Talk:Gonorrhea/Archive 1

Archive 1

J

Jesus Christ, I didn't expect to see a gigantic wang when I clicked on this link. Not a big fan of the vagina either. Anyone for deletion? --Kellywatchthestars

I was a bit startled as well. I moved the pictures down to the symptoms section, so at least it won't be the first thing people see when they load the article. 04:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's right on the front again. Somebody delete it please!--Kellywatchthestars

I agree delete that.. eeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.--yeahokno yes

Removed reference to Dr. Stringham from main text since this seems inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry. If you are Dr. Stringham or the person who added this line, feel free to include a link to his webpage in the external links section. (Btw, I couldn't even find him/his email through a quick google search). --R0 17:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Does gonorrhea survive in the rectum?

so, uh, a medical student just told me that gonorrhea didn't thrive in the rectum. WHY, WIKIPEDIA, WHY WOULD YOU LIE ABOUT SUCH A THING?

yes, medical students do know everything.--Hugh7 07:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Gonorrhoea thrives very happily in the rectum, and is a plague in men who have sex with men. It is also more tricky to treat: penicillin doesn't work there because commensal bacteria in the rectum produce β-lactamase that protects the gonococcus from penicillin. Theoretically also a problem if the gut bacteria are ESBL-producing.--Gak 12:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The original version of this article was taken from the public domain resource at http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdgon.htm prepared by the Office of Communications and Public Liaison of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892

In current usage, the prefered spelling is everywhere gonorrhea; gonorrhoea is archaic. This should be changed.

it's still in use here in the English-speaking world. --Hugh7 07:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Gonorrhea is the preferred spelling only in America. --Gak 12:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've heard another etymology for 'the clap' being that if it caused obstruction in the penis, a man would clap his hands on it quickly to 'pop' it, causing great pain but temporary relief.

Not being a doc or in any medicine related field, and recalling that this is an encyclopedia, open to everyone (with internet access, anyway), from layman to doctor of medicine alike, what falls under the category of "discharge" for males? Both urine and semen? Something seperate (i.e. pus) that would be "discharged" at the same time as either urine or semen?

After looking it up the Wiktionary says: “(medicine) (uncountable) pus or exudate (other than blood) from a wound or orifice, usually due to infection or pathology.” So technically all of the above could be considered discharge.

Assuming you're urinating because of infection or pathology... 142.177.121.78 06:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There aren't really any symptoms listed here, just complications (and diagnosis and treatment). So the Symptoms heading is misleading or needs to be filled in. Rainman420 20:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It incorrectly states that the discharge is referred to as "leet." The correct term is gleet.

Llamas?

HiV/AIDS is understood to have originated in chimps. Where did Gonorrhea come from? I hear through the grape vine that it was llamas, but I can't find any credible sources to back this up. Harkenbane 01:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Harkenbane HIV didnt come from chimps because its called HUMAN immunodeficiency virus and they dont know ehre it came from but ask someone else about the llama thing but i doubt it.

No, this is correct. HIV comes from chimps. References for this fact are on the HIV page. I have no information about gonorrhoea coming from llamas and it sounds a little dubious to me.--Gak 13:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be impossible. Gonorrhea existed in Europe before Columbus, and there were no llamas in the Old World before 1492. --Charlene 05:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There are two "varities" of HIV, HIV-1 and HIV-2. One of them evolved from SIV which infected chimps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.180.75.10 (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Treatment

The article talks about antibiotics as a way to treat the disease. Does this mean the disease is a permanent infection of the host whereby it cannot be cured through taking antibiotics? Chris00tt 19:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

U.K. Health Agency?

The article states "In 2000, 358,995 cases of gonorrhoea were reported to the U.K. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) . . ."

There is, however, no U.K. Health agency by this name. It is exactly the name of the main U.S. health agency.

So my guess is either U.K. should be changed to U.S., or the phrase "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention" should be changed to the appropriate U.K. agency. Googling, I find the only hit on this phrase is from Wikipedia; these rest make it clear the figure is about the U.S. Hence I have changed the "U.K." in the phrase to "U.S."Daqu13:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The UK equivalent is the Health Protection Agency.

In fact, I found the figure on the (U.S.) CDC's own website at: < http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats00/2000Gonorrhea.htm >. Since the next phrase was "the worst of which was a Jason Donaghy from Northern Ireland, [his treatment described here]", it is clear that a) a case from Northern Ireland would not be part of the U.S. statistics (all of the 358,995 cases mentioned were from the U.S.) and b) there is no justification for naming and thus violating the privacy of an individual.

So I left the description of "his case" in, but removed the name. My strong suspicion is that this case is entirely bogus and respresents vandalism, and should probably be omitted altogether. Evidence that it is bogus, besides the misattribution of "U.K." to the CDC: 0. it has no atribution; 1. it said (and still does) that he was treated "very late in the stage", which is medically meaningless, though evidently an attempt to mimic medical writing; 2. it named the patient, which would never be done normally; 3. it states that it "almost resulted in removal of the testicles", which has a very unclear meaning, if any; 4. it states that "it has been the worst reported case to date", which is ridiculous, since of more than 350,000 cases, how could anyone pick a "worst" ?.Daqu 14:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Daqu 14:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yikes. Are the graphic pictures really necessary? 60.227.137.148 08:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

All pictures in Wikipedia should be graphic. Text pictures are not nearly as good.--Hugh7 07:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Facetiousness aside, people come to Wikipedia for information. One thing that people who look up gonorrhoea may want to know is what an infection looks like. Hence the pictures. If people don't want to see it, they shouldn't look up gonorrhoea. Furby100 19:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Warren Buffet

