Talk:Milwaukee protocol

How
How do you pronounce her first name? is it ji-anna, or more like jina? Omer Enbar 09:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I was just watching a documentary about her - the family say gene-ah. Cool Z 22:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

0:07 on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT7yoyKbYu0 Alexander Ilyin 12:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantregistermynick (talk • contribs)

Correction
The article read as follows: "She is only the eighth person known to have survived rabies after the onset of symptoms; the other survivors were vaccinated before symptoms developed." This is fundamentally incorrect. Being vaccinated before symptoms start is hardly unusual. Unless I am insane (which I doubt I am), these people suffered from vaccine failures. Giese is remarkable for being the first entirely unvaccinated person to survive. --Trafton 07:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the old sentence was trying to explain that the other survivors had recieved the rabies vaccine, whereas Ms. Giese was the first survivor who had never received any vaccine, which you have now made more clear. The important part was not so much that the other survivors were vaccinated BEFORE the onset of symptoms (as opposed to after), which as you note is the usual way vaccines work, but that they received the vaccine, they came down with symptomatic rabies anyway, and that their survival was probably because the vaccine had some positive effect. In any case, your rewording is less ambiguous, and you're not insane. Good edit.

I haven't had time to look into whether the debate on the reasons she survived has progressed, so if anyone has the time and interest to check out the literature, I think it would be a good addition to the article. Loremipsum 03:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the other survivors received the vaccine after suspicion of being exposed to rabies but before any symptoms of the disease presented. Despite their getting the vaccination before symptoms arose, they came down with the disease and then survived. Perhaps, despite the failure of the vaccination, they still had some protection (maybe by weakening the effect of the virus or something). Jeanna was the first person to have survived without receiving a vaccination. -jmmenoyo 7:26, 29 October 2006(CST)

Treatment
Added Dr. Willoughby's name to the article. He did lead the team that came up with this treatment, and he wrote the protocol, so he does deserve some modicum of credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayekappy (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable source to prove that he was the lead physician.  Royal broil  03:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=423103 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.146.145 (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"Rodney Willoughby Jr., the pediatric infectious disease specialist who treated Giese at Children's Hospital of Wisconsin in Wauwatosa, said he has spoken by phone twice a day with one of the doctors working on the Texas case."

Just one source. I thought it was pretty much common knowledge that Dr. Willoughby was her doctor. A lot of sources don't even mention a "team", just him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.146.145 (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Prayer Paragraph
I'm going to make my biases explicit, and look for some guidance from more experienced Wikipedians: I do not support the recently added paragraph that attributes Ms. Giese's survival to a "prayer circle." I personally do not believe in the power of intercessory prayer to heal the terminally ill, but my personal beliefs are separate from my argument for why this comment should not be included in the article.

First, there is no reference to any sort of world-wide, mass prayer for Jeanna. Googling '"Jeanna Giese" prayer' finds evidence that students at her school prayed for her, but until there is some way of documenting the size of the prayer circle phenomenon, I don't think it is verifiable or fair to claim that the prayer circle was "large", or even that her story is "popular among Christians". ("Large" and "popular" are both tricky words - an objective measure would be best.) I'm not saying that we shouldn't include a reference to the power of prayer unless we can quantify the phenomenon, but I'm not seeing *any* evidence that it was large. Many references discuss her survival in the context of the power of prayer, but these were written after her recovery.

Second, including the reference to prayer in the article - which also states that there is no conclusive explanation for Ms. Giese's survival - falsely gives the impression that there is no medical explanation for her survival. Although her reasons for survival are controversial, controversy in the medical community does not imply that the only reasonable explanation is the supernatural. Even if many people did pray for Jeanna, her survival after many people prayed for her does not automatically warrant a mention. (Certainly one could think of many terminally ill people who were prayed for who did not survive - does this warrant a mention on their wikipedia page?) Absent any suggestion of why the Giese case was special (a special kind of prayer, and especially large number of people, etc.) any indication that she might have survived because of prayer is an implicit suggestion that prayer was the cause of her survival. Jbrukh's edits help, but it still seems misleading to me.

I certainly do not mean to trivialize anyone's religious beliefs, and I don't want to start a religious battle on the Wikipedia page of this remarkable girl. But I don't think it's fair to falsely leave readers with the impression that this is a particularly remarkable or noteworthy case of "the power of prayer."

