Jump to content

Talk:Mpox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

formerly vs also

[edit]

Could we replace “formerly known as monkeypox” with “also known as monkeypox”? “formerly“ is misleading because it is still known as monkeypox and many organisations (incl. official ones), media, and people are referring to it as “monkeypox”. 2001:4BC9:825:2ED3:88DC:FBD3:D7C5:DA7D (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "formerly" known as monkeypox, it IS monkeypox. The disease has never been called "mpox". 2600:1009:B117:BB91:0:3E:9B8F:8701 (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Not only misleading, but false. It's more than a little concerning that wikipedia editors are comfortable subbing in newspeak terms and abruptly referring to the continued use of the now ungood term in the past tense to advance a POV. 24.237.159.220 (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone this was extensively discussed a couple of years ago, the debate can be found in the talk archive. Here's the source:
Based on these consultations, and further discussions with WHO's Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO recommends the following: Adoption of the new synonym mpox in English for the disease. Mpox will become a preferred term, replacing monkeypox, after a transition period of one year.
https://www.who.int/news/item/28-11-2022-who-recommends-new-name-for-monkeypox-disease Bob (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the term "formerly"..... Because this word indicates to our readers that there has been a change in usage over them being used interchangeably. This indicates how the academic community has moves forward progressively in it's naming..... well emphasizing which is the preferred term currently. The old term should remain for research purposes for our readers. Source. Moxy🍁 23:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "preferred" term is already emphasized. The factually incorrect statement "formerly known as Monkeypox" is what was disputed. It is not sensible to say, both linguistically and logically, that a word is formerly used, when it is still used. Again, all the editing of my grammar revision has had no explanation as to why my choice of grammar is incorrect. I wasn't referring to anything on the medical side of it, but on the fact of the matter. And the fact is that people still (often and all over) refer to Monkeypox by it's original name. This is not helpful "indicating" of how health organizations changed the way they refer to the disease, as that is already covered elsewhere in the article. Misleading people about something being in the former when it is in fact in the present, to indicate something entirely unrelated, isn't what should inspire "edit wars". I'll stipulate that the taxonomy in the medical field has chosen to use mPox instead. Show me the part where the *present* is actually now the *former*, because presently, it is also known as Monkeypox. This part isn't disputed, so people should knock off the petty edits. 65.51.135.154 (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source is pretty clear as to why we don't want to use this derogatory term anymore. Formerly has a distinctive meaning..... as does also. Wikipedia's purpose is as an educational tool for our readers, thus we should indicate to them the change.... with a source educating them further so they can avoid a racist position in their terminology. As for a source pls review thisMoxy🍁 00:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source doesn't cite any guidelines. Actually it doesn't cite much of anything, including the word being derogatory. Also source doesn't apply any guidelines to the name "Monkeypox". Monkeypox isn't derogatory. It is just a factual name, based on how it was discovered. (I'll give you a hint, it's related to the word ;-) )
The word mpox derives from monkeypox. If monkeypox is derogatory (see above) then so is mpox. If someone has something that is factual (not formerly) that is better suited than "also", I'm open to ideas. Anything informative can be covered under "Nomenclature" in the article. Monkeypox is named after the virus that causes it, found originally in Monkeys. It is even more relevant than using "Chickenpox".
Also, Monkeypox isn't a racist position. It is not even a position . It's a word based on science, not race. Let's be correct with our language now. Anything else is merely fallacious rhetoric
