the virus cell-invasion cycle, or by increasing the rate of chemical reactions for the immune system. I recall learning something about it in school; I couldn't recall exactly how it worked, so I came here, expecting to find this information. And I find that it doesn't say a single thing about the REASON we get fevers. It appears to suggest that we just get hot for some mysterious reason related to certain illnesses, or that certain diseases just happen to raise our body temp. I'm pretty sure our body raises its OWN temp in response to the infection, and that seems extremely relevant to the topic. I would think that that would be the very first sentence, the main part of the introduction: "A fever is an auto-defense mechanism in which the body raises its own core temperature to help fight off infections". I mean, this article starts out by saying that "A fever is defined as...having a temperature and also causing the body to overheat". What is "a temperature"? I should hope that I have "a temperature", because if I didn't, I wouldn't be alive. "Running a temperature" is not scientific terminology, it's informal folk usage (not to mention that the grammar isn't consistent..."and causing the body to overheat"? What?)

The article on fevers from Scientific American begins: "Fever is an elevated temperature of the human body that is substantially beyond the normal range. Normal body temperature fluctuates daily from about one degree below 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit to one degree above that number." Sounds pretty nice and concise to me. It then goes on to later mention that: "The presence of a fever is usually related to stimulation of the body's immune response. Fever can support the immune system's attempt to gain advantage over infectious agents, such as viruses and bacteria, and it makes the body less favorable as a host for replicating viruses and bacteria, which are temperature sensitive." Something which appears to be completely missing from this article, unless I just missed it somehow. It wouldn't be the first time; some of these articles are so confused and full of technical jargon that unless you read the whole thing very closely and concentrate, you'll miss the two sentences halfway down in the body of the text where it actually makes a plain summary of the topic. .45Colt 20:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The forwhys for reckoning in sweat and sweating sickness
An medical student or somesuch whilst researching historical references on fevers may well find it interesting to know that the word 'fever' was once went by the words 'sweat' and 'sweating sickness' and therefore keyword these names whilst looking up historical references.

I'm almost wishing someone out there trys to take a stand against my words and thinking such is the strength and worthiness of their watertightness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.127.247 (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Treating fever
This is based on a 2000 review "Treatment, however, may increase comfort and help a person rest though the evidence for this is inconclusive."

The ref that supported benefit is the CDC which states "Bringing down a fever will make the person feel better and help patients rest." which we have summarized as "may" to indicate it is not that definitive.

We also already say "Treatment to reduce fever is not required"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at the evidence further agree the CDC was a poor source. Have adjusted based on a 2015 review. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am happy that we have a up to date source. Unfortunately I can't access it as I am quite interested, but thanks for adjusting the source, everything I could find was rather counter-intuitive.Chickpecking (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Opposite of fever
Is it possible for the body's temperature set-point to go lower than normal? (I'm not talking about mere hypothermia here, but rather a situation when both the temperature and the temperature set-point are lowered). FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

unsourced content added today
parked here per VERIFY

Fever is an elevation of body temperature above the normal. Body temperature is usually measured by a clinical thermometer held for a minute or two under the tongue. Normally the reading will be about 98.6F. (37C.). Under conditions of health it is maintained at a surprisingly constant level by the reflex regulation of both heat production and heat elimination. It should be noted that for some individuals "normal" body temperature is somewhat below 98.6. The body responds to infections and inflammations, as well as to tissue destruction, by an increase in body temperature (fever). When the increase takes place rapidly, the patient may experience chills while the heat regulating mechanism is accommodating to its new, higher level. Sweating is common when fever is receding. Fever occurs in heatstroke. Here there is a high external temperature coupled with a failure of the body's heat-dissipating mechanism. Also the use of certain drugs causes an elevation of body temperature. Strenuous physical exercise will cause the body temperature to rise temporarily. In infants the temperature the temperature rises in response to dehydration (insufficient fluid within the tissues).

-- Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Section on Evolution or Adaptive value of fever?
A section on the Adaptive Value of fever would be less subjective, and therefore more interesting, instead of or in addition to the "Usefulness" section. The Kluger lab (among others) produced books and articles on this subject, starting with an American Scientist article ("The Evolution and Adaptive Value of Fever", Am Sci. v66, no 1, Jan-Feb 1978, pp 38-34). I don't know how final the science is, but it definitely would be relevant to any comprehensive and interesting discussion on the subject.Catrachos (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Pathophysiology and consequences of fever
Crit Care 10.1186/s13054-016-1375-5 JFW &#124; T@lk  15:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Who needs treatment and who suffers harm from treatment of fever in intensive care settings 10.1186/s13054-016-1467-2 JFW &#124; T@lk  09:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fever. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724095000/http://www.hta.ac.uk/fullmono/mon1327.pdf to http://www.hta.ac.uk/fullmono/mon1327.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

What is maximum level recorded hyperthermia
What is maximum level recorded hyperthermia

(14.195.238.243 (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC))

Text
" on the other hand fever treatment results in increased mortality from influenza in animals. https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2011/vol-124-no-1338/letter-eyers"

This is not a sufficient source to support. It is a letter and it is tentative at best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a letter not a review per  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is the review the letter references. Will add it to the body of the text. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Bacterial versus viral fever
Hello. Would it be interesting to add in the article that: fever from bacterial infection is ususally higher than one from a virus (example of reference: https://www.dukehealth.org/blog/it-bacterial-infection-or-virus).