"Warren Buffett: Named after the American investor, the name is derived from the color of Mr. Buffett's hair." Which is what? Green? --Hugh7 07:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Images

Although the image of the penis and vagina with "G" are all very nice, well you know what I mean, I think a picture an infected mouth and anus would also be helpful, especially the former, since that is the most common place of infection. How can a request be put up for that? Qrc2006 22:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just leave that to people's imagination? I'm sure the two current pictures will give them enough of an idea... 80.5.205.239 10:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Name

This bit about "acute gonococcal perihepatitis" is really a nonsense. I propose deletion. --Gak 12:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The name is used in this medical description, and since it refers to an infection by gonococcae, it presumably refers to gonorrhoea. Furby100 19:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Perihepatitis" means inflammation of the tissue surrounding the liver. [1], [2] In the case described in the cited article, the inflammation was caused by an infection of neisseria gonorrhoeae, but that does not mean that "gonococcal perihepatitis" is the formal term for all gonococcal infections. I'm removing the incorrect text. MrRK 23:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Images were removed, putting them back

Wikipedia is not censored, so those pictures belong there to illustrate the effects of gonorrhoea. I am putting them back, please specify reasons for removal if you wish to remove them again. JONJONAUG 02:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Good for you. As a medical student I need to see images.

Could leaving a link to the pictures or using a drawing be a good compromise? I know I don't want to see a penis or vagina infected with gonorhea, but I am forced to look at the pictures if I wish to see the information beside them. 74.133.71.212 16:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Human only virus?

"Gonorrhoea spreads during sexual intercourse, whereby the infective partner does not need to be human" - according to Kumar and Clark's 'Clinical Medicine' (the medical student's bible), humans are the only host of the neisseria gonorrhoeae virus. 130.209.6.40

• Correct. But according to the report by Kleist and Moi, an inflatable sex doll has been first used by an infected man. The transmission of the disease happened only two hour later when another healthy man used the same doll again. El Suizo 16:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Would rewording the sentence make the meaning clearer? In its current form, it seems as if gonorrhea could be spread via sexual intercourse with animals. "..., including sexual intercourse with inflatable dolls." or a similar edit would clear things up. 74.133.71.212 16:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• ehrrr... virus?!??? I thought its bacteria... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.151.115.9 (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed to gonorrhea

as was the initial article and the next several major edits.

Moreover, the picture's caption reads "gonorrhea," so I feel justified in so changing for consistency, despite the fact that it stood at "gonorrhoea" after "gonorrhoea" was an empty redirect and it was railroaded to "gonorrhoea" and much of the original content changed to fit. 67.185.236.40 01:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Rampant Vandalism

I revised the page to a copy from April 3rd I believe, removing the sentence "If you have a penis, you have gonorrhea." and the altering of a sentence in the symptoms to "nmbnmbn" or some other gibberish. I don't believe I removed any newly added information. MDAmp 14:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[Side note: I must be incapable of signing in, cause I had to edit this 3 times now. Whoops.]

Drug-resistance

The CDC has advised doctors to prescribe a different class of antibiotics to treat this disease as it has become drug-resistant. News article | here. 124.43.209.48 05:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Naturally Clearing in some cases

I'm looking for a recent reference I saw to this effect: a person who is not treated for gonorrhea, may nevertheless clear the infection spontaneously. Do asymptomic infected women stay infected forever? What percentage of untreated people do not develop symptoms and eventually clear the infection on their own? In other words, we know gonorrhea infection presents some risk to the person, and for transmission to others, yet what is the risk in terms of probability for certain outcomes. I am railing against certain general aspects of contemporary commercially delivered western medicine, the embedded assumptions that suggest that only sane response is a conventional treatment. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Duality Rules (talk • contribs) 03:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC).Duality Rules 03:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay here is my reference. John Douglas, director of the CDC's Division of Sexually Transmitted Diseases Prevention, in this article: http://rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fhealth%2F2007-04-12-gonorrhea-antibiotic-treatment_N.htm%3Fcsp%3D34 , tell us: "Most infected women don't develop symptoms, and many clear gonorrhea with no treatment, Douglas said. However, a significant proportion of infected women develop pelvic inflammatory disease, which can lead to infertility. In rare cases in men, he said, gonorrhea can cause upper genital tract infections that can leave them sterile."

So the disease is not that fearsome, although there are some risks.Duality Rules 13:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Tolstoy

Used mercury to treat his gonorrhea. Worked but debilitated him. AllStarZ 22:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Gonorrhea treatment section must be updated.

With the ongoing data from CDC’s Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance project, including preliminary findings from year 2006 treatment option of fluoroquinolone shows an increasing resistant to the bacteria throughout in the United States. As reported in April 2007, this class of antibiotics is no longer recommended for the treatment of gorrohea, but instead the following treatment is recommended: Ceftiraxone 125 mg IM in a single dose or Cefixime 400mg orally in a single dose plus treatment for Chlamydia if Chlamydial infection is not ruled out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.44.196 (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does it change gonnorea to chlamidia halfway thru the article??