The name change is already indicated in "Nomenclature". 65.51.135.154 (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you're reading the sources this one explains why it was phased out indicating a timeline and this one shows the wording used in an introduction of the topic. I've asked for outside opinions see if we can make this more clear for our readers. Moxy🍁 01:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am reading the sources you are providing. I see an opinion piece and a cdc webpage. These are still about changing the name. The CDC one uses the phrase formally, but that's not accurate either. The other one doesn't specify that MPox is no longer known as Monkeypox. So the point which still isn't addressed, is that the use of the word former is just wrong. It would be wrong to say "mpox, no longer known as Monkeypox" or "mpox used to be known as Monkeypox, but is no longer known by that name". These are all the same thing as saying "formerly known as Monkeypox". I'm not saying people don't have good intentions in renaming. I'm pointing out the misleading and factually incorrect wording. 65.51.135.154 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Professor Clarissa R Damaso and world health organization and below more academics vs random IP trying to chnage this for years to no avail.
  • Ulaeto, David; Agafonov, Alexander; Burchfield, Jennifer; Carter, Lisa; Happi, Christian; Jakob, Robert; Krpelanova, Eva; Kuppalli, Krutika; Lefkowitz, Elliot J; Mauldin, Matthew R; de Oliveira, Tulio; Onoja, Bernard; Otieno, James; Rambaut, Andrew; Subissi, Lorenzo; Yinka-Ogunleye, Adesola; Lewis, Rosamund F (2023). "New nomenclature for mpox (monkeypox) and monkeypox virus clades". The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 23 (3). Elsevier BV: 273–275. doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(23)00055-5. ISSN 1473-3099. In May, 2015, WHO recommended best practices for naming new infectious diseases to avoid offense or economic effect for any ethnic, regional, or other groups. Although mpox (formerly known as monkeypox) is not new, WHO has endorsed mpox as the new name for this re-emerging disease and backed the scientific community to agree on neutral nomenclature for variants of viruses.
Moxy🍁 15:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Academics" should focus on clear and correct communication, before they delve into the redefining of nomenclature. You too, as you are still missing the point. The fact that someone is trying to change the wording "formerly", since this has been brought up before by others, should hint that your poor use of words should be resolved. Stop using whatever health organization using m-pox instead of Monkeypox as your reasoning, because it's not actually addressing the issue people have with the use of "formerly". I can find health organizations using the word Monkeypox as well (see edit history), and we can sling random sources at eachother. It's a useless waste of time. Please address any disagreements to the use of "also" instead of "formerly" to the actually issue.
"Formerly" isn't accurate. You would have to show that nobody uses the term anymore for that to be accurate. The fact that most people use the word Monkeypox (statistically speaking) shows plainly that saying it was "formerly known as" is just wrong.
Now does a health organization endorsing a different name justify using false statements on a Wikipedia article. Because "Formerly known as monkeypox" is a false statement. Neutrally speaking, logically speaking, and factually speaking. You seem to have a non-neutral aversion the word, but still cannot articulate why I (and those before me) am not allowed to alter a factually incorrect statement, into a factually correct statement.
1) It is factual to say, "M-pox (also known as Monkeypox)"
2) It is not factual to say, "M-Pox (formerly known as Monkeypox)"
3) It is not factual to say, "M-Pox is no longer known as Monkeypox"
4) It is factual to say, "M-Pox (most people know it as Monkeypox)"
It is factual to say, as you said, that various health organizations choose to use the word mpox, it is even factual to point out that they use the word formerly, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the topic on this talk page. Please stay on the topic "formerly vs also" so we can actually discuss if formerly is accurate (it's not yet, because lots of people still use it). 65.51.135.154 (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to sympathise with you, 65.51 135.154. First WHO changed the name, then the medical and scientific community followed, then the news media caught up. I'm not sure who's left ... I could go out and ask 100 random strangers but most of them won't have heard of it under either name.
The virus is still named "monkeypox" so the word will never go completely out of use.
The word "also" is very vague. There are people who also refer to Black people as "n*****", but that's not a reason to mention it on relevant pages. It's relevant to this article because almost all the vandalism edits on this page are attempts to insert the n***** word.
How about we change the wording to "renamed from monkeypox" and call pax?
Bob (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a creative compromise, and I admire it.
If that's not accepted by the IP, then I prefer "formerly known as". The "also known as" language indicates that it is fully acceptable to use the old name, and it's not.
