Talk:Parasitic worm/Archive 1

Incorrect generalization

The following statement may be correct for some parasitic worms, but by no means all: "Worm eggs or larvae or even adults enter the human body through the mouth, anus, nose, or skin, with most species attaching themselves to the intestinal tract. With the presence of digestive enzymes, worm egg shells are dissolved, releasing a brand-new worm; unlike its egg shell, the parasitic worm is protected from the body's powerful digestive enzymes by producing a protective keratin layer."

The first part, is correct, worm eggs or larvae have many ways to enter. However, if you look at the hook worm, you will find they can't fully reproduce in the gut, and eggs are passed on into feces, where they hatch outside the body. 97.107.131.163 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some Parasitic worms can be deadly but I certainly don't think you could surmise to call parasitic worms smart. I suggest a rewrite of the introduction, at least. CHanley 04:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect for more reasons, than that. To my knowledge Platyhelminthes do not have keratin, no keratin gene was identified in either of the recent Schistosoma genomes and searching NCBI yields no convincing results for Taenia or Hymenolepis (and the last two do dwell in the gut). Therefore it would be serious news if all intestinal worms used keratin as a protective layer, I'd want to see a citation. Oh last but not least, "egg shells are dissolved" is also an incorrect generalisation, flatworms have infective cysts not just eggs. Sanguinea (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Immune Response

I think eosinophils should also be mentioned in that section, as they are an important part of both the innate and adaptive response to a helminth infection. 71.14.67.229 (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge from

The article Intestinal worms is also small and in need of content. it would be better to merge that article to this one. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parasitic Worm diseases.

May I add that "Parasitic worms, along with the Mosquitoes, are the most deadly disease carriers known to man."? The Winged Yoshi —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Winged Yoshi (talk • contribs) 20:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:

NOTE: someone can help me with the BOTRIDIA (spanish word of the greek BOTRYDION = cluster) word traslate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardozazueta (talk • contribs) 10:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just Asking.........

Are there any parasitic worm that harm other parasitic worm? I mean is, is there parasitic worm inside a parasitic worm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.228.194 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with this article

(moved here from user talk pages)

I'm sorry that you think my proposal for the move of parasitic worm to a disambiguation page was prompted by an "invalid reason." Could you point out that reason specifically? I realize that since you made this page you have some person investment with it, but it is inaccurate and misleading in that it emphasizes a group of animals that are unrelated in everything but their body shape and lifestyle. This is akin to grouping crocodiles with elephants because they both free living quadrupeds. All factual information on the article in redundant with information of other articles (see platyhelminthes and nematoda) I have created a disambiguation page that parasitic worm should link to. You can find it at parasitic worm (disambiguation). Plcoffey 19:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plcoffey (talk • contribs)

I have no doubts that you have sufficient expertise underlying your opinion. At the same time please don't confuse exact scientific taxonomy with English language. There is a widely used term "helminth" ans it deserves an article which explains its usage. If it is obsolete or erroneous, an encyclopedic article must explain this (all based on reputable references). Making it into a disambiguation page is sweeping the problem under the carpet.

By the way, please review the article worm from the same your positions. Since this article does not have a taxobox (as, e.g., at the top of "Flatworm"), I suspect this is a rather inexact term as well. If it is so, this must be clearly explained. `'Míkka >t 19:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is parasitic worm not helminth and while I agree that helminth is a term in the english language (an outdated one), parasitic worm and helminth are not the same thing. By the article's definition helminth simply refers to nematodes and platyhelminths. The article is crap, but would be appropriate if the article were entitled helminth, however it's parasitic worm and that term could mean any number to the things listed in the disambiguation page. Feel free to create an article entitled helminth and put a link to it from parasitic worm (disambiguation).Plcoffey 20:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I read the worm article, and it differs from the article in question in that is makes clear that "worms" are unrelated organisms. Although it still needs work it doesn't have the built in fallacies that parasitic worm does. Plcoffey 20:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Colleague, your answer makes it absolutely clear that "helminth / parasitic worm" topics must be detailed somewhere. It is clear for you that the current article is crap. Someone wrote this crap. It means this crap was in someone's brains. A function of wikipedia is do replace crap by correct explanations. Once again, simply deleting crap is sweeping it under the carpet. I am not an expert in parasitology or biology. And as a stupid layman I demand these articles so that I can reduce my stupidity. This is purpose of an encyclopedia, isn't it?

As to your suggestion "feel free to create", unfortunately I cannot: I don't have any expertise and I would not want to multiply the amount of crap :-) At the same time, unfortunately I cannot accept your word that the whole article is crap. It looks rather plausible. This is exactly the purpose of WP:AFD a broad discussion, so that the fate of an article is not decided by a 1-2 persons.

I am not going to continue this discussion. I presented all my arguments and cannot add anything more since I am not an expert. But as a layman sorry, I don't share your opinion that the topic is devoid of any content. The topic is very clearly defined: they are parasites and they are worms or look like worms. By your logic the article "Microorganism" has no rights to exist either and must be turned into a disambiguation between bacteria, fungi, archaea, protists, etc. `'Míkka >t 23:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, if you don't want to continue the discussion I'm going to try and clear up the matter for any other possible editors. The word helminth denotes an older (taxonomically speaking, outdated) term. It refers to a grouping of Nematodes and Platyhelminths (two unrelated clades). In my experience, (I realize this is not a valid source) parasitologists do not use this term anymore, or use it only to describe the platyhelminthes. This nonetheless is still a term in the english language, I agree with Míkka on that, and this article (poorly) describes this term. The problem here lies in the fact that the title of this article (parasitic worm) is not synonymous with helminth. "Parasitic worm" could mean any number of things (hince my creation of the parasitic worm (disambiguation)), the links cited there prove that point.