Why has this been done. They are two separate diseases. With different regimes of treatments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.172.4 (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Bacteria, not a virus

It says in the very first paragraph that gonorrhea is caused by bacteria. Why does it get refered to as a virus later on in the article? Also, immature and juvenile people should stop editing this article with facisous information just because its an article realate to sex (tee hee, gonorrhea = P). Its kind of pathetic that if someone needed acurate information on a disease, that they'd be misinformed by this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.108.66 (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Reference

Hello, can anybody confirm or deny "Private Practice (2007)- Mya's friend has chlamydia and tries to hide it." on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gonorrhea&diff=175438587&oldid=175438154 . Is this vandalism or is it a real reference ? rkmlai 15:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Disseminated GC and Reactive Arthritis

Someone needs to add this information to the article. It is a pretty big deal and appears to be completely absent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.17.231 (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Silver Nitrate in the eyes?

Could an experienced editor have a look at this? The last sentence of the opening: "Doctors have often attempted to treat this immediately by applying small amounts of silver nitrate or other antibiotic to the eyes of all newborn babies."

I thought the whole sentence seemed wrong, but I did outside research and found that it is (or WAS) a prevention method in the 19th C. But has mostly been abandoned today due to the risk of chemical conjunctivitis and decline in risk. See WHO bulletin: http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0042-96862001000300017&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=en 124.82.81.25 (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's not silver nitrate anymore, it's erythromycin. Every newborn in the US gets it at birth without question as the standard of care. The line currently reads erythromycin or silver nitrate, but I think the latter is very uncommon now due to the side effect profile. Chaldor (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Medline supports this statment. Silver nitrate is no longer commonly used as prophylaxis. Medline - Neonatal Conjunctivitis

"the second most common sexually transmitted disease in the world after HIV/AIDS."

The above statement in the opening paragraph is extremely hard to believe, it implies that HIV/AIDS is the most common STI in the world which is simply not true, both genital warts and chlamydia are both far more common STIs than either HIV/AIDS or Gonorrhoea. Can the statement either be removed or a citation provided? Swampy 124.184.10.7 (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what was going on with that line. HIV is in fact the most common std in the world, but I could find no reference to gonorrhea being the second. Gonorrhea is the second to chlamydia in the US, so it's likely that the original author was getting these two facts mixed up. I corrected the lines to reflect the US incidence of gonorrhea/chlamydia. It's US centric, but it'll have to do until we can dig up some global incidence rates. Chaldor (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The truth

Does anyone know any true statistical facts about this disease? For a time period I thought I had been exposed to it and I couldn't help but realize that all the info I found online was conflicting. How does this article justify saying "40-60%" is a small percentage of asymptomatic peoples? If no one else has any valid info, I'm going to get to the bottom of this once and for all. I'm tired of being fed STI missinformation. Vayne (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC).

Admin:

Please revert subtle vandalism by 66.251.199.141 . The cited refs are non existent, the claims are bogus. 70.137.179.88 (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Septic arthritis?

Gonorrhea can cause septic arthritis but this is not really covered in the wikipedia article. Needs to be added/expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.91.98.31 (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It is actually the most common cause of septic osteoarthritis is young people.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Images are needed

If anyone has any.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

They already exists:

Image:SOA-gonorroe-male.jpg

Image:SOA-gonorroe-female.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.56.255.165 (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to look yourself: there isn't much to see externally with gonorrhea, except some inflammation in the acute case. The effects of the chronic case are mostly inside the body. I'm more concerned about the difference between MDRG (Multi-Drug Resistant Gonorrhea) and XDRG (Extensively-Drug Resistant Gonorrhea.) Did some strains cross over due to comorbidity with TB? Just kidding! Did I say Sell GOOG! Sell MSFT! You'll just have to wait for opening bell Monday morning to see what's left of them. That's pretty early in the morning here in the West Coast. Oh, back to the gonorrhea: a nice warm bath is an excellent palliative measure, unless the infection has settled in the thyroid gland, in which case you are living with severe pain unless you have a total thyroidectomy and take thyroid meds the rest of your life. Wake me up if there's some other cure. Deepmath (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hard to tell what you're looking at when they shove the lens in so far! Deepmath (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: revision 306939653 by Sjö (talk) Sjö needs to state his objections, rather than removing my comments. 198.145.196.71 (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Lest anyone take the above seriously and tries to add it to the article: That gonorrhea, a bacterial infection, would lead to the removal of the thyroid is implausible. Also, please remember that talk pages are for the discussion of how to improve the article, not for general discussions and not for giving unsourced medical advice.Sjö (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Category:Gonorrhea infection in humans for images about symptoms (a subcategory of Commons:Category:Gonorrhea). What strikes me as absurd in this case is that just such images are shown to young children under the mandate for sex education. In the controversy, one thing that people have missed is that pictures of the related eye infections are of particular public interest, and might not even be considered offensive (though I feel like I truly can't predict such things any more). Wnt (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sentence incomplete

Projectile Urination ==

jordan n josh qot cutty cutty breath!!!!n thats a bet!!! This page is the only/first result for that particular symptom that I could find on the web, and it doesn't really make sense, since all urination seems to be more or less projectile. Typo? Projectile vomiting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.92.24 (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.183.227.21, 7 November 2010

gonherra can kiss ma colow.