(As for "who's left", I would expect some people on social media denizens, especially those who match the stereotypical Angry white male persona, to use the old name, either because they haven't learned that the name changed or because they think the old name is better in some way [e.g., funnier or more insulting, depending on whether they are trying to make people laugh or stoke outrage].) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you make that up from? Do you have any source for that? A simple look at google stats will tell you that most people use Monkeypox. A quick google search will show you that various health organizations have used the word "Monkeypox" in the past several months. Are you saying these are just angry white males? Are you sure there aren't apathetic white females in there? Why are you bringing race into this? Wasn't the whole reason the WHO wanted to change the name because they didn't want to bring race into it? It seems you are trying to stoke outrage, or even make me laugh. I would laugh if this wasn't a tired old joke.
Monkeypox, the word, isn't really a problem. Monkeypox is, but that is quite obvious of any serious affliction. Monkeypox is aptly named based on it's discovery. If you want to name something, discover it.
People shouldn't care about people not liking monkeys because of Monkeypox, or not liking Egypt because of West Nile Virus, and on and on and on. Location found (species, geographical location, person who discovered it) are fine ways to name something. The person who discovered it gets to name it. We shouldn't be catering to people who might not want to travel or trade in a place because some disease was named after it. Those people probably have nothing to offer anyway. 65.51.135.154 (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at Google stats doesn't tell you what reliable sources are currently using; it tells you what people have used in the past.
You asked, "Wasn't the whole reason the WHO wanted to change the name because they didn't want to bring race into it?" Yes, that appears to have been a major motivation. Monkey, although obviously having legitimate uses, has also been used as a racial slur for over a century. So if someone insists on using the old name, then that might make you wonder why that person really wants to use a name with racial connotations.
"The person who discovered it gets to name it" might be your personal opinion, but it's not a rule, and it's definitely not the rule for viruses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would make much more sense. I did recommend some compromise either here or in my reasons in the edit page. Thanks.
The analogy is quite extreme. I am sure there are plenty of social rejects who would do that. They also scratch such words into bathroom mirrors and fuel pumps. Not exactly the people who care about formerly vs. also, or the origins of a disease. 65.51.135.154 (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about we change the wording to "renamed from monkeypox"
This compromise is fine, but also per WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE and WP:BESTSOURCES we don't really have to change anything. The best available sources discuss the name change and use "formerly" in multiple places. So if we want to use "renamed from" that's also fine with me, but it isn't the closest possible source reading.
I bet in 1-2 yrs a random person will come by and request it be changed again. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would one want to change it? When will it ever be the case that it wasn't renamed from Monkeypox? Saying renamed from Monkeypox is accurate, since various organizations have chosen to rename the disease. If a source is inaccurate, should one still use it? It's already been demonstrated that the source is inaccurate using the word "formerly". If the source said "The diseese causes ache in the joints" should we also say that? Or should we say "The disease causes ache in the joints"? I think we should go for accuracy ;-) 65.51.135.154 (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, 65.51.135.154, I tried your suggestion and googled "monkeypox" after:2023 (with inverted commas). In the first 3 pages of results, almost all instances were either:
  • Mpox (formerly known as monkeypox)
  • Monkeypox virus (this is correct, the virus' name is unchanged) - OR
  • Mpox (monkeypox)
There's one result from Unicef which crept in despite being dated 2022 (bad call, Google). And gov.uk managed to jump both ways.
I really don't think you have a case.
Bob (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Google is that different people are in different filter bubbles. Your results show this, and the next person's results might something different.
For mine, all the results were either "mpox, caused by the monkeypox virus" or said previously/formerly, except one headline from an English-language newspaper in a non-English-language country. All the other hits included mpox. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am strongly opposed to "also known as" or "renamed from" (which is some horrid passive-voice neologism). This was discussed extensively in Talk:Mpox/Archive 1. Although WHO anticipated a gradual phase change, that isn't what happened. The literature, both scientific and popular, dropped the old name like a stone. The "formerly known as" phrasing is what most literature uses when it is explaining to readers why they might have first heard about the 2022 outbreak with the old name.
