Talk:Leprosy/Archive 2

Types of Leprosy
Just thought there should be information on Lepromatus Leprosy and Tuberculoid Leprosy, both of which are caused by Mycobacterium Leprae, but produce different symptoms depending on the host immune response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.113.35 (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Evolution?
It's not really accurate to say that they "evolved" resistance to dapsone, using the scientific sense of the word (in its common meaning of "developed" that may work, but it's misleading here). The use of dapsone tended to kill the non-resistant bacteria, selecting for the dapsone-resistant bacteria which could proliferate without competition from the non-resistant strains or harm from dapsone. They were "selected" by natural selection, meaning that dapsone-resistant bacteria already existed in the population. The current wording of "evolution" makes it sound like the bacteria were exposed to dapsone and then mutated in response to it to develop resistance, which isn't accurate. 68.227.38.212 (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidence
I have moved and incorporated most of this text to various places in the "Transmission" section, where it is more appropriate than in its present "Incidence" section.--WHO Leprosy 21:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hansen's Disease (HD) is transmitted by Mycobacterium leprae. The bacillus M. leprae has never been grown in the laboratory.  As a result it has been difficult to study the exact mechanisms of pathogenesis.  However, the CDC notes the following assertion about the transmission of the disease: "Although the mode of transmission of Hansen's disease remains uncertain, most investigators think that M. leprae is usually spread from person to person in respiratory droplets."

I think it's worth pointing out that the 'inability to grow M. leprae in the laboratory' means inability to grow it in standard culture media 'in vitro' - microbiologists studying the pathogen can do so using 'in vivo' cultures (often tissue samples from armadilloes, whose body temperature runs low enough for the bacterium to thrive in soft organs). 210.84.16.35 03:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Wet Leprosy", "Dry Leprosy"
I recently heard a reference to "wet leprosy" on the radio, stating it is the more contagious form of leprosy. I can't find any real references for "wet leprosy", but I found a definition for "dry leprosy" here. Can someone clarify this? --RevWaldo 19:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I took another look around and found this reference in medical journal describing the difference between the two. However, it's from 1894 - Journal of cutaneous and genito-urinary diseases, Vol. 12, 1894 p. 111-115. Archaic terminology? --RevWaldo (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Dry leprosy" is mentioned in the movie Papillon as being the non contagious variety too. Why isn't it covered in this article even if it's a historical misconception. I can't find anything conclusive on the topic. &mdash; Hippietrail (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Modern picture?
Shouldn't this article include a more up-to-date picture? I would suggest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feedmecereal (talk • contribs) 18:45, 16 August 2007


 * Excellent suggestion - I've added the image to the article. -- MarcoTolo 00:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

M. leprae genome section moved
I've moved the genome section to the M. leprae article - while well-written, it has little to do with leprosy specifically. -- MarcoTolo 00:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

'Simple English' version of the Leprosy entry has unexplained pictures.
I read through the article on leprosy, and also chose Simple English from the language list, and read that article too. The 'Simple English' version has two additional photographs, 'feet deformed by leprosy' and 'skull deformed by leprosy'. The pictures imply that Hansen's disease can cause abnormal bone growth, but neither the simple or full article mention this. It seems that either the pictures are not about leprosy, or that this aspect of leprosy was not described.