Thanks. 145.232.230.253 (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC).

Not sure why this was removed
"There is not a single agreed-upon upper limit for normal temperature with sources using values between 37.5 and 38.3 C in humans. "

It is still very much true. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Read the Harrison's. The temperature is for oral not central. Have thus moved "An a.m. temperature of >37.2°C (>98.9°F) or a p.m. temperature of >37.7°C (>99.9°F) would indicate a fever." to the body. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Text in question is "The maximal normal oral temperature is 37.2°C (98.9°F) at 6 A.M. and 37.7°C (99.9°F) at 4 P.M.; these values define the 99th percentile for healthy individuals. In light of these studies, an A.M. temperature of >37.2°C (>98.9°F) or a P.M. temperature of >37.7°C (>99.9°F) would define a fever." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Normal temperaturę
Of course the normal temperaturę for people is 36.6 C. It was like that when we were children and it is like that today. When people have 37 or może feel unwell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.192.143.28 (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Moving this here
lead/article statements on when to treat pyrexia need review for consistency, accuracy to source (see also next); lead at least needs rewrite to clearly separate adult, pediatric sources and statements (with sources useful for both annotated as such); article is oversectioned, has redundant and stray material, and so needs thorough going over (e.g., see recent hypothalamus subsection edits)
 * Most statements apply to both children and adults and it is stated when children are the subject. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * First,, you ignore most of the issues raised, to focus on just one. Second, on that one—no, with all due respect, adequate care has not been taken in this article to differentiate between sources written with a focus on adult pathologies versus sources written looking at peds populations. As such, all forms of confounding errors appear here, in the combinations of general statements and specific sources. If temperature regulation or pediatric versus adult differences is not one in your expertise, or if lack lack the time, prehaps recruit someone who can look to each lead statement, to see if there is sufficient justification for making the claim of each sentence based on the specific sources that appear.
 * That you know/believe all is well regardless of the state of things is certainly fine for you, seemingly for others here as well. But the haste with which you confounded the adult and peds data for COVID, today, makes me think you have not given this issue the time or thought required, either. But do as you will. After today, we've lost hope in the process, and are just posting an institutional "do not use" tag on the article. 2601:246:C700:19D:DC18:A173:C6E3:3CFB (talk) 06:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Tagging
[Figure and original article tag posting.] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Issues with the hand-drawn ABCDEF image and its legend, that originally appeared in section tags regarding this figure: 2601:246:C700:19D:DC18:A173:C6E3:3CFB (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * there is a discrepancy between the fever types covered between the image and the text (three in text, six in figure/legend),
 * there is a discrepancy between the terminologies used between text and the image (cf. "continuous" and "continues"),
 * there is an issue with what might reasonably be interpreted from the image, versus what is stated in the text,
 * the drawing of the image is confusing (lacking temperature and time labels to Y- and X-axes),
 * the image shows various temperatures dropping below normal (bold horizontal line),
 * to the extent that the main text covered the image, neither legend or main test noted/explained varying periodicities, varying steepnesses of onsets, differing natures of peaks, etc., and
 * the image basis is unsourced, so not readily checked/corrected—at very least the source needs to appear so the legend and article text can be made consistent.
 * We are fine with the posting of this content here. As the tag content noted, we found this image and its integration to be almost hopelessly problematic. 2601:246:C700:19D:DC18:A173:C6E3:3CFB (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Tagging
Either inline tags or a banner is all that is needed. Not both. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * See my closing comment at your Talk page. You had removed both banner and inline, and it is only because we are stubborn, that any appear here at all. 2601:246:C700:19D:DC18:A173:C6E3:3CFB (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User in question is topic banned from tagging since 2017. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

