User talk:Bfpage/List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens

Rationale for this Page
Note that this page is categorically different to (but complements) the List of infectious diseases page. These two pages cover entirely different subject matter:


 * The List of infectious diseases page contains the diseases that are definitively proven to be caused by pathogens.


 * This page lists pathogens that have been found associated with a disease; this page is the only resource on Wikipedia that provides a list of pathogens associated with diseases. The List of infectious diseases page does not and cannot provide this information (since obviously association does not imply causation).

More discussion on the fundamental difference between this page, and the List of infectious diseases pages can be found HERE. Drgao (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't AIDS included in this article/list?
AIDS is not included in this article/list, as AIDS is a disease with a known, proven and singular cause, namely the virus HIV. This article/list will generally only list diseases that satisfy the two conditions, that they are: (1) diseases currently unknown cause, and (2) diseases which have a number of known associated infections, that may conceivably play a causal role in the disease.

Diseases having proven microbial causes are generally not included in this article. So AIDS, a disease having a proven infectious cause, is not included in this article, but is to be found in the List of infectious diseases page.

The exception to this is when a disease already has one or more known causes (whether microbial or anything else), but is suspected of having additional microbial causes, then this disease will be included in this article/list.

For example, the disease vasculitis is included in this article/list, even though vasculitis has hepatitis C virus as a proven singular cause, because other viruses have been found associated with vasculitis (namely HIV, parvovirus B19 and hepatitis B virus), and these viruses may possibly be proven, in future, to also singularly cause vasculitis.

In addition, some diseases of a proven infectious cause are included in this article, as this is useful to the reader, for comparison and reference purposes (but it is always clearly indicated in the text that these diseases are proven cases). Drgao (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In other words, this list is rampant and unverified speculation on the possible causes of diseases. I'd be far more comfortable if it never used the word "associated."  It reads as a conclusive suggestion of a link, and in most of these cases a link is highly unlikely.  The list is horrifyingly misleading, because it uses a term with a specific definition (associated) that also has a more common, far less rigorous definition.  Even if it's compliant with the policy checklist, it's extremely bad writing because it is so easily misunderstood.  SDY (talk) 05:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I very much take your point that the word "associated", which has become a kind of technical term in medical science, might be horrifyingly misleading, because it also has a more common, far less rigorous definition. Thanks for pointing that out. I am so used to viewing that word in its statistical technical sense, that I overlooked the possibility of the layman misunderstanding it. I will address this point, and try to eliminate any potential for misunderstanding.


 * How are you judging that in "most of these cases a link is highly unlikely"? In some cases, it could be that nearly all the pathogens associated with disease may play causal roles, even singularly casual roles. In other cases, it may be that all of the associated pathogens are completely spurious. But the article cannot prejudge. In any case, the article's subject matter is in the medical research area, not the clinal practice area. Research is more speculative, by nature.


 * My general policy for inclusion of pathogens in the article was seeing a PubMed history of several decades of studies on that pathogen-disease connection. So although I only usually included one reference in the article, I did make sure that there were other supporting studies.


 * Sometimes you would see several studies on PubMed saying "no evidence for the involvement of pathogen X in the disease", and in these cases I would generally not include the pathogen in the article.


 * Sometimes you would see that there was an interest in a pathogen-disease connection in say the 1970's, but then interest stopped after that decade, and no more recent studies were found. In these cases, would generally not include that pathogen-disease link in the article. But when I would see studies from the 1970's continuing to the present on a pathogen-disease connection, then I would ascribe weight to this, and include it.


 * The exception to this policy is in the case of very new pathogen-disease link studies, that have not been studied previously. Though the weigh of evidence is slim and controversial, I have included them sometimes, due to their being "hot leads". Science is a kind of detective work, so exciting new developments are a useful addition to the article.


 * This article is likely to remain contentious, simply because of the polarization of opinion regarding the involvement of microorganisms in disease etiology. I actually think that if pathogens are major causes of many diseases, this is extremely good news: because in 50 years time, when there are much better antibiotics, antivirals and vaccines, it may mean that a lot of today's intractable diseases are abolished or become highly treatable. Drgao (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia really hasn't made a habit of publishing speculative material, especially on medical topics. "It could be true" is not the level of verification we're looking for.  All we can say is "these happen to be common comorbidities" and in some cases the sources don't even really support that.  SDY (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:DUE
The presentation of material in this article has WP:DUE issues IMO. The other potential causes also need to be discussed. Most of these are currently just hypothesis awaiting further evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It was not intended to present a one-sided view. I guess it appears one-sided because the article's focus is infectious pathogens; but it was not intended to convey the idea that infectious pathogens are the only potential cause of disease.