72.2.9.14 18:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Leprosy Summary
Leprosy Humanity came across leprosy (also known as the Hansen’s disease) around 300 BC. There are two classifications of leprosy known as tuberculoid leprosy and borderline leprosy. They affect the skin and nerves. Large patches form on your skin and you lose your senses or they can be weakened. Your environment has a lot to do with the cause of leprosy. Being in contact with contaminated water, such as drinking it or showering with it, an insufficient diet, or any other type of diseases can result in leprosy. Colonies in India and Vietnam still come across leprosy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.235.81 (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Leprosy and America
Just passing through on a day where an outbreak just occured in my state AND city, Springdale, AR, which just now had an outbreak of leprosy. maybe we could put in a section about Leprosy in todays world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.252.76.200 (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Leprosy and the Armadillo Zoonosis
While this is a very well written and organized article, it hardly does justice to the now well-established reality of leprosy as a very limited but world-wide zoonosis, which occasionally spreads to humans. The ground-breaking work of Dr. Elizabeth Storrs in the study of m. leprae in dasypus novemcinctus (9-banded armadillo) should at least be footnoted or referenced. Whether any detail belongs in the main article is, of course, problematic, since this is a topic of continuing controversy in the research community, largely as a result of the highly inappropriate reaction to the original discoveries by the USPHS. References are easily found by Googling (leprosy storrs). Ldmjr (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't be timid. What you have written here is a fair section start. Edit it a bit and paste it into the article. Mensch (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hide the picture
It's horrible to see a man affected by leprosy, it may hurt sensible viewers. At least I suggest to hide it some way. Bh3u4m (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 04:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

proposal: research relationship of leprosy with th1 and th2 immune response
I went to a lecture that was extremely interesting explaining why some people get leprosy and others don't relating to if their immune system properly makes the correct response : th1 vs th2.

If you want to improve the immunology of the article, this could be researched. Tkjazzer (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please somebody familiar with immunology of leprosy do that. I vaguely remember reading in an ancient SciAm special issue on immunology how different kind and extent of immune response underlie different types of leprosy. I could possibly track it down and summarize in the article, but I am not even remotely competent in immunology. --bonzi (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

characteristics
"Patients with this chronic infectious disease"

i dont beleive it is infectious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.25.73 (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is God's punishment to those who think that Wikipedia is about beliefs instead of facts :p. Sorry for flippant comment, but if you have basis for the claim the disease is not infectious, please elaborate. --bonzi (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

World distribution of leprosy, 2003.
The map labeled "World distribution of leprosy, 2003." does not match the lead in text which says that there are leprosy colonies in Japan, which is listed as no cases on the map. How can you have a colony with no members? For my two cents, I haven't personally heard of any leprosy colonies over here anyway. Nesnad (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yuschenko - leprosy??
No one has proof that Yuschenko has leprosy! This is Russian propaganda! --KpoT (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Gram positive
I removed the statement that M. Leprae is Gram positive. In the two books I referenced, they both mentioned it as being acid-fast, but neither mentioned being Gram positive. Also, if my understanding is correct, the mycolic acid layer would prevent it from picking up the crystal violet stain. If I have missed something, please let me know. Thanks --D.c.camero (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture
I've deleted the popular culture section, feel free to revert if necessary. None of the list of tangents really add to the understanding of what leprosy is, and in my opinion, the popular culture section just encourages people to add bullets to articles have little to no knowledge about. 75.20.202.97 (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Syphilitics in leper colonies
Is this such a commonly held belief that it needs no reference? I have to wonder about this, considering the relative brevity of the relevant stage of syphilis and the relatively recent supposed arrival of syphilis in the Old World. Wall17 (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

congenital or perinatal leprosy
dear sir, i wud like to ask u that whether any prophlactic treatment is needed for babies whose mother have leprosy & also if breast feeding shud b continued in such babies. thanks, Dr smita —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.74.125.150 (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not provide medical advice. For such specialized and important information, you might start by visiting selected reputable websites listed under External links on the page. The most promising-looking for your query might be ILEP - The International Federation of Anti-Leprosy Associations. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

