Talk:Zika virus/Archive 1

This is an archive. Do not continue discussions on this page.

Merger proposal
I propose that Zika fever be merged into Zika virus. I think that the content in the Zika fever article can easily be explained in the context of Zika virus, and the Zika fever article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Zika virus will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned.Alanl (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded.FeatherPluma (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The proposal is reasonable. It does fly rather in the face of what is the normal practice on other medical infectious diseases where the organism gets a page and the disease itself get a page. For poorly studied diseases like Zika I myself dont have a problem with this suggestion but there others who will feel differently about this. For this reason it might be better if both pages were mainatined. DrMicro (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The articles should be kept separate. There are numerous virus articles that are stubs such as Black Creek Canal virus. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Seeking Clarification
I'm seeking clarification on a statement made under the History section in the 3rd paragraph, 4th Sentence.

The statement

In 2015 there were 2,782 cases compared with 147 in 2014 and 167 in 2013.[7][8]

After searching the sources and reading the New York Times source, I further found an article at: http://portalsaude.saude.gov.br/images/pdf/2015/dezembro/15/COES-Microcefalias---Informe-Epidemiol--gico---SE-49---15dez2015---10h.pdf

After reading through the article on Google Translate and reading the tables it sounds more as if this statistic is referencing cases of microcephaly If this is the case, maybe the statement should be edited and also if any one has a source for the number of actual confirmed cases of Zika in Brazil for each of the past 3 years, I would be very interested in it.

Also I have another source at: http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/zika-virus-americas-association-with-microcephaly-rapid-risk-assessment.pdf

That provides a different number regarding the amount of Microcephaly cases, this source also lists number of possible cases of Zika, but I have had trouble translating the actual sources this page uses for referencing the extremely large number of possible Zika cases

My apologies if I am totally off with this question — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakespo (talk • contribs) 20:53, 3 January 2016 ‎
 * It is microcephaly. The sentence is referring to the sentence immediately preceding. I added case "of microcephaly" to make it clear. Those are numbers reported by NYT for the entire years. The other sources may be different time periods. Another good source of info and updates is http://www.promedmail.org/. juanTamad (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

recent lede edits and sloppy sourcing
i've witnessed this recent frenzy of packing latest things and sources into the lede. WP isnt a sketchbook for jotting down notes.

The WP:lede is the extract, containing time-sifted WP:NOTNEWS, most important globally correct "true" facts. the lede shouldnt be changed every day because some newspaper or agency makes a piep ! Most importantly the lede reflects the body and thus requires no refs.

Furthermore the sources that have been added are poorly delineated with a generic link, title and accessdate. neither a publication date ( very important, much more important than teh fricking accessdate just one more click away on teh template, arrgh), the author, publisher, nor page are in it. --Wuerzele (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

IP vandalism
I consider this reversion by IP 208.54.38.230 from Hernon, VA pushing an irrelevant url vandalism.

looks like someone is hounding me, as teh same happened on Talk:BIA 10-2474 with IP from 66.27.122.63 (from Herndon,VA) whom I welcomed already from Bellevue, WA....--Wuerzele (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits to "History" section
Regarding  edit, the phrase that was removed, "advised women to postpone getting pregnant until more was known about the risks", is actually worded better than what was added: "recommended to avoid pregnancy for eight months". If this last phrase is preferred, it should be written, "recommended that women avoid pregnancy for eight months". The additional phrase, "until more is known about the risks" explains why a government or governmental official would advise women to postpone getting pregnant, so adds a bit of clarity, and now it's not there.

There's another problem that was introduced with this edit. Now you have the first half of the sentence being about a person recommending something and the second half of the sentence being about countries issuing warnings, so the sentence now lacks balance. Corinne (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Add a 'Protective Measures' section?
I'm not sure this type of information should be part of a Wikipedia article.