76.183.227.21 (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done I am not sure what this request is about. — Gfoley4 Wanna chat? 01:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.183.227.21, 7 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

76.183.227.21 (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done You haven't said what you want edited. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 01:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Homiesiman, 29 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Under Complications, change "between 0.6 and 3.0% or women" to "between 0.6 and 3.0% of women". I've pasted entire sentence below. One of the complication of gonorrhea is systemic dissemination resulting in skin pustules or petechia, septic arthritis, meningitis or endocarditis.[2] This occurs in between 0.6 and 3.0% or women and 0.4 and 0.7% of men.[2]

Homiesiman (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Antibiotic-resistant gonnorhea

There have been quite a few headlines in the last day of a multi-drug resistant strain of gonorrhea that has emerged in Japan and Norway. Wired has an article with good coverage and links to primary sources: [3]. I will try and add this info to the article when I can, but don't know when I'll be able to get to it, so if anybody else wants to, have at it. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing! And like you, I don't know how much time I'll be able to spend either, but I'll try. Here is another news article (and I tend to favor a variety of sources, including news articles). Cool Nerd (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Vancouver Sun, Gonorrhea -the latest superbug, Stephen Hume, July 16, 2011:

" . . . Health Canada statistics show that 80 per cent of sexually active teenagers used condoms for protection. Once again, that's the good news. The bad news is that the same study finds that condom-use declines to 70 per cent by age 19. The highest rates for gonorrhea occur between 20 and 24.

"Sexual activity peaks in young adulthood, of course, but it's apparently accompanied by a diminished sense of risk. . . "

New 'superbug' strain of gonorrhea resistant to all available antibiotics; researchers fear global outbreak, July 11, 2011 | By Thomas H. Maugh II, Los Angeles Times / For the Booster Shots blog:

" . . . presented Sunday at a Quebec City meeting of the International Society for Sexually Transmitted Disease Research. . . "

msnbc, Bad bug: Gonorrhea strain resists all antibiotics. Long-feared development has occurred; only question is whether it will spread, By Brian Alexander, msnbc.com contributor, updated 7/11/2011:

"For several years, public health officials have been concerned that gonorrhea, one of the most prevalent STDs in the world, might become resistant to the last widely available antibiotics used to treat it, a class of drugs called cephalosporins. [emphasis added] Now, it has. . . "

CDC, Emerging Infectious Diseases, Letter, Ceftriaxone-Resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Japan, Makoto Ohnishi, Takeshi Saika, et al., January 2011:

“ . . . Best practice treatment is limited to injectable extended-spectrum cephalosporins, such as ceftriaxone and spectinomycin. The emergence of ceftriaxone-resistant N. gonorrhoeae threatens effective disease control. . . ”

“ . . . However, it demonstrated susceptibility to spectinomycin (16 μg/mL) . . . ”

Included three of the above. Please check out and see what you think. And please consider jumping in and helping out.  :>) Thanks. Cool Nerd (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Daily Mail, UK, 'Unstoppable' sex disease: New strain of gonorrhoea that resists all antibiotics could spread quickly, 12th July 2011. “ . . . But Swedish scientists who have analysed the new strain found in Japan believe that over the decades the disease has mutated to become resistant to current treatments. Magnus Unemo [emphasis added], of the Research Laboratory for Pathogenic Neisseria in Orebro, described it as an alarming discovery. ‘Since antibiotics became the standard treatment for gonorrhoea in the 1940s, this bacterium has shown a remarkable capacity to develop resistance mechanisms to all drugs introduced to control it,’ he said. . . ”

Please note: I am not a doctor. I just take a variety of good sources and excerpt and/or summarize them in straightforward fashion. Cool Nerd (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Rotate main picture?

Our main picture currently emphasizes the woman as if she is some kind of 'sinful' Eve, as compared to the good 'virtuous' servicemen. When in reality all of them are most probably just plain regular people. Of course they are. And 'nice' people get gonorrhea, too. Of course they do.

Now, as soon as I say this, I can hear someone saying "political correctness." And, okay, I guess that's true to some extent.

What I'm saying, can we rotate our main picture some and not always focus on the same aspect of the story? Cool Nerd (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a historical poster from the second world war. Do you have a better image in mind? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Doc James! Good to hear from you. No, I don't, not right now. But I can look. Cool Nerd (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's something. but it doesn't really have the human element

http://eemb40.blogspot.com/2011/07/bad-news-everyone.html

That image is already in our article. It is in the treatments section currently.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, yes, I see that it is. All I can say is that the main picture did jump out at me. I mean, the caption for starters "She May Look Clean - But" Well, what about the guy?? "He May Look Clean - But" Right?

And on the medical side, even if this new strain is resistant to this one antibiotic, might there be other ways to go at it? Cool Nerd (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a world war 2 picture. Its purpose was to protect the soldiers from infection. It represents the male centered world of the time. Remember this was before women where even allowed to vote. So yes it is not politically correct but it is historically correct and showes just how politically uncorrect the world was at that point in time.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You must be confusing the dates of your world wars. See Women's suffrage in the United States and Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which was passed in 1919 and ratified the following year -- 110.49.241.194 (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not really sexist, it's just aimed at soldiers in active service and overseas for the first time in their lives. What it reflects mostly is that the overwhelming majority of soldiers at the front in the American army were blokes. Britmax (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

question

Is gonorrhea only contacted from sexual intercorse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.71.159.74 (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Prevention

There is no specific information on prevention of the disease, especially on the effectiveness of condoms. Therefore I suggest adding the following, either as a subsection under the section "Cause" or as an independent section. --213.47.44.199 (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Prevention

While the only sure way of preventing Gonorrhea is abstaining from sexual intercourse, the risk of infection can be reduced significantly by using condoms correctly and by leading a monogamous relationship.

Done. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The references state "be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and is known to be uninfected." and " A monogamous sexual relationship with an individual known to be free of any STD can reduce risk". They do not state that monogamy in and of itself is preventative, but that a monogamous relationship with someone known to be uninfected can reduce risk. The article should reflect this. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and Done. Changed to "...by using condoms correctly and by having a mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected person." Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 April 2012

In the signs and symptoms sections, it says skin legions. This is incorrect, the correct term is skin lesions. --129.252.45.16 (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request 09/06/12

There should be an alternate spelling Gonorrhoea due to the Commonwealth spelling. 121.223.148.87 (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Pope Boniface

Which one?Kostaki mou (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - Footnote 1 cites a non-pertinent source.

