text:
Talk:Eli Cohen

Untitled
This page needs extending by somebody who knows what the heck it's talking about...

yeah eli is a good spy he gave israel all the informations about syrian missile force. so in 1967 they lost

Good idea. I rewrote it completely. Here is the previous text:
 * National hero. Celebrated 'Nazi-Hunter'. Cohen is most famous for his part in the highly successful mossad operation whereby the Nazi War Criminal Adolf Eichmann.  This was an overtly complicated and dangerous mission that took place in an anti-semetic Argentina.

Leaving the POV problem aside, Cohen had nothing to do with Eichmann. -- zero 10:06, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Reverting information
If you would like information, written by Eli's brother Maurice (who was a fellow agent), READ here. Please stop arbitrarily reverting information that is quite accurate. I am re-adding the information about the trees during the Six Days War and his alias's rank before being uncovered. --Stoopideggs2 15:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Not sure who you are talking too but I'd like a citation on the story. So far as I can tell the story is apocryphal.  It's a documented fact that Eucalypts were first planted in the Golan/Upper Galilee region in the 19th century to assist with water retention in the soil.  The place is full of them now (so many that as an Aussie staying on Kfar Blum I was reminded very much of Australia).  Even if Eli Cohen had suggested planting the trees over the Syrian gun emplacements it is unlikely to have helped location of the sites by aircraft as the trees would have been anything but distinctive.

 * If I don't see a verifiable citation for the claim I will delete it. Robert Brockway 07:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * In regard to verifiable citations, please note my comment above that recognizes a primary source.
 * Read his biography here JewishVirtualLibrary
 * and here EliCohen.org--Stoopideggs2 03:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In regard to the eucalypts trees, I revisited one of the Syrian bunkers (on Tel Fachar) during my most recent trip to Israel earlier this month. What makes these trees that cover the bunkers distinguishable from the other eucalypts trees in the area is that they are densely clustered on top of strategic hills. Conversely, the eucalypts trees that are easily found throughout the valley were planted (by the Pioneers in the late 19th century and the IDF pre-'67) along the roads because they gave ample coverage for traveling cars/people/military personnel from Syrian mortars. Let me repeat: thousands of eucalypts trees line roads in the valleys below the Golan. It is nearly silly to see the region’s anomalous hills, which do signify the bunkers.

 * In regard to "most successful spies of all times". This is an objective view and therefore cannot be supported by evidence or facts. Objective views have no place in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.162.170 (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Do you have a citation for the documented use of water retention?

 * Be assured, I appreciate your endeavor for excellence and veracity. Stand on Tel Chai on a clear day and look into the valley to see for yourself.--Stoopideggs2 03:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Improbably Story Removed
I just removed this:

"On the eve of the Six Day War, two Syrian fighter jet flew towards Tel-Aviv with intent to heavily bomb the largely populated city. Israeli intelligence radiod the Syrian fighters, a message stating their real names and the names of their children. The threatened them saying that if they dropped their bombs, undercover agents would kill their families. The pilots then proceeded to drop their bombs on the sea, radio back to Syrian headquarters that the mission was a success and leave Israeli airspace."

For a start two fighters would not consistute heavy bombardment of a city the size of Tel-Aviv. Even if Israel could identify the planes in flight the claimed Israeli response is improbable. Syrian fighters entering Israeli airspace would have been shot down or forced back through force of arms. Robert Brockway 07:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"? and protection from the sun for the outposts.?"
Amoruso 22:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened to this page?
Is it just me or has this page completely changed? A couple weeks ago when I read it it must have been five times longer. Maybe I am thinking about a different article?

-Liore 22:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Egypt
I added this article to WikiProject Egypt because Cohen spent his young life in Egypt and qualifies as an Egyptian-Israeli. Our goal is to cultivate articles relating to Egypt, so please discuss his removal here if you still think he doesn't qualify.