Extracted directly from the PAHO Statement of 24/1/16 (http://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11605%3A2016-paho-statement-on-zika-transmission-prevention-&catid=8424%3Acontent&Itemid=0&lang=en):

″To prevent or slow the spread of Zika virus and reduce its impact, PAHO recommends the following:

Mosquito populations should be reduced and controlled by eliminating breeding sites. Containers that can hold even small amounts of water where mosquitoes can breed, such as buckets, flower pots or tires, should be emptied, cleaned or covered to prevent mosquitoes from breeding in them. This will also help to control dengue and chikungunya, which are also transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes. Other measures include using larvicide to treat standing waters.

All people living in or visiting areas with Aedes mosquitoes should protect themselves from mosquito bites by using insect repellent; wearing clothes (preferably light-colored) that cover as much of the body as possible; using physical barriers such as screens, closed doors and windows; and sleeping under mosquito nets, especially during the day when Aedes mosquitoes are most active.

Pregnant women should be especially careful to avoid mosquito bites. Although Zika typically causes only mild symptoms, outbreaks in Brazil have coincided with a marked increase in microcephaly—or unusually small head size—in newborns. Women planning to travel to areas where Zika is circulating should consult a healthcare provider before traveling and upon return. Women who believe they have been exposed to Zika virus should consult with their healthcare provider for close monitoring of their pregnancy. Any decision to defer pregnancy is an individual one between a woman, her partner and her healthcare provider.″

Of course, a synopsis of these recommendations needs to be prepared. McortNGHH (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * McortNGHH I think this does not belong here in a big way. sure, vector control should be mentioned in the transmission section. but what you "extracted" above,  protections against the disease caused by the virus, belongs on the corresponding clinical page. you should paste this question on the Zika fever page. --Wuerzele (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course. That's exactly where it belongs. I'm going to take a look at the 'fever' page and see what I can do. McortNGHH (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Dominican Republic is the fifth country to issue official recommendations regarding postponing pregnancy due to Zika


This should also correct the info on WP's Main Page "In the news" section.

186.120.31.103 (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Link to Brazil Zika virus outbreak (2015 - present)
Shouldn't there be a link to the page that is specifically on the outbreak? Seems to me a lot on this page is actually about the outbreak and should be moved there. During the Ebola outbreak, the page that was most often updated was the outbreak page, not the page on the Ebola virus. juanTamad (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There's already a link from the lead. More links can easily be added at the start and the end if desired. Also, as mentioned int the Talk Page there, this article is currently an In The News candidate, which may or may not mean that gutting it is not such a good idea just now.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not planning to gut the Zika virus page, just move information on current outbreak to the outbreak page (to be renamed). I added the link in the lede. In the News should probably link to the new outbreak page, which I'll finish in another 12 hours. juanTamad (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * juanTamad I agree with Tlhslobus.
 * Re "copied to new outbreak page": without precisely saying which page, what kind of behavior do you want ? Us to look where you contribute? ( thats what I had to do) this is poor editing behavior.
 * Re the word "copying": No, you did not move nor copy, you cut = deleted
 * Re "not planning to gut ...": You deleted 5000 and I see you added only 500 to the Zika virus outbreak in Brazil (2015 - present) page (or whatever its latest name is after you changed it to Americas and someone else changed it yet again....) Deleting from this page esp such a big change UNILATERALLY without any consensus is a faux pas. I think you should revert yourself.
 * As someone who has cared about the Zika Virus page attending with lots of little edits cleaning up thoughtless, sloppy ones with incomplete refs, poor imprecise language, adding sources, and organizing logically (exactly the things missing on the new outbreak page you created) I am asking you to be more collaborative from now on. Discuss big changes, when in doubt ask. And stop marking edits as "minor changes" that could in any way be controversial. Thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to be disruptive. The story of the ongoing outbreak was primarily developing in the history section of the Zika virus page, while the page on the outbreak was out of date and apparently not being maintained. I posted a notice of my intentions on both the Zika virus and the Zika outbreak page with a link on the latter to a draft on a subpage of my user page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jtamad/draft_Zika_virus_outbreak_in_the_Americas_(2015_-_present) ), and left  it for comment, but obviously not for long enough. The 3rd or 4th paragraph of the history section was nicely written and seemed like it would be better as the lead for the outbreak page, so I cut and pasted that to the outbreak page to create a new retitled page on the outbreak, deleting it from the virus page since there's no point in duplicating text verbatim (I don't understand your comment about not moving or copying, but cutting. Everything except possibly one sentence [inadvertently] I think was copied over to the new page). Seems to me the page on the outbreak should be updated regularly with new developments, which should then be summarized periodically in the appropriate sections of the Zika virus and Zika fever pages. Also, I think the title of the outbreak page should reflect that the page is about the pandemic spread of this clearly not benign virus in the Western hemisphere, which is the big news (Zika Virus in the Americas — Yet Another Arbovirus Threat). I'll try leaving a message about proposed major changes for a longer period in the future. juanTamad (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Chikungunya a Flavivirus?
The statement below seems to suggest that Chikungunya virus is a flavivirus. It is infact an alphavirus.