I am going to edit the article to include a reference to the "power of prayer" angle, but make it more "personal" by including a quote from her father. Your feedback on how to approach this sensitive issue is welcomed. Loremipsum 00:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * On a related note, I removed the statement that the power of prayer could not be disproven. The scientific method cannot be used to prove a negative, making the statement redundant. --Kesh 18:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone recently decided the "prayer passage" was unencyclopedic and removed it. While I wish they had mentioned something on the talk page, I'm inclined to agree with them, and I'm not about to lose any sleep over it. Loremipsum 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The religious connection is mentioned on the site Why Won't God Heal Amputees. The site has been discussed by New York Times, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Shawnc (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Prayer Paragraph
I'm going to make my biases explicit, and look for some guidance from more experienced Wikipedians: I do not support the recently added paragraph that attributes Ms. Giese's survival to a "prayer circle." I personally do not believe in the power of intercessory prayer to heal the terminally ill, but my personal beliefs are separate from my argument for why this comment should not be included in the article.

First, there is no reference to any sort of world-wide, mass prayer for Jeanna. Googling '"Jeanna Giese" prayer' finds evidence that students at her school prayed for her, but until there is some way of documenting the size of the prayer circle phenomenon, I don't think it is verifiable or fair to claim that the prayer circle was "large", or even that her story is "popular among Christians". ("Large" and "popular" are both tricky words - an objective measure would be best.) I'm not saying that we shouldn't include a reference to the power of prayer unless we can quantify the phenomenon, but I'm not seeing *any* evidence that it was large. Many references discuss her survival in the context of the power of prayer, but these were written after her recovery.

Second, including the reference to prayer in the article - which also states that there is no conclusive explanation for Ms. Giese's survival - falsely gives the impression that there is no medical explanation for her survival. Although her reasons for survival are controversial, controversy in the medical community does not imply that the only reasonable explanation is the supernatural. Even if many people did pray for Jeanna, her survival after many people prayed for her does not automatically warrant a mention. (Certainly one could think of many terminally ill people who were prayed for who did not survive - does this warrant a mention on their wikipedia page?) Absent any suggestion of why the Giese case was special (a special kind of prayer, and especially large number of people, etc.) any indication that she might have survived because of prayer is an implicit suggestion that prayer was the cause of her survival. Jbrukh's edits help, but it still seems misleading to me.

I certainly do not mean to trivialize anyone's religious beliefs, and I don't want to start a religious battle on the Wikipedia page of this remarkable girl. But I don't think it's fair to falsely leave readers with the impression that this is a particularly remarkable or noteworthy case of "the power of prayer."

I am going to edit the article to include a reference to the "power of prayer" angle, but make it more "personal" by including a quote from her father. Your feedback on how to approach this sensitive issue is welcomed. Loremipsum 00:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a wiki account. But I just wanted to say that I find it ridiculous that an article like this has a reference to prayer as the attribution to this girl's lucky survival of a horrible disease.

And since I think the majority of people reading such medical informational pages like these are not looking for such humbug.

It's like a poke in the eye. Someone with the proper authorisation, please remove that detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.238.34.84 (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's not humbug, there is now scientific evidence about recovery with the aid of prayer. I think it's hard to dispute that, and people should believe it. However, was the study that was done involving patients who prayed on their own? If that's the case, it wouldn't be relevant, no. I wonder if the portion could be reworded to state in some way that the patient and her family attributed healing to the prayer circle, some way that would keep a more neutral stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.144.231 (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it IS humbug. If you want to prove otherwise, then go ahead and post some hard physical evidence otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.157.6 (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Other attempts
The Recife case at the bottom of that paragraph seems to contradict the statement at the top of the paragraph that (implied all) other attempts have been unsuccessful. Salopian (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a good source for 3 MP survivors as the souces of the article did not contain any as of time of posting this. http://www.jsonline.com/features/health/34532044.html 216.57.96.1 (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 16:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone please post the method of treatment here.
Actual protocol and list of drugs and amounts used and techniques posted would help save lives if posted here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mix Bouda-Lycaon (talk • contribs) 03:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The people who should be administering this treatment are physicians, and all of the physicians who would be capable of administering it would have access to the medical journals which describe the protocol and techniques (they're online for those with subscriptions to those sites). So, how would publishing them on Wikipedia be of interest? If you are interested, I'm certain you could probably find a library with copies of the journals which you could read. 71.13.147.17 (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

How many survivors?
The introduction says that Jeanna "became the first of only three patients known to have survived symptomatic rabies without receiving the rabies vaccine." But, the Other Attempts section says, "There were 2 survivors out of 25 patients treated under the first protocol. A further 10 patients have been treated under the revised protocol and there have been a further 2 survivors." This means there have been at least four survivors. How many have there really been?