Wrt "renamed from", there are parallels with X and Twitter. If I search for (in quotes) "X renamed from Twitter" I get exactly one news article repeated on several websites. It's a brain fart of a word choice. Whereas "X formerly known as Twitter" generates endless results. (The parallel is limited though, as X hasn't caught on conversationally).
We have wasted enough time on this both recently and in the archive discussion. Could we have a FAQ? Colin°Talk 08:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Mpox/FAQ Moxy🍁 08:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.cornellscott.org/programs-and-services/monkeypox
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39817728/
https://www.dallascitynews.net/dallas-county-reports-the-first-monkeypox-viral-infections-transmitted-locally
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39789186/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11650907/#:~:text=Monkeypox%20(Mpox)%20has%20once%20again,available%20for%20this%20viral%20infection.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41433-024-03579-z
"Jumping both ways" shows that it is also known as. Is it not also known as? Why don't one of you just say, matter-of-fact, that m-pox is not also known as monkeypox? It's just the case that it is also known as monkeypox. 3 of those examples are in the top 4 results. All 5 are in the top 10. Yes, various people say formerly known as, but they would be wrong, no? As it is not correct to suggest something is in the former, when it is in the present. Former vs. present is the issue at hand. Not what someone who writes an article chooses to write, be they accurate or not. This article should be accurate regardless.
As to the waste of time, it shouldn't waste that much time. I don't have as much time to sit on wikipedia all day and reverse quick grammatical fixes, as some here seem to have. It is a quick change, I was not inaccurate, and the reversals were actually just wrong. There was an easy compromise, that would be a brief fix to a mischaracterizing statement.
Also:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%201-m&geo=US&q=monkeypox,mpox
The words are both used. One could say Monkeypox, a.k.a. M-pox, also M-pox, a.k.a. Monkeypox. 65.51.135.154 (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify, that is searching on google in the timeline of the past month. Variations depending on last year or 90 days. I personally use the word Monkeypox, as it is named from the monkeypox virus (discovered in monkeys). M-pox sounds like some portable computer system or something. Plus, more people will know what I am talking about if I am talking about monkeypox, not that I go to cafes and libraries discussing bodily illnesses. 65.51.135.154 (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can we stop this discussion? The arguments made for "also" are personal or bad faith. Most lack any evidence or are severely cherry-picked.
  1. What you personally feel is not relevant. And also, your personal experience is in no way objective.
  2. The Google trends link is misleading on purpose. If you extend the timeframe to 90 days, you will see that Mpox is by a large margin the leading search term if there is public interest in the disease. If you extend the region to worldwide this becomes even more apparent. I don't believe you missed this, but you want to win an internet argument while disregarding the available evidence.
  3. Your citations are also cherry-picked. The Dallas press release is from 2022, therefore not relevant. And the scientific papers are all by non-native English speakers. There are languages which did not change the name of the disease after the WHO recommendation (like the french). Therefore, mistranslations will still happen. But the official English name is mpox. Also, the old (former) name of the disease will not die out instantly, probably never. But this doesn't mean it is not the old name.
  4. But most countries did rename the disease. The public health agencies of: USA, EU, China, India, Africa CDC, South Africa, Canada, Saudi-Arabia all renamed the disease and this list is not complete.
Also, the arguments for the old names, all come from IP Adresses and the arguments for keeping the "formerly" come from named Wikipedia accounts. For all I know, the counterarguments are all from one person.
A major factor in this discussion is racism. Just last week, the Wikipedia page for 2022–2023 mpox outbreak was vandalized again and countless times before. This is not a discussion about a formality. There are real racist attacks happening and the change in nomenclature was genuinely necessary. This page is not semi-protected for no reason.
I know this will not stop trolling. But I agree with @Colin we wasted enough time. Ndevln (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We've reached the crux of the argument here: your statement that "I personally use monkeypox". Wikipedia is not here to validate your choices and make you feel comfortable with them. Indeed, a wise person once said that he loved finding out he was wrong. Because then he had the opportunity to be right.