"Work has already begun towards developing a vaccine for Zika virus according to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).[34] The researchers at the NIAID Vaccine Research Center have extensive experience from working with vaccines for other Flaviviruses such as West Nile virus, chikungunya virus and dengue fever.[34]"

Please read  for some medically important flaviviruses and alphaviruses.

I suggest that the sentence read;  "...The researchers at the NIAID Vaccine Research Center have extensive experience from working with vaccines for West Nile virus, Dengue virus and Chikungunya virus." 197.176.16.48 (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, it is not a flavivirus. I changed that sentence. Ruslik_ Zero 20:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Zika virus electron micrograph
There's a putative electron micrograph of Zika virus on this page - http://sao247.net/7-438392/ti-m-hie-u-loa-i-virus-zika-an-na-o-nguo-i-da-c-bie-t-nguy-hie-m.sao - for what it's worth. If someone wants follow up on rights etc., please do. I don't think it would add much to the article. BTW, I can't read Vietnamese but the page looks great. McortNGHH (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, McortNGHH looks liek someone pasted it in. --Wuerzele (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It turned out Wuerzele (talk that the Vietnamese image was a generic flavivirus pic. The one pasted in is from the CDC and is well documented. I hope that area of the page will now be stable.  McortNGHH (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing
“This outbreak in south and central America is unprecedented and has caught the world unprepared once again, with no vaccine, no drugs and limited anti-mosquito measures.” Headline-1: Zika outbreak: British travellers told to put off trying for a baby for a month QUOTE: "Around half a million people are believed to have travelled to Zika infected countries in the last six months, according to the most recent figures from the Office for National Statistics. The virus has already caused nearly 4,000 cases of malformed babies in the Americas and the World Health Organisation warned yesterday that the disease was spreading so quickly that four million people could be infected by the end of the year. Although the virus is mainly transmitted through mosquitoes, PHE said sexual transmission had been recorded in a ‘limited number of cases.’" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12129072/Zika-outbreak-British-travellers-told-to-put-off-trying-for-a-baby-for-a-month.html
 * Thank you but sexual transmission is in the article already. and WP is WP:NOTNEWS, esp not Daily Telegraph. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Since most people only take limited anti-BS measures, this outbreak of dis-information around the would is far from unprecedented - but has caught many people unprepared. As with Ebola, when this 'unprecedented' outbreak of media dis-information comes to an end, will media outlets say 'Sorry'?


 * So, as with Ebola, why is Wikipedia helping to put this media-driven scare story? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.49.182 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 31 January 2016‎

First Human Isolates
The article states two different years for the first isolation in humans. I cannot correct because I do not have reference. Need to correct. 72.83.41.122 (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * [[File:Button_done.png]] done.  --Wuerzele (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2016
On 02nd February 2016 CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) confirmed that Zika Virus is also transmitted by sexual activities.

Anurag Pandey 06:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes (Talk) 06:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * why do people bother to even post "not done", if they dont do it? to show that they did something? the "not doing" ? -:)--Wuerzele (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * [[File:Button_done.png]] done by  here!   --Wuerzele (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Different years.
Different years are cited as when the virus was first isolated from humans. They are quite different under "General" and "History" parts.