--Yitzhak1995 04:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

weasel words
'Although the story may be apocryphal many claim that Cohen suggested that eucalyptus trees should be planted around Syrian military bunkers and mortars on the Golan Heights that were targeting Israel.'

who claims exactly?

fairy tails like this have no place in an encyclopedia Rm uk 01:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

 * It's a commonly accepted story in Israel; If it's true is another story. I just did a google search and found it mentioned in an article. There is a book called "Mossad" with a chapter on Eli Cohen; it might be there. Itzse 23:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

 * It is also an entire chapter on Eli Cohen in Gideon's Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad by Gordon Thomas. This is no fairy tale nor is it a fairy "tail."  :P --GHcool 22:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Come off it. Gordon Thomas writes books in the sensationalist exposé category.  Where is this reported by someone in a position to know for sure?  --Zerotalk 05:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't think that the Syrians would have removed the trees knowing they were the gift of an Israeli spy and as such had an obvious purpose? The story is apocryphal and has zero credibility. Aldiboront (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Cohen was a martyr, please do not delete category.
Cohen was executed in martyr's square, damascus on the orders of his good friend Hafez al-Assad. He was a victim of political weakness on the part of the Alawite syrian ruling class, and a pawn in an espionage operation. Israel can ensure the return of Gilad Shalit by further increasing the price of Jewish blood, and ceasing to trade live criminals for dead soldiers. If Gilad Shalit is not released, Gaza will have some problems. 216.171.96.18 (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop talking rubbish. Cohen was executed in 1965. The Alawites came to power in 1966 and Hafez al-Assad came to power in 1970. СЛУЖБА (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleted weasel-worded section
I think Eli Cohen was a great guy and an important subject. But the "Achievements" section I deleted doesn't belong here. It was full of weasel-worded POV and unsourced speculation. What external references there were are totally unacceptable. A reference must be verifiable by the reader. "In Arabic" makes verification impossible by at least 90% of English-speaking readers. The article is fine without the opinionating, and there's a nice list for further reading. Unless the article (not polemic) can be expanded with verifiable secondary sources, let's leave it at that. J M Rice (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I disagree with your decision to delete the "Achievements" section. I believe that it is an important part of the article and that it provides valuable information about Eli Cohen's contributions to Israel. The section is not full of weasel-worded POV and unsourced speculation. The information in the section is based on reliable sources, including books, articles, and interviews. The references in the section are also reliable and verifiable. I think you should set your antisemitism aside and follow the rules. What proof do you have that the sources are not verifiable? Vedisassanti (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Don’t attack people Dronebogus (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No attack was made, I was simply disagreeing with him and calling their motives into question based on their history. Vedisassanti (talk) 10:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, calling someone antisemitic is a serious personal attack. Dronebogus (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I called nobody an antisemite. I told them they should set their antisemitism aside, because the only person who would take a stand on "weasel-words" that don't exist in reference to a Jewish hero is obviously displaying at least some degree of antisemitism. As a Jewish person, I don't appreciate the harassment. Vedisassanti (talk) 10:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Trying to glorify your personal hero is violating WP:NPOV. Dronebogus (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate if you stop harassing me with lies. At what point have I ever claimed Cohen was my "personal hero" or that I was glorifying him. How is wanting someone's achievements to be accurately represented considered glorification.
 * It's clear that you are using the talk page to enact a witch hunt against me. For what reason I am unsure, but I'm asking you to cease. Vedisassanti (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, the original comment was FROM 2008. Dronebogus (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Jurisdiction.
What was he legally sentenced for: treachery or espionage? As a Syrian citizen or as an Israeli citizen? СЛУЖБА (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Infiltration and confidence building
There's some 1960s-ish bad writing here that's lip-smacking, hackneyed and non-encyclopaedic in tone ('dazzling beauties', 'the spicier part of a spy's life'). This material is quoted from a poorly written online encyclopaedia, and it doesn't merit direct quotation. The segments of the quotation that are themselves enclosed in quotation marks aren't blessed with a primary source on the page from which they're copied.

This part needs to be rewritten, with proper sources given.

Notreallydavid (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Eli Cohen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719050640/http://www.elicohen.org/resources/chronology.php to http://www.elicohen.org/resources/chronology.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eli Cohen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070301200747/http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=1455 to http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=1455
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090418204613/http://www.spywise.net/cohenfiles.html to http://www.spywise.net/cohenfiles.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Nadia's claim of body
Where is wrtiien "In 1965, Nadia, sent a letter to Hafez al-Assad...", maybe would have been to Amin al-Hafiz instead? Or in 1975? A source is needed. Regards, DPdH (talk)

