This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theChagas disease article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofBrazil andrelated topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil
This article is part ofWikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related toArgentina. If you would like to participate, you can improveChagas disease, orsign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on ourto do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine
For now, I have commented out the text but left it in the article;[1] if others feel there is no other way to paraphrase the text in our words, they can uncomment it, but it also needs some attention to wikilinking, jargon, etc.SandyGeorgia (Talk)22:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source:
Many patients present a pseudotumoral form (cerebral chagoma), characterized by the presence of single or multiple necrotic-hemorrhagic nodular lesions, usually located in the white matter of the cerebral lobes and, less frequently, in the brainstem and cerebellum
Text:
Many patients have the pseudotumoral form (brain ‘chagoma’), characterized by the presence of single or multiple necrotic-hemorrhagic nodular lesions, usually located in the white matter of the cerebral lobes and, in some cases, in the brain stem and cerebellum.
Source:
The classic manifestations are those of acute meningoencephalitis, with fever, headache, meningism, convulsions, altered mental state, vomiting, and focal neurological deficits.
Text:
The clinical manifestations of CNS involvement in reactivated Chagas disease are characterized by fever, headache, vomiting, seizures, and focal neurological signs.
Source:
Since the 1980s, with the beginning of the use of immunosuppressants and of organ transplants, as well as with the emergence of HIV, clinical conditions appeared for the reactivation of the pre-existing chronic infection caused by T. cruzi, with severe repercussions, especially in the CNS.
Text:
The use of corticosteroids, immunosuppressors and cytostatic agents, the progress in organ transplantation, and in particular the emergence of AIDS in 1981 have set conditions for infection reactivation in chronic chagasic patients.
Yes, I believe they're new here and the author of the textbook chapter, so I assume the very close paraphrasing is inadvertent (though still a problem of course). I've left a message at their talk page. I'll get a chance to work on this article again in the next few days, and will try to add some info on HIV+ Chagas reactivation (if someone doesn't beat me to it). Thanks for checking that. Sorry for the slow pace here!Ajpolino (talk)22:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you all get to this, please remember that this text is still in the article, but hidden by commenting it out with inline comments.SandyGeorgia (Talk)10:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Linkedtriatomine bug and changed to singular rather than plural. Also added the common name "kissing bug" in brackets as that will be far more recognizable.
I'm not sure whether my thoughts are in the right place here!Instead of '… %-age of people …' I would rather choose '… of cases or infected people …'.Thanks for letting me share.Lodidol (talk)12:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HiLodidol, your thoughts are welcome here. Pardon my thickness, but could you please quote the text you'd like changed? I'm not sure I understand your suggestion. Thanks!Ajpolino (talk)19:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AjpolinoSorry for my late reply!(I think I could use quite some help to cope with technical issues pertaining Wikipedia in general!) I just screened the article on Chagas for '%' and could not find anything ambiguous in the wording!Maybe I was wrong altogether with my original suggestion!Please forgive me.Lodidol (talk)14:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... That's what our article says too...T. cruzi replicates in the insect's intestinal tract and is shed in the bug's feces. When an infected triatomine feeds, it pierces the skin and takes in a blood meal, defecating at the same time to make room for the new meal. The bite is typically painless, but causes itching. Scratching at the bite introduces the T. cruzi-laden feces into the bite wound, initiating infection.Ajpolino (talk)05:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This report ignores evidence that runs counter to some of the claims, according to a UCSF researcher, Jeff Whitman, who is also examining this issue. He points to several sources, some of which do pass theWP:MEDRS test: "What they fail to acknowledge is a near-absence of human cases. Documentation of known autochthonous cases has already been recently compiled and is exceedingly low given the high infection rate of vectors (often >80%) in the US: (See table 8here). Blood banking has been the least biased source for identifying autochthonous cases, and the numbers have been exceedingly low overall. However, I think the program was successful in a zero-risk scenario and justifies the policy for one time screening (~2,400 confirmed cases identified over 12 years); seehere One common rebuttal is that blood donors are generally healthier and wealthier than other populations and we are only seeing the "tip of the iceberg." However, they ignore studies of domestic screening with largely negative findings, e.g., screening of Texas hunters: seehere: "A total of 885 study participants were interviewed and tested forT. cruzi infection; 18 screened positive on a rapid, point-of-care test; however,none were found positive through confirmatory testing. We did find a high prevalence of reported direct contact with wildlife blood as well as triatomine and other arthropod disease vectors." Also "hot off the press", screening at a TX military base: seehere: "Of 89,459 blood donors during the study period, 49 (.055%) screened reactive forT. cruzi antibodies on initial blood donation... Of the eight who had repeat screening testing ordered in the weeks after their original reactive screen, only one (13%) had a repeat reactive screening test, but negative confirmatory serologies. While reactiveT. cruzi screening occurred in this cohort,there were no cases of Chagas disease." The zoonotic work is quite interesting, seehere. But I think the endemic call is a bit overstated and lacking novel evidence for this claim. However, I would be in support of more local screening studies focused on individuals with defined exposure to triatomines in peridomestic settings." The bottom line is that including the report about US endemism would beWP:UNDUE without at least citing some of the other studies showing that the empirical data do not support it. If they can screen 90,000 people in the highest-risk population in the US (Texas) and find no confirmed cases of Chagas Disease, that should have indicated greater caution in making claims that the disease is already endemic in Texas.Dyanega (talk)22:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I left this alone because the reply satisfied me. Then, I realized the report is spreading when I sawCBS News' article yesterday on this. In light of that, then, presenting the whole picture in the article would be helpful to our readers. @Dyanega, did you want to give it a shot? If not, I can find some time this weekend to see what I can do.Rotideypoc41352public (talk)21:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added a mention in the lead and body. A larger section on the US is probably warranted. I was debating whether to use the term autochthonous and chose not to.ScienceFlyer (talk)10:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is ratedFA-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