Cheers.79.143.100.252 (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC) Vuk, 30.01.2015.
 * 79.143.100.252 I fixed it, thanks for pointing it out. too many cooks...--Wuerzele (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2016 for History section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zika_virus page
The fourth sentence of first paragraph of the History section has a sentence that appears to contradict the first sentence of the second paragraph. The fourth sentence of the first paragraph states "In 1968, it was isolated for the first time from humans in Nigeria.[22]". The first sentence of the second paragraph states "In Nigeria in 1954, the virus was isolated from a human for the first time." I would suggest removing the sentence from the first paragraph or at least remove the phrase "for the first time". A reference should be given for the statement of the 2nd paragraph, and I would suggest: Please see for the full article. IowaToMaine (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

IowaToMaine (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: I am rather confused on a few things, and perhaps it is just an issue of jargon. In the wiki article, ref #22 says "ZIKV was isolated from humans in Nigeria during studies conducted in 1968 and during 1971–1975". However, it does not specify that this was the first time it was isolated in humans. In ref #42, it says "first official case in a human being was registered in Nigeria in 1954". Again this does not appear to be the same thing as "first isolated". The references you give are actually linked in ref #42 but that one says "This virus was known by serological surveys to infect man (sic) in Uganda and Nigeria (DICK, 1952; MACNAMARA, 1952) ...". Perhaps we should change the wording to "the first recorded case" or something? Pinging who I know is very familiar with medical articles, wording, and sources for an opinion on the matter.   Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 00:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey, IowaToMaine and EvergreenFir, I did some editing / expanding to clarify what you correctly pointed out as confusing, thanks. let me know if you still have any concerns.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like we are good :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 15:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Separating disease and virus content
This article is of course about the virus while the article on Zika fever is about the disease. I guess the question is how should we separate the content?

We have Dengue fever and Dengue virus as an example. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * , It is always a walk on the edge. Plus it isnt fully in a small group of editors control. I ve been watching teh article and saw what you did recently the cuts, understand where you are coming from of course. we just need to do periodic trimming. There cant be a COMPLETE division. I am an ID doc and let me tell you no micro book omitts to tell a bit about the disease and no ID book omitts to tell about the underlying etiology, so. Just relax a bit. it seems fine. its a dynamic process.