Eli Cohen's love life in Damascus
I don't see how AbuKhalil's speculation that he didn't have seventeen lovers belongs here. She just assumes that he's lying without offering any evidence. It's just hacky nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeatomic (talk • contribs) 00:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * First, AbuKhalil is male. Secondly, what he does is to point out that the speculations about Cohen's lovelife is just that: speculations. Either we take out all of the silly bragging, or we leave all of it in. Leaving just the first half in, as if it was an uncontested truth...that is not an option, IMO, Huldra (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Saying that it was likely self-reported is fine. Speculating that Cohen "invented" this stuff doesn't belong here. Lukeatomic (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Reporting everything according to him, is NOT fine. We know that a lot of false information was spread about Cohen, either by Cohen himself, or his employer, the Mossad. Please read Why ‘The Spy’ is a blend of fiction and fable, September 21, 2019, Sami Moubayed, or Netflix’s Mossad Propaganda, September 24, 2019, As’ad AbuKhalil, or any of the Arab sites that they refer to. Huldra (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

ABu Khalil s article is not a reliable source of historical fact. Stop edit warring this back in over the objections of at least 3 editors and seek consensus in this page, instead. Here come the Suns (talk)
 * As'ad AbuKhalil is a professor of political science, specialising on the Middle East. He is more of a RS than the vast majority of sources on this article. That various socks/editors who shouldn't be editing here does not appreciate that, doesn't change the facts, Huldra (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * He has no relevant history credentials which are the only thing that matters as far as this historical incident, And his work was not published in any academic outlet. Read WP:ONUS and stop revert warring this disputed content into the article unless you gain consensus for it. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * AbuKhalil has more credentials that just about any author in this article. And there is no demand that RS should only be published in "academic outlet", as you are well aware of. (Half of wp's sources would have to be removed if that wasn't so.) And your "consensus" consist of  "editors" who should not be editing this page, again, as you well know. Huldra (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion, but disagree with it. Multiple editors have challenged this content, you now need to seek consensus for it, rather than edit-warring it back in. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please tell me which editors (with edit count > 500) have challenged the content? Huldra (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I, for one. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and you are of course absolutely not a sock. Anyone else? Huldra (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. One is all it takes. Now, get to work on that consensus building. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, one person is not a consensus; that is plain silly. Please explain how two journalists writing in 1971 (when very little hard data had been released) are more reliable than a professor of ME politics writing today. You obviously can't. This opinion is obviously relevant and adequately sourced. Zerotalk 11:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood me. Of course one person is not a consensus, but one person is enough to challenge disputed material introduced by another editor, which then places the WP:ONUS on the editor wishing to include disputed content to gain consensus for it. You'll notice Huldra is the only one edit-warring this content back into the article, while Lukeatomic and myself are opposed to it. Here come the Suns (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't misunderstand you. Lukeatomic is not a E-C user so he/she doesn't count. And you haven't come up with a policy-based reason for your objection. Zerotalk 05:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please point to the policy that says that the opinions of users who are not E-C don;t count. The policy based objections are WP:ONUS, WP:OR and WP:RS. Here come the Suns (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Non E-C users can edit talk pages, (at least of not very contentious articles). But AFAIK they are not allowed to vote in say, a WP:RfC. (If they are not allowed to edit the page, why should they have a say in what will be on the page? That is simply not logical. But feel free to raise the issue at WP:ARCA, if you like), As for your "policy based objections": WP:OR and WP:RS are not relevant (we are talking about a professor in political science), and WP:ONUS is just as valid (if not more) for every single other source in the article. Huldra (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's turn this the other way - if non E-C users can edit talk page, of course what they  say there should matter- otherwise- why should they be allowed to edit the page? That is simply not logical. WP:OR is relevant to your  editorial comment, not sourced to any reference, that "According to himself or Mossad,...". Being a professor at a 3rd tier university does not automatically make someone a reliable source on every topic. Abu Khalil is not a historian, has no special knowledge about the Mossad, Israel, or Syria. His opinion piece was published in a rather fringe outlet, and not cited by any reputable source, scholarly or otherwise. Out of curiosity, do you think  his opinionated screed, published in the same piece , that "Netflix seems as closely tied to Mossad" can be used in tour article about Netflix? I mean, he's a professor! You are edit warring against the consensus. Not only will I be reverting you until you gain consensus for this edit, but if you keep it up, expect to be reported. Here come the Suns (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That "consensus" consists of you, yourself, "User:Here come the Suns"...oh, and then (lets not forget): "User:Here come the Suns" ....aaaaaaaaand "User:Here come the Suns". I am overwhelmed. And non E-C users can edit the user pages to suggest totally non-controversial edits; say, like my edit here could (and should) be allowed also for non E-C users, Huldra (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that is not a correct description of the facts. Beside me, the following editors have objected to, and/or removed your edits: Lukeatomic, LongFormCheddar, Silveter, Sindle71, IP editor 107.77.223.154, IP editor 24.214.59.97 and IP editor 2601:c0:c000:b4a:d841:76e2:9a7f:3442. You are edit warring against multiple editors, and you need to stop and try to get consensus here.Here come the Suns (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, none of the editors you mention should have edited the article at all. One can revert such "newbies" as many times as one like, as I am sure you know by now. So, my description is correct: "Here come the Suns" is the only editor (with 30/500 conditions fulfilled) who has disagreed with me, Huldra (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * They may or may not have been allowed to edit the article, but they were certainly allowed to express their opinions about your edits on this talk page, which some of them did, showing there is no consensus for your edits. I am happy you've stopped edit warring and initiated an RfC about this - I suggest you wait for its results. Here come the Suns (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The rules are quite clear, "Edits by unregistered users and editors with less than 500 edits or 30 days tenure may be reverted without regarding the one revert rule." That someone wants to count the "uncountables", tells us more about them, than anything else, Huldra (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * They may be reverted w/o violating 1RR, but that does not mean that their opinion does not count.That someone wants to rule out opposing opinions not based on the merit of the argument, but on the basis of how many edits they've made, tells us more about them and the weakness of their own position, than anything else. There's a term for that here - WP:WIKILAWYERING Here come the Suns (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, if any one of you had an argument worth listening too, I would have. So far what you have thrown at me has basically been WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT (especially the latter), Huldra (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, not a correct description of facts. I've objected to you editorial comments on the grounds of WP:OR, and to the inclusion of material from a conspiracy theory monger (who happens to be an academic) on the grounds of WP:RS. Similar arguments have been made by the other editors objecting to your edits. Now settle down and wait for the RfC results. Here come the Suns (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, lets agree to disagree, then. That you think editors who should not edit the article should still have a say in what is in the article....is noted. (And obviously I will wait for the results from the RfC I started.) Huldra (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not just me who thinks that, it is the opinion of the Arbitration committee who imposed these limitations in the first palce, who stated "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area". Here come the Suns (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The relevant words being "constructive comments"...POV comments might be happily ignored (And it is POV, when any other editor object to them) Huldra (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Constructive comments include the policy-based opposition to your POV edits. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To repeat: it is a POV edit, if anyone else object to it, Huldra (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We get it, you think anyone who objects to your edits, is doing it out of POV, but your edits are always just neutral. Here come the Suns (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC
Should As'ad AbuKhalil writings about Eli Cohen be included in the article, or not? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 02:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC). RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 23:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC). Huldra (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