Footnote 1 references the Wikipedia webpage for the Oxford English Dictionary, but the OED page makes no reference to gonorrhea being also known as "the clap" or to that reference having been used since the 16th Century. Both assertions are made in the article using the OED Wikipedia page as the supporting reference. OED website does show usage of the world "clap" in association with gonorrhea as early as 1587. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/33770#eid9287755. Since you have to be a subscriber to the OED to access the OED site, though, this isn't a particularly useful reference, either. Eltrace (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Prevention

The section on "Prevention" states "the only sure way of preventing gonorrhea is abstaining from sexual intercourse". This is not true. Gonorrhea can be contracted without sexual intercourse vertically from mother to child etc, even the articles that this section references mention vertical transmission. Swampy 156.22.3.1 (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree and one could potentially get it from working in a lab. Thus altered that statement. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

HO41 "Worse than AIDS"

I'm removing this reference. It cites an article from a "doctor of naturopathic medicine", ie not a real doctor, and someone who is not medically qualified to make this kind of statement. It's irresponsible to put such an inflammatory remark in the introduction to this article. Replacing it with a more measured reference to antibiotic resistance.Gymnophoria (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree and it was not a reliable source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

from Portal:Current events/2013 May 7

"A new strain of gonorrhea, HO41, is reported to be incurable and extremely virulent."

• http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Home/Science/New-sex-superbug-may-be-more-infectious-than-AIDS/articleshow/19926927.cms

108.195.137.183 (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a better ref? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

While it's true that there are now anti-biotic resistant strains which are more infectious than HIV, to then go on to call it a "superbug worse than AIDS" is hysteria that's been kicking around the internet and is simply not true. There's no more evidence that it is more infectious or harmful than gonorrhea is now, but it's true that it would be difficult to cure with current available drugs. That's what makes it worrying, but it's still only a sexual infection and not comparable to a life-threatening disease like AIDS. Note that the CNBC article, on which these third-hand sources like the article you cited are based, quoted someone who isn't even a qualified medical doctor. This kind of dangerous scaremongering should not form part of an encyclopedia. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/sex-superbug-antibiotic-resistant-gonorrhea_n_3229890.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular Gymnophoria (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting graphic!

Does the upswing in the graph in the early sixties mirror widespread adoption of "the pill" and the drop around 1985 have anything to do with the condom use increase as a result of the HIV/AIDS campaigns? Interesting but not sure where it belongs - if anywhere.86.173.226.133 (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Condom reduces transmission

It would be good to give some specific figures in the prevention section to compliment the figures of transmission risk in the causes section. By how much does wearing a condom reduce the risk?

Also, the prevention section is worded such that abstinence or mutual monogamy with an uninfected person significantly reduce the risk, but do not entirely eliminate it. Since the causes section does not detail any other mechanisms of transmission, doesn't this article contradict itself? Lesion (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2013

Data from the Epedemiology paragraph is imprecise. Sentence 4 reads "The CDC estimates that more than 700,000 people in the United States get new gonorrheal infections each year." According to the CDC web site, the CDC estimates that there are 820,000 new cases of gonorrhea in the United States each year. The CDC site also says that less than half of all gonorrhea cases are reported, not "only half", as the current article states. Fredlox87 (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Done i've made the requested changes and updated the CDC ref. Thanks ~ Boomur [☎] 01:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Images

I know its not pleasant, but we should probably include an image of infection of the genitals. here are our choices:

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2014

Change "The WHO estimates that 62 million cases of gonorrhea occur each year.[21]" --> " According to the WHO, it represents 88 million of the estimated 448 million new cases of curable STIs –that also includes syphilis, chlamydia and trichomoniasis – which occur globally every year" The new change is more accurate and reflects the new data on the incidence of gonorrhea in relation to the other STI's

Ruizj22 (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

References

So why is it called "the clap"?

And would an eventual explanation be relevant enough to be inserted in the article? Devil Master (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why. But a sentence or two about it might be relevant. It sure doesn't seem like an obvious connection linguistically to the real name or symptoms. DMacks (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

..."significantly"...

Doc James, on your recent edit, I just wanted you to know that the word 'significantly' was in the source. But your edit is perfectly fine with me. I sincerely appreciate you 'keeping me on track' and the kind and very civil way you let me know when I have made a mistake. I am getting to be a better editor because of you. Feel free to continue to give me advice and helpful hints in my writing. The Very Best of Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  16:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes significantly has two meanings. One meaning is statistical significance the other is big. The source uses the first sense which is not its meaning in common usage. Thus I tend not to use the word as it is ambiguous. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2015

Change the "Culture" link in the first line of the diagnostic section to refer to the page on "microbiological culture" rather than "social culture".

Cristalperignon Cristalperignon (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2015

"Please add this section because there is evidence that, while rare, gonorrhea may be transmitted non-sexually and none of the primary pieces of medical literature state this important information, which may help many families and couples who may be looking for answers. Apologies if I haven't referenced sources correctly, as this is the first time I've ever submitted an edit request to Wikipedia."