 * we have the redirects for the main article, it s clear for the serious/ regular/ expert editors where stuff goes, the others, drive-by, spur of teh moment enthusiasts may add stuff that might not belong here, but...., you know the other article was in shitty shape for a while and this one was good and cut pasted over there later.
 * Vaccine and epi in humans is a clinical issue, yet it has a chapter here. teratogenicity is esp difficult to decide, although clinical there are likely pretty interesting virus-host interactions as with CMV, hearing damage, that better fits on this page. so time will work this out ( you should ping people you ask /editors you have in mind )--Wuerzele (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree there needs to be a balance. Excess duplication of content increases the amount of content needing to be maintained. Not saying I have the answer.
 * Who else should I be pinging?
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * you pinged NOBODY.
 * dont you address your coworkers by name? (I lead by example and ping people I have in mind, in the sections I edit, if I want to be heard and get through to them) --Wuerzele (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Aedes albopictus
The Aedes albopictus article is BADLY outdated, and it's important because this is the mosquito that spreads Zika. Are there any experts in the field who can give that article some urgently-needed updating? CometEncke (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks for the pointer. I was the one that added the (!) primary studies = not considered WP: MEDRS :-) on Aedes albopictus and Zika, because I find it a compelling piece that hasnt been carved out by popular media. there isnt much evidence (.yet ). I am not a mosquito expert, but ill look at teh page, when I get a chance. Whats your expertise?--Wuerzele (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My expertise is zero. I just went to the page to see if the mosquitoes were in my area yet. I noticed the map said it was from 2007, so no help. But anyone who didn't notice the date on the map would end up believing wrong info. CometEncke (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * CometEncke, yeah it's changed quite a bit. where do you live ? if you live in teh southern US, Meso and S- America its there. If you live in the mediterranean, its there. If you live in Africa, its there, if you live in Australia its there and so on. it's a very successful one ....
 * BUT: unless you are actively pursuing to reproduce, I think you should chill about Zika though . Chikungunya is WAYY worse, leave alone Dengue upon repeat exposure. the people who live with these diseases and no vaccines know, and this global threat thing must sound ironic to them. It is only because of teh suspected link to microcephaly, which is a biggie of course (and yet, microcephaly and or hearingloss happens with CMV every single day, which gets zero press). that s it from my perspective.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The Irish have Zika now?
"Cases four and five are of Irish nationals who returned to Ireland from Dallas in February 2016" ... Just wondering, are these Irish, or Africans who happen to be licing in Ireland currently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C4:0:169C:51FE:4CEC:C890:D8AC (talk) 06:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is the report you're talking about, the Irish didn't come from Dallas, they came from countries where the virus is indigenous. Imported cases, not authochonous. juanTamad (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Useful sources
The Lancet has a resource center about Zika that is useful and generally WP:MEDRS compliant. SageRad (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sagewhy dont you just add it to ext links or further reading?--Wuerzele (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I posted it as useful sources for the article if you or anyone wants to use it. Another useful source i found is below, which i've integrated into the article briefly. SageRad (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This WHO report of February 5, 2016 is useful and meets WP:MEDRS. I've included a short quote from it in the article. However, it is short and worth reading in full. SageRad (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Deaths from neurological illness caused by Zika virus
This article today became outdated on a significant issue, namely that adults have now died from neurological illness linked to the virus. Due to the importance of interest in this article, it is recommended that updating it should be looked into extremely urgently. 41.56.41.66 (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This has been noted on the Zika fever article. Note that death from the Zika virus and death from neurological syndromes related to the virus are not the same thing. Alcherin (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Zika virus outbreak timeline
I have just started Zika virus outbreak timeline à la the 2009 flu pandemic timeline. There is a lot of information to parse, so I've kept it simple and began with a single entry: the 2007 Yap Islands Zika virus outbreak. We can readily go back to discovery of the virus itself in 1947, and forwards to the current PHEIC. kencf0618 (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)kencf0618 (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

2013-2014 Zika fever outbreaks in Oceania
A draft has been started on the outbreaks in the Pacific Ocean islands that preceded the outbreak in the Americas here: 2013-2014 Zika fever outbreaks in Oceania. Please do not remove this notice without explanation. juanTamad (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Transmission of Zika in blood
Quote from page three of this document: "ZIKV transfusion-derived transmission is theoretically possible as 3% of asymptomatic blood donors (42/1 505) were found positive for ZIKV by PCR during the ZIKV outbreak in French Polynesia, from November 2013 to February 2014." As I am not an expert on medical matters, is this sufficient for mention in the article? Alcherin (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Dawnbandit (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC) I've heard that Canada is barring blood donations from people who have visited Zika affected countries for 21 days.

Causal link to microcephaly not yet conclusive
According to Scientific American and the New York Times within the last two days, a causal link has not been definitively established. The article should reflect this and not make it seem conclusive when it's not. Therefore, i made this edit to include this in the section.

The New York Times source (29 January 2016) says:

The Scientific American source (28 January 2016) is titled What Would It Take to Prove the Zika–Microcephaly Link, and is subtitled Public health officials are not yet ready to say the connection is causal and says:

