Talk:Rabies

Adding Aerophobia symptom and add risk factors

I am going to put "extreme aversion to air" since Rabies can cause any infected humans to fear air since if they feel air drafts, it causes spasms on them. You can learn in this reference here: Also I will add all risk factors such as bites or scratch from infected animal, saliva contact on broken skin and mucus membranes. Thank you. Ryansean071 (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

References

Easy fix for unintentionally-misleading sentence

"… Jenna Giese… the first human known to have survived rabies without receiving post-exposure prophylaxis [PEP] before symptom onset.", under After onset, can easily be misunderstood as "… Jenna Giese… the first human known to have survived asymptomatic rabies without getting PEP".

This is troublesome, since it would directly contradict the lede: "Once symptoms appear, the result is virtually always death.", and "…the findings of the research suggest previously undocumented cases of infection and viral replication followed by an abortive infection.". (Or to summarize: Symptomatic rabies is virtually always fatal, but there are documented cases of people with rabies antibodies despite not having been vaccinated i.e. PEP.)

Proposed edit: from "… Jenna Giese… the first human known to have survived rabies without receiving post-exposure prophylaxis before symptom onset."

to "… Jenna Giese… the first human known to have survived symptomatic rabies without receiving post-exposure prophylaxis."

or "… Jenna Giese… the first human known to have survived rabies after developing symptoms (without receiving post-exposure prophylaxis)."

Also, if it helps, https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Health/story?id=411720&page=1 is an additional source confirming that she developed symptomatic rabies before the Milwaukee protocol was started. I went searching before checking the sources for the sentence—but after I found my own, I checked and saw that at least the first source also confirms she developed severe symptoms before the Milwaukee protocol was started. 50.210.38.173 (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

While closing up the tabs I had opened while documenting the above, I belatedly realized: Somehow I missed noticing a typo in the article. As documented in the sources, her name is actually Jeanna Giese (not Jenna Giese). I guess that's what I get for being laser-focused on the fact she developed symptomatic rabies, not asymptomatic. (^_^)˚

So the proposed edits should be to "… Jeanna Giese… the first human known to have survived symptomatic rabies without receiving post-exposure prophylaxis."

or "… Jeanna Giese… the first human known to have survived rabies after developing symptoms (without receiving post-exposure prophylaxis)."50.210.38.173 (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Added (del) formatting to strike through " in the article" above, to correct my misperception that I had faithfully copypasted the article without changes. Not sure how, but I introduced the error myself. 50.210.38.173 (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Postscript: I'll keep checking back on this, if there are any questions. Also, please note that this isn't a case of "Someone else do the work for me", it's a case of being unable because the article is protected — and the work involved would only be for an editor to copypaste one of the two suggested fixes. ~2025-36575-27 (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I will just note the following - the lede says:

"Once symptoms appear, the result is virtually always death."

but it does not say:

"Once symptoms appear, the result is always death."

The former allows that there may be those who haven't died after symptoms appear, while the latter doesn't.

I'm not well-versed enough in these details to make a decision on what verbiage is appropriate or needs to be changed. When I have time later I may look into it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you for echoing the quote I also referred to. To clear up any possible uncertainty, I'm not objecting to its wording at all (in fact, I think it supports my point).

The problem I perceive is that "… Jeanna Giese… the first human known to have survived rabies without receiving post-exposure prophylaxis [PEP] before symptom onset." (under After onset) can easily be misunderstood as "… Jeanna Giese… the first human known to have survived asymptomatic rabies without getting PEP". That is to say, it can be misread as asserting that no one ever survived rabies at all before she did. Which is incorrect, given that the lede correctly points out that cases have been documented of people who apparently survived abortive infections and developed antibodies despite not being vaccinated. (Not to mention, she most definitely did develop [severe] symptoms before being treated with the Milwaukee protocol.) ~2025-36575-27 (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Rare case of human-to-human transmission