As this is an educational resource, can I point you at Wikipedia:Search engine test. It is quite long, but a careful reading should help you avoid some of the most common pitfalls of doing Google trend or ngram or search tests to determine word choice. Or I can summarising it with this link. But please, read the room, and make yourself useful doing something else. -- Colin°Talk 13:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the cited sources contains the word monkeypox, but only for the virus. So to make this clear:
Context matters, so a simplistic "Dear Mr. Google, please give me a list of websites containing the word monkeypox" is not proof that the sources aren't using up-to-date names. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me to both of you. This is the same person. I haven't created an account yet, as I don't spend much time on editing Wikipedia. Not really worth creating an account for, but in my unblock request I was suggested to do so.
Should I be surprised that I'm blocked? Is it normal behavior here to block perfectly polite and reasonable people? I believe the reasoning was something along the lines of me not "consensus building". I was told this was the place to have these discussions (before I was trying to have the discussion in the edit summary). I even was trying to build consensus. On other person here offered a compromise. I agreed that there might be a compromise. Others may feel that if they get enough people to band together, they can bully the grammatical correctness out of me.
Back to the issue, which I frankly give up on. It's already clear there are ulterior motives for avoiding using factual phrasing.
1: I am not cherry picking. I very much said what my search criteria was. I didn't hide it. I specified that I was searching the last 90 days, the word Monkeypox. Obviously if I searched the last 2 weeks for mpox or the last year MPox or Monkeypox it would be different. The point was that in the last 90 days, many people still use Monkeypox.
2: Cherry picking would be using google stats from a timeframe that show mpox as being more often searched, while ignoring that a significant percent were searching Monkeypox.
I used USA because that is where I am based. It's not dramatically different in the UK, if we are taking about English speakers.
3: The edit is not in bad faith. I happened to read the article, notice a mistake, and edited it. I see you are trying to juxtapose my grammar edit with gross foul language. Not cool!
4: I didn't dispute it was renamed. So bringing up countries renaming it is irrelevant. Actually someone suggested a grammatically and factually fitting compromise "renamed from".
Second person. Maybe I misspoke when I said why I might say Monkeypox. Obviously I let the evidence that "formerly" is not really accurate stand for itself. I might use such a word, because that's what the virus is named from. I think that's fair enough. That is not why "formerly" isn't accurate. Formerly isn't accurate because many others also still use the word. I said the reasons why I might use it, because it was previously suggested that the only people who used it did so for racially discriminative purposes.
Also, those sources I have are a variation of news, health organization, and study. 3-4/5 are *not* referring to the virus, but the disease. The one where it was claimed to be from 2022 (they cited data from 2022, that's probably why you're confused) I just searched Monkeypox last 90 days. I didn't cherry pick, I was quite open. They all came from the top 10 results. All sources have Monkeypox in them, so idk how you got only one of them.
I think we can be done here, but more because apparently people with desires for factual phrases will be blocked.
I read some of the blocking policy. I understand blocking should be done as a last resort. I have this received no warnings. I was quite polite, and very kind and compromising. I was having a very adult and natural conversation with many people who may have different ideas than I do. I never raised my voice or offered personal attacks, and my tone was professional. I was quite surprised when I was blocked, I didn't attempt to edit the page any further. Eventually it was protected anyway, but when I got the initial warning (about repeat edits that I didn't know was an issue), I went to the talk page, which is where I thought I should go.
Even though I am technically even more correcter from an English standpoint, I offered to change my idea to compromise with someone else. Me and that other person I feel are the only ones with open minds.
Edit: I am not trying to bypass a block. I haven't checked on my unblock request recently, I just happened to be at a library. I'm not trying to continue a "fight", but I don't want myself being besmirched by fallacious juxtaposition or false statements whether or not it was intentional on their part.
Be well. 216.59.168.79 (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2025