symptoms?
Any chance a section describing symptoms can be added? The article says that the disease does not cause limbs to fall off, but it does not say much about what the disease does cause. Tad Lincoln (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. The article badly needs a signs/symptoms/diagnosis section.Danierrr (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Historical treatments
Perhaps a section on traditional attempts at treatment would add to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.41.130 (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Pigs and Leprosy
Fact check. Ancient people thought that drinking sow's milk caused leprosy. Doing a web search on pigs and leprosy gave ambiguous results. Can pigs get leprosy only with difficulty, or when they have been bred to have damaged immune systems to enable them to get it? Can they get it at all? 4.255.55.217 (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hansen's Disease = Leprosy?
This might be elementary to many who visit this page, but without getting into the controversy of what the name of the disease is - it does not mention that both Leprosy and Hansen's both refer to the same disease - instead it simply jumps into the article, using both interchangeably, making it confusing for the average reader. -Israelish (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Somebody has corrected this. Hey, this is Wikipedia - when you noticed this oversight, you should have simply corrected it; it's not like that would cause some huge controversy and so requires thorough discussion :) - --bonzi (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

possible citations for footnotes
I don't know how to add footnotes (yet) but if anybody else does, the footnote at the end of the paragraph that begins, "The age-old social stigma..." could be Sheldon Watts, "Epidemics and History", New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997, p.43. Amustard (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Move Request
Archived move request.YeshuaDavid (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I know Leprosy remains the most common name for the disease. But given the stigma of the historic name, and that almost all contemparary medical sources refer to the disease by its modern moniker, "Hansen's disease", we should change the name to that. For the same reasons we use "Tuberculosis" and not the older name, "Consumption".

If the move were taken, Leprosy would obviously redirect here. YeshuaDavid (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