Please discuss. SageRad (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We cannot use popular press sources to say Zika is causally linked to microcephaly or that it's not linked. There are no WP:MEDRS sources which go beyond saying a possible link has been suspected at this point. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. The main thing i was concerned about is that the article should not suggest that there is a link established, when there has not been such a causal link established yet. I just added this content quoting the U.S. CDC, which i believe is WP:MEDRS compliant. The main thing i am concerned about is that this article does not state anything false. SageRad (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the CDC quote added by SageRed is perfect for now. Let's try to hold it there against the continuing media frenzy.McortNGHH (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Agree with BoboMeowCat, SageRad- the possible link has been the status quo in the article since the topic first came up and since I started editing this page.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Wuerzele. The content has changed significantly, but the meaning has remained that there is not yet a causal link established, which must remain the sense of the content until or if there is such a causal link established. We cannot allow Wikipedia to overstate anything that is not verifiable with reliable sources, unlike some of the mainstream media. SageRad (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Link between "zika" and microcephaly has been established as of yesterday and findings of a study published in the new england journal of medicine !!! http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1600651 (07:52 gmt+1 12. february 2016) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.123.42 (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it is still not conclusive. You misrepresent that source, IP user, and it's also not asking the epidemiological question we're discussing here. That is a case study. Not conclusive. SageRad (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that according to the WHO there is still no proven causal link from Zika virus to microcephaly and the article cannot state that or imply that there is. SageRad (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Zika Virus Map.Net tracks Zika
ZIKA VIRUS MAP.NET

A new website has been launched to help people track Zika Virus

http://www.zikavirusmap.net/


 * IP user link creates popup and plays audio. Removing auto link per Help:Links Kyle(talk) 05:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Sexual transmission
I've just made the language a bit less confident. 

There's also this 2015 case study that found Zika virus in a patient's sperm. I think we say enough about the sexual transmission risk for now, given the very thin evidence base. I'd like to know who these "public health officials" are that Scientific American reports to be advising the use of condoms. ... OK, it's Zachary Thompson, director of Dallas County Health, the government department that reported this month's case: “Next to abstinence, condoms are the best prevention method against any sexually-transmitted infections.”     Should we be repeating that advice this early? ... Probably not. I've deleted it for now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the above, the CDC has issued interim guidelines regarding sexual transmission, and then issued a media statement to reinforce them . Seems ready to include here.  Also, is included on the outbreak page. Thoughts? Chris vLS (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops, take that back, the guidance is cited but not discussed in the outbreak page. Chris vLS (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And . . . now it is. Chris vLS (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Zika virus
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Zika virus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "The emergence of zika virus": From Zika virus outbreak (2015–present):  From Zika fever:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ The reference in question was missing a vertical bar. Alcherin (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I am apparently not good at this. Counterintuitively, I am worse when copying someone else's model. I tried to get it right, did multiple previews, sorry it still needed your attention. Appreciate the help. Chris vLS (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Causal link has not been established
The lede was too strongly implying that there is a known causal link from Zika virus to microcephaly, so i made this edit to clarify, using CDC as a source. The link is truly not known to be causal yet so implying that is not right for the article. The New York Times as of 12 February update concurs, as well, though they're not really MEDRS so i sourced to CDC. We need to watch that the article doesn't misrepresent what is known. SageRad (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a note that the recent MMWR improves our understanding for causal links. The Roosecelis Brasil Martines paper is now a gold standard for others to validate the impact of Zika virus (now found) in the brain tissue of newborns. Although now supported, I agree this information is clouded by Recentism and needs time to better pass the ten-year test. Kyle(talk) 03:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Since microcephaly has only been found in Brazil, it seems there is a strong case for some other factor. What about the alternative hypothesis that microcephaly has been caused by exposure to pesticides in Brazil. Certainly, all the info is not there yet. Also, there is a lot of minor detail about sexual transmittal in US cases, but there are many others. This is biased towards the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushilover2000 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect attribution of paper findings + correction of years in the subtitles of History
Zika virus had been known to infect humans from the results of serological surveys in Uganda and Nigeria. A serosurvey of 84 people of all ages showed 50 had antibodies, with all above 40 years of age being immune.[66]

The referenced Dick G. W. paper (66) has nothing to do with human serological findings. It's actually the previously mentioned 1947 virus isolation in Rhesus monkeys, the results of which were published in 1952. Thus the first evidence of human infection should be 1954 which is the paper located here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0035920354900061 It is again mis-referenced a few sentences later

Infection was proven by a rise in Zika virus specific serum antibodies.[66]