This week a case report was released detailing how one patient, who died of rabies, had his kidney transplanted into another patient, who also died of rabies. As this is extremely rare (I believe only the 3rd documented case of rabies-by-transplant) should it be mentioned? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/74/wr/mm7439a1.htm EllieDellie (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Lead image change

I've gone ahead and changed the lead image from a man diagnosed with rabies to a magnified virion of a lyssavirus from later in the article. My reasoning for this as follows:

• There seems to be a precedent when referring to the name of an affliction to use a lead image of the pathogen as opposed to an individual purportedly suffering from the disease that a layman would not be able to readily identify, such as in smallpox.
• Examples of this: yellow fever, plague (disease), influenza, and H1N1.

FMRadio :3_{(chat | edits | she/her)} 15:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Rabies is a virus that is commonly known about so there is a large interest from a lay audience in it. It is also one that people have seen (at least in media or online) so are familiar with the appearance of symptoms. An actual virus image is rarely recognisable to the majority of non-specialised readers except for cases like coronavirus or maybe HIV. Yellow fever lacks any images on Commons of a person infected with it and influenza is too generic in the symptoms for an image of a person afflicted with it to be recognisable. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm with FMRadio (talk · contribs) here. As the top level photo, I think it should be relatively generic by showing an image of the virus. Photos of people afflicted and showing symptoms belong in the 'Signs and symptoms' section where they would be apropos. Remember that the article is about Rabies - Rabies the virus, rabies the disease (in both humans and animals), means of transmission, prevention, treatment, and more - it's not just about humans with symptoms.

As well, the current image is severely lacking in presenting...well, anything, besides a man in a hospital bed apparently in restraints - nearly seventy years ago. It doesn't meaningfully convey any information about the disease itself, or the symptoms. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:49, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2026

Please delete "Rabies causes about 59,000 deaths worldwide per year,[5] about 40% of which are in children under the age of 15.[19]" The sources 5 and 19 do not exist. Ponderissa (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: The links were dead, so I have added archives and tagged them as dead. You should be able to see the sources now through the Wayback Machine. jolielover♥talk 07:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

2022 prognosis graph typo

Reported deaths from rabies graph under prognosis tab shows graph with recurrence of reported cases valued at "100" twice. Ex. Countries with reported deaths 30-100, then shows countries with reported deaths 100-100, when it might actually be 50-100 instead, or 100 to 200. ~2026-47395-11 (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Contradiction

This article states that the virus has been around for 4,000 years but the article about the virus clearly contradicts that saying that the virus has existed for only 1,500 years. There has been apparently no effort to clear this up since 2012. Which is right? Both cannot be right. ~2026-46162-63 (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe it is contradictory.

The wording is: All extant rabies viruses appear to have evolved within the last 1,500 years. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

"Rabies has been known since around 2000 BC". That's what this article says. Two thousand BC, where BC=Before Christ, means 4000 years ago. You add 2000 years to anything that says BC. The other article says what you pasted here; the viruses evolved 1500 years ago. Four thousand does not equal 1500. Unless you're saying that rabies the disease was NOT caused by the rabies virus 4000 years ago it IS contradictory and confusing. Or are you saying that the history of the disease is a different time period from the history of the viruses? How could rabies as a disease be different from the evolution of the viruses? ~2026-46162-63 (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

It says extant viruses evolved, i.e. the virus from 2000 BC is now extinct. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Then you should say that in the articles. If you really think that it's clear it's b/c you're an editor who has lost touch w/ the readership you have. As it is, it is contradictory and it's confusing. It does not say that the "other virus" is extinct and you have to work it out on your own. I had to ask about it and that has proven to be like pulling teeth. You've been really obtuse and answered me, if not in monosyllables, w/ such brevity that I've had to talk to you more than once. And that has been mostly unhelpful and unpleasant. ~2026-46162-63 (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2026 (UTC)