Talk:Pseudorabies: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
→Suspect information: new section |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
{{WikiProject Viruses|class=start|importance=high}} |
{{WikiProject Viruses|class=start|importance=high}} |
||
}} |
}} |
||
== Suspect information == |
|||
You cite a reference here by a Viggo Bitsch DVM where the author claims that pseudorabies can be transmitted sexually from humans to cattle. |
|||
"Vaginal infection of bovines, which regularly show pruritus of the hindquarters, has been found to be associated with a concurrent genital infection in swine on the same premises, and investigations have evidenced that the vaginal infection of cattle had been sexually transmitted by man from genitally infected sows (animal sodomy, zoophilia, bestiality" |
|||
He asserts and so does this article that the transmission to cattle was via humans having sex with them. Has anyone actually read the article? You'll find if you do that (1) It's a blog and (2) the author has absolutely NO scientific information to back his claims up. He lists his "evidence" in anecdotal form, writing that since cows acquired a vaginal infection on the same farm as pigs that got it from an infected boar, it "must be" that humans spread it from pigs to cattle. He gives absolutely NO evidence and conducts absolutely NO scientific investigation to support his claim. It's ludicrous and this "information" should be removed from the article. There is also that fact that the info is from a blog. It is NOT from a peer-reviewed journal and as such its accuracy is immediately suspect. Wikipedia should really have a care as to what articles it cites and be absolutely sure that the information is accurate and scientifically sound. You guys wind up looking like complete morons. |
Revision as of 04:32, 7 November 2015
Suspect information
You cite a reference here by a Viggo Bitsch DVM where the author claims that pseudorabies can be transmitted sexually from humans to cattle.
"Vaginal infection of bovines, which regularly show pruritus of the hindquarters, has been found to be associated with a concurrent genital infection in swine on the same premises, and investigations have evidenced that the vaginal infection of cattle had been sexually transmitted by man from genitally infected sows (animal sodomy, zoophilia, bestiality"
He asserts and so does this article that the transmission to cattle was via humans having sex with them. Has anyone actually read the article? You'll find if you do that (1) It's a blog and (2) the author has absolutely NO scientific information to back his claims up. He lists his "evidence" in anecdotal form, writing that since cows acquired a vaginal infection on the same farm as pigs that got it from an infected boar, it "must be" that humans spread it from pigs to cattle. He gives absolutely NO evidence and conducts absolutely NO scientific investigation to support his claim. It's ludicrous and this "information" should be removed from the article. There is also that fact that the info is from a blog. It is NOT from a peer-reviewed journal and as such its accuracy is immediately suspect. Wikipedia should really have a care as to what articles it cites and be absolutely sure that the information is accurate and scientifically sound. You guys wind up looking like complete morons.
- Start-Class Veterinary medicine articles
- High-importance Veterinary medicine articles
- WikiProject Veterinary medicine articles
- Start-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- Start-Class Dogs articles
- Mid-importance Dogs articles
- WikiProject Dogs articles
- Start-Class Cats articles
- Low-importance Cats articles
- WikiProject Cats articles
- Start-Class virus articles
- High-importance virus articles
- WikiProject Viruses articles