MusubiSpam (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * While the MacNamara 1954 reference is primary and therefore not suitable for establishing primacy, this report from Emerging Infectious Diseases seems relevant and perhaps sufficiently reliable for this purpose. &mdash; soupvector (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Some sources (like the Etymologia:EID ref I cited immediately above) cite MacNamara 1954 (and it's an excellent report), the Hayes review (cited currently as #36) in our article is excellent and does point to the GW Dick 1952 report (and contrary to your assertion above the latter report did include human serology). While the human serology in Dick is not as rigorous as the work in the MacNamara 1954 report, we must follow reliable sources. &mdash; soupvector (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Student edits
I added the statistical estimate of how many Brazilians had been infected with the virus since the outbreak in Brazil because there was no statistic of how many Brazilians had sought it. This is important considering the outbreak began in Brazil. Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-zika-brazil-idUSKCN0VR2P8 Marykatherineloos (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Marykatherineloos

I added information about how the United States and Brazil are working towards grasping the Zika outbreak. This is important to show that 1) the United States and Brazil are working together on this outbreak, and 2) the Brazilian government is being proactive about it. Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-zika-brazil-idUSKCN0VR2P8 Marykatherineloos (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Marykatherineloos


 * Hello there Marykatherineloos, and welcome to Wikipedia. I would like to note that sections with a main article linked above them are generally written according Summary style, providing a condensed summary of the contents of the main article. As such, while new content being added to these summary sections is ok, specific details that are not necessary to provide an overview of the topic are better added to the main article rather than the summary section (see also WP:SYNC). In this case, the main article is Zika virus outbreak (2015–present). I've kept the estimate of Brazilian Zika cases, but removed the part on the vaccine and test kits. Alcherin (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Pathogenesis
It possibly enters the body and passes on to the blood stream. It thereafter follows dendritic cells and invades the regional lymph nodes. It multiplies in the lymph node and the characteristic feature of ZikV is that it divides in the nucleus of the cells as compared to other viruses of Flaviviridae which divides in the cytoplasm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.238.251 (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

AJPH journal special section on Zika in April 2016
Includes History, Epidemiology, and Clinical Manifestations of Zika: A Systematic Review. Useful material, probably. juanTamad (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Another potentially useful source: OUP Special Collection on Zika, free through May. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

PLOS ONE], too.

Video gets some of the virology wrong
The video linked from the Virology section indicates (at ~3:45) that virions are released when the infected cell dies. It's not clear where that notion comes from, but it sounds like the author of the video's script may have (inappropriately) recalled non-enveloped viruses that are obligatorily lytic. The Flaviviridae (which includes zika virus) are enveloped so lysis would not generally enhance release (because they need to be coated in membrane from the host cell); instead, they are assembled in the endoplasmic reticulum and exit the cell via the exocytic pathway. I don't see much sense in commenting on the video on Commons because no one would see this comment there. It's unfortunate that we have no more convenient way to assess and improve these videos, which are a great resource (when accurate). &mdash; soupvector (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , I think or WikiProject Medicine would be able to route your feedback to the people behind the video.— Gorthian (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for picking this up. Will forward it to Rishi and crew. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks for bringing this up. Feel free to flag me directly for all video issues going forward. We have a WikiProject Medicine page where we post scripts for all of our upcoming videos. Please feel free to leave feedback on the scripts there! Now to your point. This is where we got our information from:


 * The Phosphatidylserine and Phosphatidylethanolamine Receptor CD300a Binds Dengue Virus and Enhances Infection J. Virol. January 2016 90:1 92-102