Possibility of non-sexual transmission of gonorrhea

There is large body of evidence that demonstrates that it may be possible to transmit gonorrhea non-sexually. This evidence was published by New Zealand forensic doctor, Dr. Felicity Goodyear-Smith, in her review published in 2007 in the Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 14 (2007) 489-502, titled "What is the evidence for non-sexual transmission of gonorrhoea in children after the neonatal period? A systematic review." To obtain a full report, contact Dr. Felicity Goodyear-Smith at the University of Auckland (). An abstract of the report from is as follows:

International consensus guidelines state that Neisseria gonorrhoeae infection in pre-pubertal children is always, or nearly always, sexually transmitted. A systematic literature review does not concur with this. N gonorrhoea was believed to solely sexually transmitted when first identified in the 1880s. However it became recognised that when the infection was introduced into children’s institutions, it rapidly spread among pre-pubertal girls. The medical literature records over 40 epidemics involving about 2000 children in Europe and the United States. Communal baths, towels or fabric, rectal thermometers and caregivers hands were identified as means of transmission. Although sensitive to heat and drying, gonorrhoea may remain viable in pus on cloth for several days. Several unusual accidental transmissions are reported, often due to contamination from laboratory samples. Indirect transmission occurs in epidemics of conjunctivitis in third world rural populations. Spread of infection can occur via contaminated hands of infected caregivers. While all paediatric cases of gonorrhoea must be taken seriously, including contact tracking and testing, forensic medical examiners should keep an open mind about possible means of transmission. Doctors and lawyers need to be cognisant of the large body of literature demonstrating both sexual and non-sexual means of transmission of gonorrhoea in children.

Excerpt from Dr. Goodyear-Smith's review states that, "Gonococcus flouirishes at 25 degrees to 39 degrees Celsius. It is killed by heat at 55 degrees Celsius for 5 minutes, dies quickly under natural environmental conditions and is vulnerable to drying. However gonococci have been recovered from pus on linen kept moist with sterile saline after 5 h and in one case after 22 h, although could not be recovered by culture after 2 h if the cloth was kept dry. Gonococcal pus placed on glass slides and on towel kept at room temperature has been shown to survive for up to 24 h on the towel and 17 h on the slide."

Another excerpt from the review states that, "In August 1890, 236 cases were reported in little girls in the city of Posen, traced to sharing a public bath. In 1896, a number of epidemics of gonorrhoea in children's institutions are described. The infection typically spread very rapidly and the younger the child, the greater the likelihood of contract it. In some children's asylums it appeared that the infection was spread through bathing 20-30 girls together in a large bathtub. The epidemic stopped once a shower bath was constructed. Physicians were aware that the infection could be spread through baths, beds, clothing and towels."

Based on this evidence, sharing of public baths, including hot tubs and pools, may put one at risk of transmission. Hot tubs are typically set at a maximum temperature of 40 degrees Celsius. For comfort, the World Health Organization () recommends the following, "High temperatures in hot tubs, for example, can cause drowsiness, which may lead to loss of consciousness or to heat stroke and death, and it is recommended that water temperatures in hot tubs be kept below 40 °C." From the Jacuzzi website (), "According to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, the water temperature of a hot tub is best between 100°F and 102°F." (or 37 to 39 degrees Celsius). This temperature range falls within the ideal range for Gonococcus to flourish. Libbyto58 (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Libbyto58 I have added a couple of sentences on non sexual transmission to the causes section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected Edit Request, April 16, 2016

Please remove or re-write the statement "Gonorrheal infections in young women are missed with genital-only testing.[21]" under the section "Screening". Reference [21] is to Meyers D; Wolff T; Gregory K; et al. (March 2008). "USPSTF recommendations for STI screening". Am Fam Physician 77 (6): 819–24. PMID 18386598. found at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18386598 with full-text pdf available at http://www.aafp.org/link_out?pmid=18386598.

The statement "Gonorrheal infections in young women are missed with genital-only testing.[21]" in the section "Screening" is a mis-characterization of the paper referenced. The paper referenced does not make any claim on whether genital-only testing misses infections in young women. In fact, the paper does not address the accuracy of testing in any way. The paper is a discussion of policy about testing and about what groups of people should get routine testing for gonorrhea and other STDs, not whether the testing itself is accurate or the type of testing that should be done. The USPSTF believes that only people at high-risk should be tested on a routine basis and they make no judgments or statements about the accuracy of tests in that paper.

I request that this statement "Gonorrheal infections in young women are missed with genital-only testing.[21]" be removed from this article.

The statement gives the false impression the screening test in young women is inaccurate. While it is true that USPSTF does not recommend screening for women who are at low risk of infection, it is not because the screening test misses infections, it is because the goal of the USPSTF is to determine whether it is effective to screen young women who are not at high risk for infections. The screening is quite accurate, but USPSTF believes that only people with a high risk of infection need to be screened, hence their recommendation not to screen young women at low risk.

In fact, genital testing is the preferred method of testing for gonorrheal infections in all women and are the best way to know if an asymptomatic person has gonorrhea in their genital tract. The Western Sussex hospital, a UK National Health Service Foundation Trust, says "The accuracy of a single test from the genital area is between 75–95 per cent." (See the section called "How Accurate are the Tests?" on the website http://www.sexualhealthwestsussex.nhs.uk/sexually-transmitted-infections/gonorrhoea/testing/ ) The CDC in the US recommends genital specimens over urine specimens for women as well. See this paper: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6302a1.htm (Recommendations for the Laboratory-Based Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae, MMWR March 14, 2014 / 63(RR02);1-19) where they say "For female screening, specimens obtained with a vaginal swab are the preferred specimen type." and "These updated CDC recommendations now specify that vaginal swabs are the preferred specimen for screening women..."