A chapter is sufficient. A lot of ebooks no longer list page numbers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This must be a Wikiproject Medicine executive edict, then, because last we looked, the stated WP guidelines dictated a page range of 1-2 pages. And while many e-books lack page numbers, most still have hardcopy versions available, from which page numbers can be drawn. Of course, in the case of chapters of a few pages, there is no real issue. But as we both know, some chapters are many tens of pages long, and a chapter-only citation to a long chapter is sloppy scholarship, and thwarts the quality of the encyclopedia (because it makes verification practically impossible). All of science communication has as its aim the reliability and longevity of the intended meaning of its content. Likewise, WP rules must enforce a common good, and "good enough for me" begs the question of what state things will be in when the "me" is gone, or when it is replaced by another, less scrupulous "me". All from us. 2601:246:C700:19D:DC18:A173:C6E3:3CFB (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Redundant sentence
I previously removed a sentence I believed to be redundant, which now recently became undone. However, I still stand by my previous removal of that sentence. User:WhatamIdoing said that the sentence I removed is about variations according to time of day which is different from the previous numbers, but the previous sentence I was referring to (which is the second sentence in the bullet list just above) was also about variations according to time of day. The previous sentence I was referring to also cited the same source, which makes it even more redundant in my opinion. I would therefore again like to remove that redundant sentence. Lymoz (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining, @Lymoz. I really appreciate it.  Could you check and see whether my recent edit solves that problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes it does! :) Lymoz (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up on this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Measurement question
In the measurement section, the article lists three measurements for fever, however, it is not mentioned if these are ands or ors. I.e., do all of these conditions need to be met for it to technically be considered a fever, or will only one measurement do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.191.14 (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Each country has its own definition for what is technically a fever so the measurement that should be used is the one in the country you live in. Be sure to check government websites to see what is technically a fever in your respective country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Daihong Ly (talk • contribs) 23:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Contradiction regarding mechanism/causes of hyperpyrexia
The article defines hyperthermia as an increased body temperature caused by positive heat balance that exceeds the homeostatic temperature set point, and names neuroleptic malignant syndrome, serotonin syndrome and cocaine/substituted amphetamine use as some of the possible causes. The article then defines hyperpyrexia as extremely elevated body temperature resulting from drastic temperature set point elevation but then goes on to list the aforementioned causes again (though it lists drug overdose instead of cocaine/subst. amph. use, however, the latter fall under the the former more broad category). I think the two claims are mutually exclusives.

Am I missing something? Do these factors cause elevated temperature via both mechanisms and can thus be included under both categories? If so, I think this should be briefly elaborated in the article to reconcile the claims and avoid confusion.

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Jay Hodec, I wonder where the examples came from. It's possible that different drugs are meant.
 * I also wonder if a little plain English would help this. What do you think about describing hyperpyrexia as "a dangerously high fever"?  And hyperthermia as "not a true fever" and/or "a temperature higher than the body intends"?  I realize it's philosophically unsound to speak of the body as having an intention, but perhaps that gets the idea across. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I have resolved the contradiction after scrutinising the sources. Apparently, all that was needed was to take some time and crack the books ... It seems like someone mistakenly listed differential diagnoses of heat stroke as causes of hyperthermia.


 * I have also added a more explicit clarification of the distinction between hyperthermia and hyperpyrexia, as suggested by WhatamIdoing.


 * Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Febricula
A sentence on "febricula" or transient mild fever was tagged with Template:Better source needed because its cited source was published in 1906 and there was no evidence of the term still being used today. Searching for "febricula" on Google Scholar, the papers I found were mostly either from the 1920s or earlier, or translated (probably carelessly) from foreign languages, with only one case (archive) of recent use in English in the first few pages of search results. An article (archive) from a medical journal discussing obsolete medical terms and disease classifications claimed that "febricula" did have the meaning given but hadn't been used since the early 20th century; I changed the description of it in this article accordingly and moved it to the History section. - LaetusStudiis (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Help with an edit
I'm currently taking an Anatomy and Physiology class from a college in the US, and I came across the following quote in my textbook: "Although high body temperature may inhibit some bacteria and viruses, the most likely beneficial effect [of fever] is on body metabolism. For every increase of 1°C in body temperature, metabolic rate increases by 10 percent. Cells can move faster, and enzymatic reactions take place more quickly. As a result, defenses can be mobilized more rapidly and the repair process speeds up." It seems like relevant and helpful info for this article, but I've never edited anything in the medical side of Wikipedia before, and I'm a little intimidated. Is just including a sentence or two summarizing this info and citing my textbook ok? Any special rules or requirements I should look at first? Should I just WP:BOLD and add it? ChristianCanCook (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi! The wiki article already briefly deals with this aspect of fever physiology here, but a summary of the textbook passage you've mentioned would supplement it nicely I would think. You can just go ahead and stick it in there like you've laid it out.


 * The only thing I can think of pointing out here is that the textbook seems to be quite introductory, so that the passage is simplified almost to the point of vagueness (e.g. does "cells can move faster" refer to leukocyte extravasation?; which enyzmatic reactions are we talking about, specifically?; what repair processes are we talking about - is there a wound/tissue repair aspect to fever?; etc.). The immune physiology function of fever should really be explored further in the wiki article, so if your textbook offers secondary sources or further reading pertaining to this topic at the end of this chapter, you'd be welcome to delve a bit deeper into this topic and write a paragraph or two further laying out the immune benefits of fever.


 * Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)