 * Thoughts?OsmoseIt (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My first thought is that it's truly fantastic that you can so readily identify a source for your video content - exactly what this encyclopedia is about! That said, you should understand our sourcing rules for WPMED-related content, particularly that primary sources (like the one you cite) are discouraged; even moreso, a claim that the authors themselves explicitly describe as speculative. Regarding your comments on where to discuss, I've found the Osmosis video scripts page somewhat frustrating: (i) I made a couple of suggestions almost a month ago that received no response; (ii) I've made similar suggestions at WTMED, also without a response from the Osmosis video team; (iii) links to scripts (and hence access to the comments I and others have made) disappear from that page - with no archive but the page history. So, I think topic-specific pages like this may be the best place to discuss the videos (and will have more interested readers). I think you all are doing great work on these videos - they're educational and very professional - but they are not being developed in a manner that is well-aligned with WPMED, IMHO, for the reasons I've (repeatedly) stated. &mdash; soupvector (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes agree we need to work on process for their creation some. I have created an archive here
 * With respect to secondary sources supporting content User:soupvector do you have a source in mind that supports your statement above? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm making no claim that I would suggest entering into the WP - just pointing out that the video contains a claim without a MEDRS. What the video claims might be true of Zika, but for now we lack a MEDRS. &mdash; soupvector (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks
 * I have taken the liberty to improve the layout of WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis for Wikipedians to provide feedback. Let me know what you think Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I have felt pretty much alone in commenting previously; I hope this new format encourages others to join in. &mdash; soupvector (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay found a better ref

"Zika infection of the recipient host requires viral envelope protein binding and particle uptake into susceptible cells, is mediated by specific receptors which include DC-SIGN, AXL, Tyro3, and TIM-1, and triggers transcriptional activation of Toll-like receptor 3 (TLR3), RIG-I, MDA5, interferon stimulated genes including OAS2, ISG15, and MX1, and beta interferon [103]. Primarily infected cells include skin fibroblasts, epidermal keratinocytes, and skin dendritic cells. Immature dendritic cells appear to be an important initial Zika target. Reasoning by analogy to dengue infection, it is likely that primary Zika infection triggers apoptosis of infected cells, thereby evading aspects of innate immune responses and increasing initial release of infectious viral particles"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26934531 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, User:Doc James. You are suggesting a WP:primary source ??? ehem, you actually inserted it ! plus all umpteen authors. --Wuerzele (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a review article or do you mean the video? Pictures on Wikipedia are primary sources. It is just for references of text that review articles are required. The videos should also be based on reviews.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Concerns
Can you address the concerns I have raised here. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Doc James thanks for alerting me. why not pinging me on Talk:Zika virus, where you raised your concerns? I will paste this to the Talk:Zika_virus.--Wuerzele (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I read your above "mass of references" paragraph, which you massively blew up with subsections, messy-incomplete-gibberish-sentences and carelessly pasted refs-all-over. User:Doc James, administrator, is this a joke?
 * The order is discuss, not shooting again (re-revert) as you ve done here and here, twice in 24 h, to editwar your version in,and then demanding discussion with the barrel of the gun pointed to someone's chest! Cant you see it's fait accomplis- or since you are in toronto not quebec, that teh issue is moot? Or is this WP:BAIT to make me revert you ? Naah. You restore to the status quo if you want me to respond. But then we discuss this civilly, and in a concise, organized fashion.
 * I'd appreciate you correct your above gibberish: "It appears one the text these three refs..." and clean up after yourself by formatting the refs that you carelessly copied here, which are migrating along.
 * lastly, before you demand any responses in an obscure fashion on personal talk page, instead of the content page, you should at least FIRST respond to the points an editor has brought up in an edit summary, why your edit was judged as no improvement. Again you got teh order wrong.: You mowed over other editors observations nuking edits, demanding attention to your editwar version. This is unacceptable behavior. (you obviously didnt see the light. it may be best not to edit, when you produce gibberish-sentences, are sleep deprived/on vacation, as your talk page currently says.) --Wuerzele (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * New changes require discussion if they do not appear to be supported. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you choose to ignore my replies here and those on my talk page. instead you chose to distract holding up a standard, demanding "discussion of changes that do not appear to be supported" after ignoring exactly that here?
 * i've shown good faith. I will not reply talk to someone who routinely doesnt reply when I bring up concerns, who nukes edits/editwars, fakes a discussion by talking to the hand, and uses double standards.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There are detailed responses in the section above, that you haven't responded to, W.  The torrent of abuse in this section is not a response to the content.  Please discuss content.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)