My views of the correct course of action are that this article should be moved to helminth and that parasitic worm should redirect to the disambiguation. There is now a helminth link on the disambiguation page to direct people interested in the term. Regarding the examples cited (worm and microorganism) they are both models which this future helminth article could use as templates. They both reflect groupings that taxonomically invalid, but culturally important. They handle this problem by clearly stating that the terms reflect polyphyletic groupings, re-iterating the differences between actual monophyletic groups and providing links to the appropriate pages. Míkka's comment that my logic indicates that microorganism should be turned into a disambiguation page are actually somewhat correct, microorganism is essentially a large very detailed and illustrated disambiguation, is it not? Again, as Míkka says the purpose of the encyclopedia is to reduce stupidity, and doesn't a disambiguation point people in the right directions? Plcoffey 01:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your last two sentences indicate a possible misunderstanding. In wikipedia, disambiguation pages are mere navigation tools, without any explanation; they are not encyclopedic articles. There is no such thing as "detailed and illustrated disambiguation". Just the opposite: wikipedia:Disambiguation are very terse pages without devoid of any protracted explanations or references and citations. Therefore I was very disturbed when you suggested to turn Parasitic worm into a disambiguation page. On the other hand, if, following your terminology, you can write a "detailed and illustrated disambiguation" for "parasitic worm", including, e.g., the history/evolution of the notion, use/abuse of the term, etc., this would be great. `'Míkka >t 23:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand very well what a disambiguation page is, I was simply trying to point out that in principle the pages mentioned above function in the same way, removing ambiguity and pointing the user in a more correct direction. Plcoffey 20:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plcoffey (talk • contribs)

Plcoffey, if you can find a reference that details the word "helminth" as being something distinct from "parasitic worm", then it would be good to create a separate page for helminth rather than having the term redirect here. I cannot find such a definition. Looking at the current OED, the only definition given is "A worm, esp. an intestinal worm." Another possibility is simply removing mention of it in the lead (and retain the redirect of helminth to parasitic worm). You can see that nuclein (an archaic word for DNA) does something similar.

As for articles covering things related by function, but not by evolution, I think you'll just have to live with it. People want information on parasitic worms, they go here, there's no good reason to break that functional aspect and confuse the readers. Warm-blooded is an example of a page covering unrelated organisms sharing a common feature. The article should be clear that parasitic worms are a diverse set of evolutionarily distant organisms. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 04:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the merge tag as it's been sitting there for over half a year. Any consensus yet? Jack (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, I've just stumbled on this page and it's so wrong I don't even know where to start. "Helminth" is not synonymous with "Parasitic worm" the above OED def should be clear enough on the matter, it may usually refer to an intestinal worm, but usually does not mean exclusively. Furthermore, not all parasitic worms dwell in the intestine e.g. Onchocerca volvulus. Moreover, Schistosoma, which is named in this wiki entry, is a blood dwelling liver fluke! Even if the term helmith did describe parasitic worms, where are the monogenea listed here? How do Globodera spp. and other plant parasitising nematodes fit in to this animal-centric definition? Sorry but the above user comments describing helminth as a defunct, polyphyletic grouping are perfectly accurate. At best the term "helmith" should link to "worm" and the rest of this entry should be deleted. Anything else is misleading and winding the clock of biological knowledge back (and even then this article probably wouldn't be correct). Sanguinea (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that I looked at this page because I saw Helminth Infection in a current CDC publication on travel medicine: "Eosinophilia in a returned traveler suggests the possibility of a helminth infection, of which the most important is strongyloidiasis." So even if it is an outdated term, it is still in use and its helpful that Wikipedia has an article on it.Larry (talk) 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing reproduction section, it's just plain wrong

Right, so I see this article has got even worse since I looked last. The whole reproduction section needs to go. The fact of the matter is, and this has been discussed elsewhere, "helminths" is a defunct term covering a group of disperate animals that consequently do things very differently. Go look at the Schistosoma mansoni page for example, schistosomes are not hermaphrodites and are not transmitted through poorly cooked meat. Similarly monogeneans, many are not transferred through diet at all. When I have more time I'll see what I can do to try and make this article less wrong, if it is indeed rescue-able at all (I still think helminth should link straight to worm).

Meantime, can we please keep specific biology to the relevant species or genera page? People are trying to cover too much ground here and the result is shockingly misleading. Sanguinine (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right this page has gotten even less helpful. I still think the best choice is to have this page link directly to Parasitic worm (disambiguation), the worm page, or something similar. plcoffey (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC) (Edit: updated my opinion, I think worm would be an acceptable redirect) plcoffey (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonated Water

Carbonated water is excellent, better than albendazole or any pharmaceutical out there, at eliminating parasitic worms from the gastrointestinal tract. Worms, like fish, require oxygenated water to breathe. Carbonated water is not oxygenated. Put them in carbonated water and they suffocate and die. You do need lots of it though but it works very well.

This idea is deemed obvious and not subject to patent protection.

Que the FDA trying to find ways to restrict or ban it by trying to regulate it as a drug or claiming it can be dangerous or whatever. Because anything that can serve a medical purpose is automatically subject to the FDA's political tyranny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:36D9:9F0:D43A:A35C:C150:BA00 (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comic relief. Danger ^{High voltage!} 02:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to helminths

This page talked only about helminths, so I moved it to the page on helminths that was previously directed here. As many of you have pointed out, this page did not address parasitic worms generally, hence its movement.Wise zoologist (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]