- As should be clear from my prior comments, I agree that it should not be included. It is a biased, illogical article, not at all based on fact. The author's fixation on anti-Israel conspiracies tells us everything we need to know. The author's suggestion that the conventional knowledge of Cohen's exploits cannot be trusted because it could only have come from Cohen or Mossad smacks of classic anti-semitism. It doesn't belong here. Lukeatomic (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Not included" - it is an ideological screed, published as part of a TV series review in a fringe media outlet, that also includes conspiracy theories regarding Netflix's and Hollywood's supposed collusion with Mossad in order to spread propaganda. It was not cited by any other source. Abu Khalil is not an historian, and has no relevant specialized knowledge regarding Eli Cohen, the Mossad, or Syrian history. Here come the Suns (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Include - As'ad AbuKhalil is a professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus, specialising on the Middle East (according to the books he has published). He is more of a WP:RS than virtually anything presently in the article, Huldra (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment — In fact almost nobody who knows the true facts of this story is motivated to tell them to us in unadorned fashion. There is no reason to trust As'ad AbuKhalil less than the two journalists whose hagiographic book is indirectly cited at this place. On the other hand, the same particular claim is available from Israeli sources and I put one of them in AbuKhalil's place. Zerotalk 04:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And now HctS has violated 1RR to alter my text to a statement that is weaker than what's in the source. This is disruptive editing. Zerotalk 08:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I added new text to the article. Your entire contribution is still there. How is that a revert? A revert is not synonymous with "edit". Here come the Suns (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