I understand Physchim62's opposition. I do think however that the "Be precise when necessary" clause of WP:NC overrules WP:COMMONNAME in this instance; for reasons of precision we use Victoria of the United Kingdom, not Queen Victoria, for instance. I would also point out that many institutes favour Hansen's disease; the The National Hansen's Disease Museum for example. YeshuaDavid (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Hansen's disease" is no more precise a term than leprosy (both terms cover at least two separate types of infection). I must congratulate the nominator on being able to find even one single institution that doesn't call the disease leprosy. The proposal is political correctness gone crazy: I'm sure it was made in the best of good faith, but it is contrary to naming conventions (and common sense). Let me repeat myself—seven sites have been selected to appear in the infobox, including the World Health Organization and three sites from the U.S. National Institutes of Health: all seven of those sites call the disease "leprosy"; only two out of the seven even list "Hansen's disease" as a possible synonym. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it follows usage rather than creating it. Physchim62 (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I first read about Hansen's desease as the curent scientific name here, and I disagree that every organisation uses leprosy - googling leprosy shows 250,000 hits, much less admittidly than googling leprosy, but leprosy is a much older term. Since however the point you make about the infobox sites is extremely valid, I will remove the move request. YeshuaDavid (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure, I scanned through the titles of papers published in 2009 and listed at PubMed: "leprosy" beats "Hansen's disease" as a title term by 72 to 6. There are also journals such as Leprosy Review and the International Journal of Leprosy, as well as the International Leprosy Association. "Hansen's disease" seems to be a term almost only used in the U.S. (although I did spot a couple of papers from Portugal which also used the term in the title). The excellent New York Times article you cite gives a good account as to why people would want to find a new name, but even that article mostly uses the term "leprosy" except when it is specifically referring to the medical centers. If the term "Hansen's disease" becomes more prevalent in the future, it will be easy to change the article, but for now there is simply no contest as to which is the normal term used to refer to this sort of Mycobacterium infection. Physchim62 (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support as nominator YeshuaDavid (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. I don't even need to cite WP:COMMONNAME here, it's so obvious. Every single one of the seven authoritative sites linked from the infobox calls this disease "leprosy": most do not even list "Hansen's disease" as a synonym. Physchim62 (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - per guideline WP:MEDMOS "Where there is a dispute over a name, editors should cite recognised authorities and organisations rather than conduct original research. Where there are lexical differences between the varieties of English, an international standard should be sought." and for diseases suggests The World Health Organization International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD 10) which gives "Leprosy [Hansen's disease]" and quite clear what is primary term. PubMed results also show the introduced newer term of Hansen's disease has not caught on. So whilst "Leprosy" 20,691 hits of which 372 in 2000 and 350 in the last year, "Hansen's disease" just 4% the number of hits at 862 total of which 25 in 2000 and 28 in the last year - indeed at 96%/4% total usage split it is possibly debatable whether "Hansen's disease" counts as a trivial miniority view per NPOV and so not worth mentioning at all :-) But that aside, quite clear what the majority usage is. David Ruben Talk 01:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - "Hansen's disease" is an equivalent term to the general disease called "leprosy;" however, all the subtypes of "leprosy" are referred to as such (i.e. tuberculoid leprosy, lepromatous leprosy, etc.). Therefore, with that being the case, and given the ICD 10's treatment of the terms (i.e. making leprosy the primary term), I would have to support keeping the article under its current title, as term "leprosy" seems more pervasive at this time. ---kilbad (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. To use your own example.... We use "Tuberculosis" instead of "Consumption" because no one uses the term anymore. "Leprosy" is still the term of choice for the majority of people and in fact I had never even heard of "Hansen's disease" until I read this article and I'm a former paramedic so, however minor though it may be, do have some medical training. Wayne (talk) 04:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The original proposal is not compelling. Neither of the arguments (stigma and common usage in "contemporary medical sources") are supported by data.   AlphaEta  19:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Body parts fall off
The first paragraph ends with "Contrary to popular belief, leprosy does not actually cause body parts to fall off." The supporting reference says, "Leprosy does not usually cause gross mutilations. But it can cause a numbness of the hands and feet that leads to accidental burning or mutilation of extremities. This is a source of the myth that leprosy causes parts of the body to drop off." So leprosy (or whatever we call it) causes numbness, which causes carelessness, which causes accidents, which causes mutilations, presumably including body parts falling off. Is this a distinction without a difference? Maybe it should say "... does not directly cause body parts to fall off." Art LaPella (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made a change that I think is appropriate. Please add some references to back this up based on your previous comments, if possible. Rekutyn (talk) 08:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I found a reference on Google Books and made this edit. I'm normally just a copy editor, so please check if I have formatted it correctly. Or maybe I should link directly to this. Art LaPella (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey "does not directly cause body parts to fall off" still suggests that somehow indirectly it causes parts to fall off. It just doesn't. Loss of sensation leads to recurrent injuries and infections that lead to bone absorption and occasional medical amputation of irreversibly damaged extremities. Nothing falls off, directly or indirectly, and to suggest that it does confirms a lot of the worst myths of the disease. Seehttp://answers.hrsa.gov/cgi-bin/hrsa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=973&p_created=1174410836&p_sid=jPvPSjTj&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD0xNSwxNSZwX3Byb2RzPSZwX2NhdHM9MTQxJnBfcHY9JnBfY3Y9MS4xNDEmcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1hbnN3ZXJzLnNlYXJjaF9ubCZwX3BhZ2U9MQ!!&p_li=&p_topview=1. They don't answer the question directly, but any reading of serious literature on the subject will confirm that there is neither "autoamputation" nor indirect parts falling off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.117.196.186 (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Addition to fictional lepers?
In the movie "Ben Hur," his mother & sister contract leprosy and are sent to live in a leper colony. They are miraculously healed on Easter. 24.220.186.177 (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)A. Compton 05/29/2009