 * At one stage I was considering including toxin associations of diseases (like organophosphates and Parkinson's for example) as well as the microbial associations, and calling the article something like List of human diseases associated with toxins and infectious microbes. It is easy enough to also include toxin associations in the current article; though it might make the article a little complex.


 * The Cancer bacteria article lists bacteria that are known or suspected to cause cancer, but only focuses on bacteria, not on other causes.


 * However, I will alter the intro text to the article and explain that microbes are only one of several potential causes of disease, and that other potential causes under research include: toxins, radiation, dietary and lifestyle factors, stress, genetics, epigenetics, congenital disorders; I can't think of any others at the moment. Drgao (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

New title for this page?
One possibility is renaming this article as:


 * List of human diseases with microbial associations

This title seems to make it much clearer that the listed disease-microbe associations are, at present, no more than co-occurrences. It's a snappier title also. Drgao (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Introductory text changes to reflect various concerns, criticisms and suggestions
The introductory text of the article has just been rewritten to an extent to implement changes that reflect the various concerns, criticisms and suggestions raised here and on the AfD page of the article. These changes to the text include:


 * The article is now much more clearly described as: a list of diseases with possible (but unconfirmed) infectious etiologies - as per Axl's suggestion.
 * Removed the unnecessary stipulation of the diseases being of "unknown etiology" - as per Axl's concern.
 * Included the statement that there are other potential causes of disease (toxin exposure, radiation exposure, dietary and lifestyle factors, stress, genetics, and epigenetics) - as per Doc James's suggestion.
 * Added text to make it very clear that the terms linked and associated are used in a strict technical sense (meaning a frequent co-occurence of certain pathogens in certain diseases, and not be read that linked and associated imply that there is a causal relationship between pathogen and disease), as per SDY's concern.
 * Removed some of the "hype" that potentially unbalances the articles neutrality, as per SDY's concern. Drgao (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"is associated with"
I have some problems with the wording of parts of the diseases listed. Several psychatric conditions have been linked to Lyme disease with this review article, and are worded as X "is associated with" Y. This is misleading. Fact is, many complex diseases may have a variety of neuropsychiatric associations but that on the whole, these are pretty rare. The wording gives an impression that the link is stronger than what it is in the literature (and practice). Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not entirely following your train of thought, Casliber, perhaps you could kindly clarify a little bit for me. The article is concerned with statistical associations between infectious microbes and various diseases. "Association", of course, is a technical term from statistics, and is defined in this article's introduction.


 * This article is not about disease comorbidities, which are defined as statistical associations between diseases. So when you say above that "many complex diseases may have a variety of neuropsychiatric associations", you are talking about disease comorbidities (statistical associations between complex diseases and neuropsychiatric diseases). Comorbidity is a very interesting area, but not the subject of this article.


 * The Lyme disease review article in question mentions that "A broad range of psychiatric reactions have been associated with Lyme disease including paranoia, dementia, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, panic attacks, major depression, anorexia nervosa, and obsessive-compulsive disorder". As it stands, this is a statement regarding disease comorbidities. However, since it is known that the causative agent of Lyme disease is Borrelia species bacteria, then in this case, logic dictates that these mental disorders are directly associated with Borrelia bacteria, hence the inclusion in this article. Drgao (talk) 03:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Any reason that dementia is not listed under herpes simplex 1 in the cross reference section?
I noticed that in the Cross Reference section of this page, herpes simplex 1 is listed, with its associated diseases (Alzheimer's disease, Coronary heart disease, Metabolic syndrome). However, when reading the list of diseases associated with infectious pathogens, herpes simplex 1 can be found under dementia. Hence i guessed that dementia was omitted from the HSV1 listing in the cross reference section. Please feel free to delete my new section / comment under the talk page - i am not a wikipedia editor, i just wanted to draw an editor's attention to the possible missing entry. 58.96.109.237 (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.16.183 (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)