Hopefully this is enough evidence to show that the statement I quoted at the first paragraph is inaccurate and should be removed from this article. The USPSTF paper referenced by the statement does not support the statement as it is written.67.251.217.9 (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected Edit Request, April 17, 2016

In the Section "Screening", please change "The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening for gonorrhea in women at increased risk of infection, which includes all sexually active women younger than 25 years. Extragenital gonorrhea and chlamydia is highest in men who have sex with men. Gonorrheal infections in young women are missed with genital-only testing.[21]" to say "The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening for gonorrhea in women at increased risk of infection, which includes all sexually active women younger than 25 years. Extragenital gonorrhea and chlamydia is highest in men who have sex with men. [21]"

No where in the reference #21 do they speak about gonorrhea infections in young women being missed with genital-only testing. The reference does not support this statement in any way.

67.251.217.9 (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, there is a lack of mention in the abstract about the claim about young women (which seems reverse to the objective of the article) — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 03:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2016

Research

A vaccine for gonorrhea has been developed that is effective in mice. To be available for humans, it would first be required to demonstrate long term immunity and go through clinical trials .

References

Rcourt (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Moving request down  — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 04:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Typo Data Should be Date

"Descriptions of the disease data as far back as the Old Testament." Data should be changed to date with an e at the end instead of an a

2601:601:8302:7B30:B1B2:3FFE:E440:4760 (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2016

The numbers in the quote "In 2013, it caused about 3,200 deaths, up from 2,300 in 1990." need to be swapped. The data in the cited report reads that there were 2,300 deaths in 2013 and 3,200 in 1990.

Link to appropriate data: http://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableImage?tableId=tbl2&pii=S0140673614616822

JDKaidon (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 20:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2016

I would like to suggest adding this helpful video of a male Gonorrhea infection for the "discharge from the penis" symptom, as it would better assist users in visually identify symptoms: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sample_gonorrhea.ogg The video is a close-up that is non-sexual, so its a safe and non-offensive sample to use.

Travelstudy (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It is difficult to find place for it in the article. Ruslik_Zero 20:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ruslik_[[User Talk:Ruslik0| - I was suggesting you link to it from the sentence "discharge from the penis". Regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelstudy (talk • contribs) 14:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I still have problems with unreferenced images of medical subjects. Even assuming good faith, there is no way that this image can be assumed to representative of the specific infection. This can be the symptom of any variety of infections. Best Regards,

  Bfpage  _{let's talk...}  23:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Etymology/derivation?

The one thing I came here for I could not find, namely the origin of the word. Quite the oversight, I should say. Orthotox (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

If you find a good source for it, feel free to add it. I agree that it would be a great addition to the article! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Bizarre phrasing

"Gonorrhea can be prevented with the use of condoms, having sex with only one person who is uninfected, and by not having sex". This is a very peculiar statement, that sounds motivated by moral and political sentiments. Will I get infected if I have sex with multiple people who are uninfected? Listing "not having sex" is also a weird way to write it (do the corresponding pages on poisonous bacteria in food list "not eating" as a way to prevent diseases?)

From the CDC[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

That seems like a flawed analogy. Eating is necessary for survival. Sex isn't. It's well known that having multiple sexual partners can increase the risk of contracting an STI as opposed to a monogamous/low-risk sexual relationship. If you have a suggestion for a change to improve the article, then please propose it here. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2018

response Gonorrhea surely could be transmitted in case of the use of condoms by an infected man by drip on the edges when putting on or infected hands insufficiently disinfected previously multiple people carry multiple risk of infection and sooner or later the amount of different bacteria from the different partners in intercourse will break down to even lesser gonococcal infections than average persons take to develope the disease. Second-hand clothing probably carries a gonococci risk, as second-hand underwear has been banned sale in Africa, on occasion and also second-hand clothing is reported to carry gonococci in Malaysia by a Muslim medical doctor. Neither extreme heat nor deep-freeze is reported to kill gonococci including not in male semen. nor on preservation swabs without medium, and even soy broth is considered sufficient medium for gonococci preservation by Japanese scientists, and all types of preservation including room temperature are reported to have been preserved for 2 years. An African doctor claims that dry-cleaning can reduce risk if not more and that it should be followed by ironing. However heat does not necessarily kill gonococci and doctors´instruments if without proper means of sterilization such as autoclave which need not work in very cold temperatures. (there are other means but they could be used for genocide purposes.) The African doctor also said that gonococci can survive in alleged creases in clothing. I cannot find proof but to the contrary that ironing destroys all gonococci. I asked on a askadoctor.com or a similar medical queries website with a photograph of a blonde medical doctor but she insultingly refused to answer my query. Obviously toilet seats and water closets are also unsafe Inez Debprah Emilia Altar

Extra ordinary statement

User:Barbara (WVS) Need a page number for this so I can verify:

"Gonnorhea may infect as many as half of pregnant women. " Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay...looking. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Shameless Husbands! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.166.96.167 (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation

For medical articles we try to keep the first sentence easy to understand. Thus we do not put pronunciation in the first sentence. We generally put that in the infobox. Also we do not tend to put minor spelling variations in the first sentence. Those also go in the infobox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Commonwealth English is NOT a "minor spelling variation" it is used by tens of millions of people. How arrogant! M R G WIKI999 (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It is the addition of an extra "o". That minor change is present in the infobox.

Pronunciation does not go in the first sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect

This is not correct "is an infection of the mucous membranes of the genital and urinary tracts".