In Chapter XIII of Jules Verne's A Journey to the Center of the Earth, while travelling through Iceland toward Snæfellsjökull the expedition briefly encounters people with leprosy. Their condition is treated sympathetically, with notes on the occurrence of leprosy in Iceland. Kay Dekker (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Image and description?
The only images of leprosy sufferers in this article are old black and white images from over 100 years ago. There's also no actual "description" section; instead, sections are labeled Pathophysiology, which is unhelpful jargon for most readers. Perhaps a more recent image, maybe one in color, could be used? It looks like someone suggested this a while back, but either the image they suggested wasn't used, or it's been removed since then. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The Regents of the Leper Hospital in Haarlem 1667 - Jan de Bray
Wikimedia Commons has a good image of this painting at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jan_de_bray_regenten_dolhuys.JPG if anyone thinks it would be a useful addition to the article, and would like to add a link to it. Kay Dekker (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Norway and Iceland
I've added a short para to the History - Modern section discussing leprosy in these countries from the 1700s onwards, based on material from the Leprosy Archives in Bergen. There's lots of interesting material at the Archives if anyone thinks that anything more needs adding. Kay Dekker (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Biblical references
This is getting outright absurd. Biblical references BELONG IN the fiction section. Moving them out and claiming "NPOV" is christian point of view, NOT a neutral point of view. From a NEUTRAL point of view, the bible has dubious factual validity at best. The events quoted can't even be proved (outside of the bible) to have transpired, and therefore _are fictional_. In fact according to wikipedia's RELIABLE SOURCES guideline the bible isn't reliable. Moving it to fiction IS NPOV, and that's where it should stay. The last move, which moved it to "famous", was especially stupid. Not only are other fictional characters famous, but I could just as easily form a religion centered on one. Does that now mean all the fictional characters have to be moved to "famous" characters to be NPOV? (71.215.212.81 (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC))
 * You either type extremely fast, or already had this typed out, since you posted this long message the very same minute your edit was reverted.
 * I tend to believe most of the events/characters depicted in the Bible are fictional, but sticking those Biblical characters under a "fictional" heading isn't NPOV. Those characters are, however, well-known in Western society. Hence their appearance in the "famous" subsection ("famous" doesn't have to mean "real"). Firsfron of Ronchester  23:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I type extremely fast (100WPM). Nothing in the NPOV guidelines says sticking fictional characters in a fictional section is POV. Also, by your reasoning ALL well known characters to western society should be placed into the "famous" section, thus eliminating the "fictional" section for all but non-western characters. THAT is not neutrality at all.(71.215.212.81 (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Actually, you'd have to type over 130 words per minute. That's a little hard to swallow. The rest of your argument about NPOV is backwards. They're famous characters, so leaving them in the famous section does no harm. It doesn't mean they were real. Firsfron of Ronchester  23:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay then, lets make a 'famous (fictional)' and 'famous (nonfictional)' section. The result is the EXACT SAME. To mix the two together would constitute bad prose and an overall bad quality, not to mention lacking fact. You're being ridiculously liberal about this. ALL articles separate fictional characters from nonfictional characters, famous or not. It's perfectly neutral to put fictional characters in a fiction section, as do most other wiki articles. If you contest this, I'll be plenty happy to provide _at least a dozen_ examples. Care to "fix" them all? As for your claim that I posted this message the same minute I reverted, um, _NO_. Check timestamps again, and try doing better in mathematics. If, on the other hand, you mean I typed it up the minute YOU reverted, I was typing this up since my last revert. (71.215.212.81 (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Actually, what I said was "you posted this long message the very same minute your edit was reverted. It's not believable that your edit was reverted, you saw it, and typed up that long message in response. Firsfron of Ronchester  23:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Batman is equally well known. If there's a story where Batman has leprosy, should he be considered Famous or Fictional? --99.240.223.41 (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Batman doesn't have a billion believers. The ghost article is a better comparison; that article doesn't say ghosts are fictional. Art LaPella (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should do. Physchim62 (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe in Batman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.240.234 (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Seminole Sam (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Just because billions of people believe something doesn't make it true. So saying that since Batman doesn't have billions of believers make his existence less true than a biblical characters existence isn't a sound argument. At one time EVERYONE on planet earth believed it to be flat, because they were told that by the leaders of that era. We know today that the earth is round because we have scientific evidence to the contrary. The moral of this story should be: "Don't automatically believe whatever your favorite politician says." Study an issue for yourself, regardless of the subject matter. Scientist can be mistaken, but they are coming from a standpoint of searching for truth. The religious come from a standpoint of trying to make science fit their beliefs. But that's a topic for another discussion. Seminole Sam (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I find it staggering that people Jesus healed are currently in the famous section for a number of reasons. Firstly, they are not famous enough to have names. Secondly the bible isn't considered an accurate source anyway. So basically you have unfamous fictional people. They should be under fiction. Also if Jesus healing of them is meant to be fact then perhaps 'being treated by a god' should be added under the cure section. Hmm thats rediculous so perhaps all the bible stuff should be under fictional. It is also worth noteing that all the people who don't want the bible refrences in fictional appear to be from America. Most of the world considers the Bible fictional and so bible refrences being put under fictional is NPOV. 219.90.158.87 (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Leprosy Originated in East Africa?
I just found this webpage on the Pasteur Institute website which raises the possibility that Leprosy originated in East Africa (as well as mentions their article "On the Origin of Leprosy," Science, 13 May 2005). Most interesting is their speculation that this disease offers some evidence for human migration: "First of all, and quite unexpectedly, the disease was more likely introduced to West Africa by infected explorers, merchants or colonists from North Africa or Europe, rather than by migrants from East Africa. Early humans probably left East Africa to settle in Western and Southern Africa 50,000 years ago, before humans arrived in the Eurasian regions, and it seems improbable, according to the analysis conducted, that these first humans brought leprosy to West Africa. From West Africa, leprosy was then introduced to the Caribbean islands, Brazil and probably to other regions of South America through the slave trade in the 18th century". Leprosy does have a long tradition in Ethiopia, although it has been eradicated there within the last 20 years; Richard Pankhurst devotes a chapter of his Medical History of Ethiopia to the disease. I'd add this information here, except that most oddly I've been accused elsewhere of adding "false, biased and POV information", & think maybe an uninvolved third party might be a better judge whether this material is worth adding to this article. -- llywrch (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The paper is in Science, so may well be worthy of a mention if someone can actually get a copy of it and read it (the original paper, I mean, not the press release). The press release doesn't give any reasons for ruling out an Indian or Middle East origin of the disease: it merely states (repeatedly) the authors' unproven supposition that the spread of leprosy might allow the tracing of human migrations. That's an interesting (although unoriginal) hypothesis, but it is a circular argument insofar as it is described by the Pasteur Institute PR: either you believe it, and you trace all migration back to the "original source" of the leprosy cases; or you don't believe it and you prefer you own favorite markers of human migration, saying that leprosy could always go from one place to another through a single carrier. WP is not the place to resolve the argument! Physchim62 (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a point, & although it is admittedly speculation, I would assume that the Pasteur Institute is reliable enough of a source to justify citing. Whether or not the speculation is The Truth(tm), I agree with you that WP is not the place to resolve the argument; my intent is simply to suggest another point of view worth including. (BTW, the value of the information on leprosy in Ethiopia is independent of whether I convince anyone to include the Pasteur Institute material.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know why I said Leprosy/Hansen's disease has been eradicated in Ethiopia. The 2007 Ethiopian national census states that 25,527 people were reported as disabled by Hansen's disease (Country-level report, Table 4.3). That would mean about half of all cases in that continent are in Ethiopia. -- llywrch (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Spelling consistency
In one section we have tzaraath (which has a WP article under that spelling), and in another sara't (which doesn't, not even a redirect).

