Talk:Spanish fly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spanish fly article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia's coverage of arthropods. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. Andrewa 15:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Spanish fly (insect) → Spanish fly – make the primary usage the base name JHunterJ 15:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support - The insect is the primary and original use of the term. WormRunner 18:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Note that I found one other article already in existence with a similar name, and placed the 2003 film at its most simple name (Spanish Fly). -- nae'blis 04:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Venomous?

Why would anyone add a "Venomous animals" category tag to this article? It sounds as though this creature does not produce any venom, nor is it capable of delivering venom in any way, but is merely poisonous and generally "not good to eat" (like so many other insects). I suggest this tag be removed. --Jwinius 15:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] porn

a friend told me to type flies in google images it kept coming up with porn saying "spanish flies" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.146.62.135 (talk • contribs)

...So what? --BorgQueen 23:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wart medicine

Cantharidin was used before the 1960's in medicine in the United States as a topical agent used for the treatment of warts and molluscum contagiosum in humans. In 1962 it "lost approval" by the FDA, because the regulations changed, requiring drugs to show that they were both safe AND effective, which none of the manufacturers were willing to invest the money to do. So it languished as a treatment modality until the late 1990's, when it was proposed that it be added to the FDA's "bulk substances list" for agents that were felt to be useful in medicine, and were safe otherwise. Since then the FDA has been allowed it to be compounded into a topical colloid or gel for application to warts and molluscum in a doctors office (usually a dermatologist). I use it in the office, and it does a pretty good job.

Cantharidin Revisited: A Blistering Defense of an Ancient Medicine. Lisa Moed, BA; Tor A. Shwayder, MD; Mary Wu Chang, MD. Archives in Dermatology. 2001;137:1357-1360. http://archderm.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/137/10/1357 Schools in Pharmacology. Journal of Drugs in Dermatology. (Date: 2/1/2006) Author: Scheinfeld, Noah http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-142575974.html Dermfellow 00:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment 1

Probably the wrong place to put this, but I'm a bit of a new person to this, so please forgive me. "The cantharides excreted in the urine irritate the urethral passages.". The urethral passages of what? and why? is there any chance of some sort of clarification here, perhaps even a citation of some sort? On a similar note what are the effective dose and harmful dose? At least tell ud [i]what[/i] the difference is! "amount required..." Well, amount required for what? Harming a person? Being an "effective dose" actually causing a priapism? Tell us for God's sake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.153.13.68 (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"The cantharides excreted in the urine irritate the urethral passages.". The urethral passages of what? and why?

Well, the urethral passages of whichever animal ingested the cantharidin. Why? Because it's an irritant and blistering agent. As for the specific difference between an "effective dose" and a "harmful dose", it's the same as for sniffing lighter fluid or Windex. You really don't need to know. Just avoid it based on sense and reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.196.33 (talk • contribs)

In discussing any poison (e.g. arsenic) it is reasonable to note the exact level of toxicity or even quote the LD50. From this article I do not know if a crumb or a whole handful of is beetles required. This is particularly relevant to the section on Aqua toffana, as the other ingredient, arsenic has an LD50 given as many grammes and certainly not a few drops. Thus either cantharides is very toxic or the whole story about Aqua toffana is a fabrication or perhaps propoganda. The suggestion that Aqua toffana causes painlesss death is a bit strange anyway as its stated ingredients cause irritation and cramps. ~~JDN the Scientist~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.202.145 (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)