 * The June 2015 Reader's Digest says there have been 8 survivors out of 57 attempts. I don't have complete faith in claims made by magazines, so I'd think a better source would be needed.71.89.84.249 (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The protocol itself.
2012-04-17

The protocol is here.

http://www.mcw.edu/portal/Search-Results.htm?Search_Keywords=rabies+protocol

http://www.mcw.edu/FileLibrary/Groups/Pediatrics/InfectiousDiseases/Milwaukee_rabies_protocol_V3_1.pdf

http://www.mcw.edu/FileLibrary/Groups/Pediatrics/InfectiousDiseases/Milwaukee_rabies_protocol2_1.pdf

Alex_I — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantregistermynick (talk • contribs) 10:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Totally contradictory edit?
Prior to an edit a month ago, this article claimed several people had survived with the help of this treatment.There are numerous discussions on this page that claim some cases were with vaccine and a handful were not. Yet now this article has been edited to categorically state that this treatment has never worked even once since then. So was the article previously entirely bullshit? If so how was it sourced? Can someone confirm that the paper cited actually says what the article says it says? This seems like a radical change to the article and I am sceptical it may have been done by someone with an agenda.91.125.187.166 (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, according to recent WP:MEDRS the protocol has been entirely discredited. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The changes were too big - most of the content was removed. Even the descritption of the Jeanna Giese case, which is denied by no one, has been deleted! Citing an older version: "Some critics say those survivors are due to the patients having a genetic rabies immunity and that the Milwaukee protocol has nothing to do with the survival rate;[17] however this would imply the five patients all happened to coincidentally survive rabies while receiving the Milwaukee protocol—despite no documented survivors before them." Therefore it is possible that the protocol realy works - though only with patients who have a certain combination of genes which helps them to fight rabies, but even they would die without receiving the treatment. And how about that: "Ketamine has been shown to have a direct effect against the rabies virus. " Is it also - as the Anonymuous User above have said - bullshit? The method has been controversial from the beginning and maybe it's not recommended by most experts now, but it has not been abandoned yet; you can easily find in the internet reports about two attempts from the current year 2018, one of which claims to be succesful. BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It has been discredited in the relevant WP:MEDRS. If you want to contend otherwise you need to produce WP:MEDRS saying otherwise. Alexbrn (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't deny that it was discredited. But even discredited therapies can be described with details at enwiki. BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * With reliable sources, yes. Alexbrn (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I started a section on the talk page of the Rabies article on how it and this article taken together give a somewhat confusing picture on the status of the Milwaukee protocol and on whether survivals can be attributed to it. I was also led to wonder if the Milwaukee protocol, if it is now considered a failure, really merits its own article. The article is pretty short and if the experiment has been abandoned, it is unlikely that there will be much more to say on the subject.

I think it would be adequate and in fact clearer to cover the Milwaukee protocol in the "Treatment" section of the article on the disease itself. Rallette (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Rallette

I would strongly recommend not merging. It is a specific and notable form of treatment (regardless if “successful” or not) independent of the conditions it seeks to cure or alleviate, thereby warranting it’s own article. The rabies article is already extensive. While the Milwaukee protocol page may be low in content, by no means is it lacking in research data and reviews, moreover it lacks content development by willing editors. There is adequate peer reviewed research and data on this specific procedure.

Regardless, many forms of treatment no longer in use are archived separately to avoid clutter and confusing overloads of information. There are other forms of specific rabies treatment procedures in development or being currently researched and/or in peer reviewed studies both here and abroad.

With that, I must recommend to not merge. I hope you will reconsider given this basis of fact pattern. I will take the liberty to eventually remove the merge tag if a sufficient counter argument is not supplied. Thank you though for reaching out to the community in regards to your concern.

Regards, Sirsentence (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support merge per WP:NOPAGE the material would make better sense in the context of the Rabies article. Alexbrn (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merge The Rabies article already covers the salient points. CV9933 (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merge - if the protocol were successful it would have been another matter. This is just another one of many unsuccessful treatments that does not need an article. I think you would have a stronger argument to make an article on Giese, but even that would be a one event topic. MartinezMD (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merge - it's already been done of course, but there doesn't seem to have been anything on the page that would justify restoring it. --tronvillain (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure and done. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The treatment used in the first well documented human post symptom survival of rabies is extremely notable, and needs its own page. The material here doesn't make more sense merged in with the rabies article. The rabies article doesn't and shouldn't cover all of the details in this article. Whether someone thinks the treatment itself is successful or not is subjective and irrelevant. Consensus doesn't exist for the merge, and the merge is not appropriate. Please undo it. Tleave2000 (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * i can't understand why that guys agree to merge. whole information is just vaporated. if there are no one to disagree with me, i'll undo this article --Gaepakchinae (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The consensus was to merge; if you want to undo that you would need to propose a split of Rabies. Such a proposal so soon might be considered disruptive I think. Alexbrn (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Merging was a mistake, you guys made the wrong decision. This treatment should have stayed up for its important historical context as a failed medical procedure. Very little of the information on the original article migrated to the Rabies article. 153.33.43.40 (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Very little is needed. it'll be nothing more relevant than a footnote in history since it is a failed treatment, along with the thousands of other failed treatments. MartinezMD (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)