Are these two spellings of the same word? If so, should we pick one (I'd suggest tzaraath, since it has its own article) and replace the other spelling accordingly? Kay Dekker (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't really accurate to say that resistance to leprosy "evolved." That's different from natural selection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.38.212 (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is precisely natural selection (produced by the enviromental condition of the presence of antibiotics). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Genetics
Have certain people/population groups become immune to the disease ? Would be useful in regards to genetic modification

However, before treatment was developed, leprosy was certainly contagious.
"However, before treatment was developed, leprosy was certainly contagious." This line seems redundant to me. The preceding sentence states that after treatment stops it being contagious, so therefore obviously it is contagious without treatment. -NeF (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Leprosy in Bible Times
Shouldn't we add a section in history about leprosy during Bible times since many people's only knowledge of leprosy comes from the Bible? --Holly3278 (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Read the intro more carefully. It has not been established that the leprosy mentioned in the Old Testament is the same as the modern disease. The New Testament disease is arguably covered to some extent in the section on Rome. But I don't believe a section explicitly discussing only events and places in the New Testament would be appropriate (if you have evidence that this is notable you could create a separate article for it). --Mcorazao (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Remains in 2,000-year-old tomb show first known case of leprosy
This Israeli site: [JP] talks about the discovery of remains in 2,000-year-old tomb show first known case of leprosy.Agre22 (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

Louis I
In the section on "Famous persons with leprosy", the article mentions Louis I as a "Leper King". However, the link goes to a disambiguation page, and having looked the articles that page links to, I could not find one referred to as afflicted with leprosy. Does anyone know which "Louis I" this refers to?— eruditionFISH (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Vaccine
I was under the impression that a vaccine was found as early as 1988, yet there's nothing about it in this article. Can someone clarify this? The doctor in particular was even nominated to the Nobel prize of medicine about ten years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.45.10 (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Jacinto Convit
Just wondering why his name is not in this article?!.. He discovered the treatment right?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.190.60 (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Error in mesh term?
I think the mesh id for Leprosy is D007918, not what it says on the info box, could someone confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.200.38 (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Invitation to edit" trial
It has been proposed at Wikipedia talk:Invitation to edit that, because of the relatively high number of IP editors attracted to Leprosy, it form part of a one month trial of a strategy aimed at improving the quality of new editors' contributions to health-related articles. It would involve placing this:"You can edit this page. Click here to find out how."at the top of the article, linking to this mini-tutorial about MEDRS sourcing, citing and content, as well as basic procedures, and links to help pages. Your comments regarding the strategy are invited at the project talk page, and comments here, regarding the appropriateness of trialling it on this article, would be appreciated. Anthony (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The list of articles for the trial is being reconsidered, in light of feedback from editors, and should be ready in a day or two. If you have any thoughts about the Invitation to edit proposal, they would be very welcome at the project talk page. Anthony (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem with MeSH
The template MeSH Doesn't work. גוונא (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation Found
I apologise if this isnt the appropriate place for this but I cant seem to find any other way of contributing a source to wikipedia. This has the information to confirm the articles claim of leprosy transmission.

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/leprosy_explained?open —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.30.132 (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

signs and symptoms
the information under 'signs and symptoms' is just a repeat of what was already stated in the introduction part... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.4.203.141 (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Probable typo correction; do we need a new word
The article contained the word "creosite" in a context that suggested "creosote". I changed it after I had done a lot of fruitless searching on- and offline to find any plausible record of such a thing as creosite existing (found one implausible geological reference). We need a word (or does anyone have one?) for an apparently wrong, but plausible word that is difficult to confirm to be an error. We have ghost word of course, but this does not quite meet the case. JonRichfield (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ummm... How about citations for deletion?
I have no special knowledge of this point, but the edit: "Latest revision as of 18:33, 14 May 2011" consists in removal of a remark about HIV & leprosy. In his explanation the editor says that oddly enough, HIV does not seem to predispose to leprosy. Now, this is an interesting observation, and for several reasons may well be important, but it will not be visible to the modal reader. It seems to me that when such a (no doubt appropriate) contradiction is made, it should be by means of a positive clarification or emendation, rather than a negative action such as an omission or deletion. I shall make an appropriate change, but invite anyone knowing more about it to put in something more nearly definitive.

JonRichfield (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)