[edit]

Add this section as it is published recently:

Potential Treatments

Monotherapy with mycophenolate mofetil or myristoylation inhibitors or in combination therapies have been shown to completely inhibit mpox infection in human cells.

Reference Witwit, H.; Cubitt, B.; Khafaji, R.; Castro, E.M.; Goicoechea, M.; Lorenzo, M.M.; Blasco, R.; Martinez-Sobrido, L.; de la Torre, J.C. Repurposing Drugs for Synergistic Combination Therapies to Counteract Monkeypox Virus Tecovirimat Resistance. Viruses 2025, 17, 92. https://doi.org/10.3390/v17010092 Scientific observer (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scientific observer this is cutting edge in vitro research which is rarely suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. It may become suitable for inclusion under a "Research" heading if it progresses to clinical trials, but it's not reached that stage yet.
Please check guidance on WP:MOSMED WP:MEDRS and WP:NOR if you are editing medical pages.
Thank you for your contribution!
Bob (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are FDA approved drugs! Mycophenolate mofetil is already established medication. Myristoylation inhibitor passed safety phase (clinical I trial). Scientific observer (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SO, doesn't really matter. On wikipedia we lead, we do not follow. This is very interesting research, but we don't cover it on Wikipedia until our best available secondary sources cover it (e.g. narrative review articles and textbooks, see WP:MEDRS and WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE). Wikipedia isn't where people should go for new findings. It's where people go for established knowledge. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reference:
https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-expanded-access-and-other-treatment-options/understanding-unapproved-use-approved-drugs-label Scientific observer (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ST, I think that you should not interefere here, because you are biased toward your interest in vaccines and antibody therapeutics with no background in FDA approved small molecules therapies, also the viruses that you studied (Zika, Ebola, and Hantaviruses) are not related to poxviridae. It is not your expertise. I’m hoping that my words don’t sound condescending or rude. Scientific observer (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SO, that's not how things work on Wikipedia. Every editor's voice is considered as part of consensus. Additionally, if multiple other editors have said information should not be added to the page, you shouldn't go ahead and add it anyway. See WP:1AM.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ST, again, I think that you should not interfere here, because you are biased toward your interest in vaccines and antibody therapeutics with no background in FDA approved small molecules therapies, also the viruses that you studied (Zika, Ebola, and Hantaviruses) are not related to poxviridae. It is not your expertise. I’m hoping that my words don’t sound condescending or rude.
As secondary resources, I’ve already linked FDA rule for offlabel use, in addition MMF has long been known for this antiviral activity, it is not recommended to be given during smallpox or mpox live vaccine because it will disrupt the viral life cycle which will not result in active immunization. This evidence has been used in literature since the last century. This is webmed quote” smallpox and mpox (vaccinia) vaccine, live
mycophenolate decreases effects of smallpox and mpox (vaccinia) vaccine, live by pharmacodynamic antagonism.”
Reference
https://reference.medscape.com/drug/cellcept-myfortic-mycophenolate-343209#3
Now, it doesn’t matter how many references that I will cite, as long as it is not your expertise, you will fail to judge it correctly, also you will be biased toward your interest in vaccines and antibody therapeutics. Scientific observer (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this discussion is at risk of degenerating in personal and ad hominem attacks.
I repeat my original comment that the proposed edit does not fulfil the criteria for inclusion.
@Scientific observer please read the guidelines that I highlighted previously and explain how your proposal might conform to them. I could add WP:NOTEVERYTHING to the list.
Bob (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Bob!
I’ve included secondary (webmed for antivaccinia anti-mpox o activity of mycophenolate, and FDA link for offlabel use) references as you recommended.
Please take a moment to review FDA guidelines for offlabel use, also take a moment to review webmed reference. If you still feel that these secondary references are not valid, feel free to remove these references as you see fit. Scientific observer (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to add three secondary sources (reviews):
  1. Ritter ML, Pirofski L. Mycophenolate mofetil: effects on cellular immune subsets, infectious complications, and antimicrobial activity. Transpl Infect Dis. 2009 Aug;11(4):290-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3062.2009.00407.x. Epub 2009 May 26. PMID: 19497072; PMCID: PMC2852585.
  2. Planterose DN. Antiviral and cytotoxic effects of mycophenolic acid. J Gen Virol. 1969 Jun;4(4):629-30. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-4-4-629. PMID: 4308492.
  3. Williams RH, Lively DH, DeLong DC, Cline JC, Sweeny MJ. Mycophenolic acid: antiviral and antitumor properties. J Antibiot (Tokyo). 1968 Jul;21(7):463-4. doi: 10.7164/antibiotics.21.463. PMID: 4303502.
I have a question regarding FDA guidelines, isn't that considered the third authority on line of Guidelines positions of major authorities WP:MEDRS, why is FDA considered primary source if it is an authoritative entity?, I'm still learning the editing process here and trying to learn how wikipedia classifies evidence.
In addition, these are more primary sources supporting the use of mycophenolate mofetil in poxviridae:
  1. Wu J, Liu Q, Xie H, Chen R, Huang W, Liang C, Xiao X, Yu Y, Wang Y. Screening and evaluation of potential inhibitors against vaccinia virus from 767 approved drugs. J Med Virol. 2019 Nov;91(11):2016-2024. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25544. Epub 2019 Jul 25. PMID: 31294846.
  2. Peng C, Zhou Y, Cao S, Pant A, Campos Guerrero ML, McDonald P, Roy A, Yang Z. Identification of Vaccinia Virus Inhibitors and Cellular Functions Necessary for Efficient Viral Replication by Screening Bioactives and FDA-Approved Drugs. Vaccines (Basel). 2020 Jul 21;8(3):401. doi: 10.3390/vaccines8030401. PMID: 32708182; PMCID: PMC7564539.
  3. Hishiki T, Morita T, Akazawa D, Ohashi H, Park ES, Kataoka M, Mifune J, Shionoya K, Tsuchimoto K, Ojima S, Azam AH, Nakajima S, Kawahara M, Yoshikawa T, Shimojima M, Kiga K, Maeda K, Suzuki T, Ebihara H, Takahashi Y, Watashi K. Identification of IMP Dehydrogenase as a Potential Target for Anti-Mpox Virus Agents. Microbiol Spectr. 2023 Aug 17;11(4):e0056623. doi: 10.1128/spectrum.00566-23. Epub 2023 Jul 6. PMID: 37409948; PMCID: PMC10434032.
Scientific observer (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
regarding your comments about me specifically as an editor