It can also be an infection of other areas.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It is not incorrect, it is just badly worded... It is PRIMARILY such, but also as you suggest, applicable to other areas and not exclusively mucous based - I readily conceded this point rather than argue the toss... What a pity you seemingly have no such ability to concede points in the same way... Is there a religious or political agenda at play? M R G WIKI999 (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay appears we have come to agreement on one aspect of your edit than. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Doc James and edit warring

It seems to me that user Doc James is using this page as his/her personal fiefdom, and simply won't have any good faith and accurate edits that he is in disagreement with... The above edits which he reverted regarding alternate spelling is contrary to Wikipedia's inclusion of very widely used alternative spelling, is one example... Another is his repeated insistence on including seemingly obvious moralising (as pointed out by another editor, further up in the "bizarre phrasing" section; the wording is indeed bizarre, and absolutely points to political/religiously motivated editing based on an ideology of monogomy and absebtentionism rather than non judgemental education on high risk practices... I edited it to read more like the latter, but apparently this too was not to Doc James' suiting - despite the cited source SPECIFICALLY suggesting a non-moralistic education based approach... And finally, I have edited the vague, unnecessary biblical reference to one specific and dated scientific one (from the same cited source). This change also changed the religiously biased and anachronistic BC/AD dating term to the Wikipedia and scientifically preferred secular useage of BCE/CE... Again this seemed to irk Doc James, and he reverted this too... Not satisfied with starting an edit war, he went to my talk page and threatened me with removing my editing privileges if I didn't stop him from reverting my accurate and justified edit... An edit that ENTIRELY fits with Wikipedia's policies, is accurate, unbiased and properly sourced. - Doc should be congratulated and thanked for his contributions, but not to the point where only his contribution is valid... To prevent further edit warring, I ask for consensus on my edits to the opening section - are my edits OK? M R G WIKI999 (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Each of this is discussed in a section above. No need to open another section. With respect to AD/CE I do not care. As we generally use common language, especially in the lead, BC and AD may be more appropriate.[5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

agree w/ Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

UCSF Foundations 2 2019, Group 6C goals

Hello Wiki!

We are 2nd year pharmacy students at UCSF and are working with faculty to make edits to this Wikipedia page over the next few weeks.

Our plan for improving the article include the following:

• Verify and update references (ex: "As of 2010" to "As of 2019", antibiotic resistance, etc.)
• Refine and update statistics/percentages/etc.
• Verify and add symptoms of gonorrhea (per the anonymous editor of the first section in this talk page)
• Clarify medications used for treatment of ocular/oral/pharyngeal gonorrhea
• Clarify treatment of gonorrhea in pediatrics (infants who got it from mother)

Please let us know any comments/concerns/questions about our proposed changes! RwengUCSF (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

UCSF Foundations 2 2019, Group 6b's Peer Review

Jennie's Peer Review (Group 6b):

1. Overall Group 6c's edits improved the article's section on antibiotics. They did a good job updating statistics and distinguishing between topical and oral antibiotic use. I would recommend adding examples of what's considered proper personal hygiene and medications for gonorrhea affecting the eyes.
2. Group 6c has achieved their overall goals for improvement. There is room for improvement in clarifying medications used for treatment ocular and pharyngeal gonorrhea.
3. Group 6c's submission reflects a neutral point of view. Jhum4993 (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Ally's Peer Review (Group 6b)

I agree with Jennie's points on the article edits by Group 6b. I think they sufficiently accomplished their goals. The only goal I couldn't find edits for was the symptoms of gonorrhea, but they may have verified them and found them complete. I like that this goal addressed a previous point on the talk page. I think it could be helpful to also add expected length of treatment with antibiotics. The citations added by the group were consistent with Wiki Guidelines. Overall the edits looked good! Allydiiorio (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thien's Peer Review

Group 6c edits align with their goals. Although they did not add anything towards the symptoms of gonorrhea that did well in further adding towards the treatment of gonorrhea.I think it would be helpful to perhaps specify the treatment for example the length of treatment and the strength of the medication. The citations are great and meet the wikipedia guidelines.

Gabi's Peer Review (Group 6b)

1. Group 6c's edits help to complete the article by adding information about antibiotic treatments used for gonorrhea.
2. Group 6c accomplished some of their goals. I think it would be helpful for group 6c to elaborate/edit the signs and symptoms of gonorrhea, as well as clarify specifically the medications used to treat the different forms of gonorrhea (ocular/oral/pharyngeal). Is the treatment the same regardless of location of infection? I think adding this information would help to further complete this article.
3. There is no evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation with group 6c's edits. It was difficult to determine which source (4, 45, 46, or 47) supports that the dual therapy of ceftriaxone and oral azithromycin is most effective for treating gonorrhea. I think it would be worthwhile to determine which sources support this statement. The other citations by group 6c are appropriate and there is no evidence of plagiarism or copyright. Gabidriller (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Mir Hossein banihashemi

Dr. Seyed Mehdi Banihashemi (1897 - 1975) my father is one of the first medical graduates in Iran. While Dr. Benny Hashemi was head of the Firoozabad Hospital in Ray City, he devised a method that would cure the disease in less than five minutes Dr. Banihashimi's innovative method of treating gonorrhea that has been performed at Firoozabad Hospital since 1943: He filled a barrel with water at 45 degrees Celsius. then He plunged the patient on the neck in the water and held her until he was lethargic. The patient, which was removed from the barrel, had no signs of gonorrhea infection! After proving successful in the first experiment, several barrels were installed in the hospital on the order of Dr. Banihashimi, and patients with gonorrhea from anywhere were sent to the hospital for treatment At least until his presidency (1956). email: banishemi@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.56.106.106 (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)