I’m hoping that my words don’t sound condescending or rude. From this sentiment, it seems you may be more interested in a website like Scholarpedia, where expertise is privileged and given special significance in which articles a user can edit.

Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia anyone can edit. Expert editors (like myself - and my PhD is in Microbiology overall, btw, not specifically Virology) are valuable, but they do not dictate what is and is not written on Wikipedia, that would be original research. I would assure you I've acted as reviewer on multiple manuscripts about small molecule inhibitors, and have performed many of the relevant experiments myself for collaborations, projects that didn't pan out, etc.

Your sentiment that I should not participate here is misguided, and frankly has no place on Wikipedia. Please do not repeat this line of argument, it has no place here. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia anyone can edit, and you'll see from my profile I edit many different subjects, not only those where my PhD applies.

If you, for some reason, would like to persist in the argument that I have a conflict-of-interest (a very specific claim that requires very specific evidence on Wikipedia), I would direct you to WP:COIN, the noticeboard for such claims. But you should probably read WP:COI first.

Any further discussion of my personal role on Wikipedia or in this article would be more suited for my talk page or your talk page. Such discussion is WP:OFFTOPIC for this page, which is specifically about edits we wish to make to this article.

Now, regarding your specific claims here. You need a secondary source (a review article, clinical guideline, Systematic review and meta-analysis, textbook, etc) which specifically says Mycophenolate is used off-label for Mpox treatment. None of the sources you've provided do that. To claim based on those sources that it is or should be used for that purpose would be original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.

It is also not in line with the guidelines to persist in editing to create your preferred version of the article. This is called edit warring and it will get you blocked from Wikipedia if you continue to do it.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI SO started making contributions to wikipedia on Jan 13 2025. They added 2 scientific articles to multiple wikipedia pages:
  • Witwit H, Betancourt CA, Cubitt B, Khafaji R, Kowalski H, Jackson N, et al. (August 2024). "Cellular N-Myristoyl Transferases Are Required for Mammarenavirus Multiplication". Viruses. 16 (9): 1362. doi:10.3390/v16091362. PMC 11436053. PMID 39339839.
  • Witwit H, Cubitt B, Khafaji R, Castro EM, Goicoechea M, Lorenzo MM, et al. (January 2025). "Repurposing Drugs for Synergistic Combination Therapies to Counteract Monkeypox Virus Tecovirimat Resistance". Viruses. 17 (1): 92. doi:10.3390/v17010092. ISSN 1999-4915.
These articles have multiple overlapping authors, SO could be one of them. MDPI provides altmetric tracking:
Altmetric – Cellular N-Myristoyl Transferases Are Required for Mammarenavirus Multiplication
Altmetric – Repurposing Drugs for Synergistic Combination Therapies to Counteract Monkeypox Virus Tecovirimat Resistance
As one can see, there are even more additions with the use of IP adresses. These references being relevant to 10 and 12 Wikipedia articles seems unplausible (especially for the choosen Journal and the low number of views on the MPDI Page itself). With this information, the push to include this paper seems a little bit biased. 2001:9E8:80B:5A00:8C8A:F2F9:387B:7C18 (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mpox&oldid=1270539813"