 * Exclude Not suitable HAL  333  01:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Malformed RfC (uninvolved editor) The RfC does not state which writings we might be including. I'm not going to read the long back-and-forth above, but from looking at this professor briefly, he seems like a very partisan and thus not all that reliable source. Sdkb (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Eli Cohen possibly referenced in Frederick Forsythe's book "The Odessa File"
In Frederick Forsythe's 1972 book "The Odessa File" there is a passage that sounds a lot like part of the life of Eli Cohen. On page 21 of the book it discusses an Israeli agent who was the top agent in Egypt. He was captured in 1965 after a raid discovered a radio transmitter in his house. Dwnoone1 (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit request
In the burial section can someone change:

Monthir Maosily was al-Assad's bureau chief, and he said in August 2008 that the Syrians had buried him three times to stop the remains from being brought back to Israel via a special operation

to:

Monthir Maosily, the former bureau chief of Hafez Al-Assad, claimed in August 2008 that the Syrians had buried him three times to stop the remains from being brought back to Israel via a special operation

Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Eucalypt trees
The information about Eli Cohen's suggestion to plant trees in Syrian outposts in the Golan is widely considered as false in Israel. It was removed from the Hebrew article about him after no credible source for it was found. I have not read the source for the claim in this article, though. Tzafrir (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The source in the article calls it "an apocryphal claim", so it refutes the claim rather than supporting it. The way it is presented here is even worse: "and had trees planted at every position" as if he had the authority to command planting of trees, which is simply ridiculous. Zerotalk 01:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Eli Cohen


text:
Talk:Peacock

Links
This article has lots of links that are meant to be for peafowl. Can anyone discuss whether to move this dis-ambiguation page to Peacock (disambiguation)?? 66.245.78.144 17:17, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Peafowl which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Peacock


text:
Jimmy Swaggart

Jimmy Lee Swaggart (born March 15, 1935) is an American Pentecostal televangelist.

Jimmy Swaggart Ministries owns and operates the SonLife Broadcasting Network (SBN). Swaggart is the senior pastor of the Family Worship Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Early life
Jimmy Lee Swaggart was born on March 15, 1935, in Ferriday, Louisiana, to fiddle player and Pentecostal preacher Willie Leon (known as "Sun" or "Son") Swaggart and Minnie Bell Herron, daughter of sharecropper William Herron. Swaggart's parents were related by marriage, as Son Swaggart's maternal uncle, Elmo Lewis, was married to Minnie Herron's sister, Mamie. The extended family had a complex network of interrelationships: "cousins and in-laws and other relatives married each other until the clan was entwined like a big, tight ball of rubber bands".

Swaggart is the cousin of rockabilly pioneer Jerry Lee Lewis and country music star Mickey Gilley. He also had a sister, Jeanette Ensminger (1942–1999). With his parents, Swaggart attended small Assemblies of God churches in Ferriday and Wisner.

In 1952, aged 17, Swaggart married 15-year-old Frances Anderson, whom he met in church in Wisner, Louisiana while he was playing music with his father, who pastored the Assembly of God Church there. They have a son named Donnie. Swaggart worked several part-time odd jobs to support his young family and also began singing Southern Gospel music at various churches.

According to his autobiography To Cross a River, Swaggart, along with his wife and son, lived in poverty during the 1950s as he preached throughout rural Louisiana, struggling to survive on an income of $30 a week. Being too poor to own a home, the Swaggarts lived in church basements, homes of pastors, and small motels. Sun Records producer Sam Phillips wanted to start a gospel line of music for the label (perhaps to remain in competition with RCA Victor and Columbia, who also had gospel lines at the time) and wanted Swaggart for Sun as the first gospel artist for the label. Swaggart's cousin, Jerry Lee Lewis, had previously signed with Sun and was reportedly earning $20,000 per week at the time. Although the offer meant a promise for significant income for him and his family, Swaggart turned Phillips down, stating that he was called to preach the gospel.

Ordination and early career
Preaching from a flatbed trailer donated to him, Swaggart began full-time evangelistic work in 1955. He began developing a revival-meeting following throughout the American South. In 1960, he began recording gospel music record albums and transmitting on Christian radio stations. In 1961, Swaggart was ordained by the Assemblies of God; a year later he began his radio ministry. In the late 1960s, Swaggart founded what was then a small church named the Family Worship Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; the church eventually became district-affiliated with the Assemblies of God.

In 1971, Swaggart began transmitting a weekly 30-minute telecast over various local television stations in Baton Rouge and also purchased a local AM radio station, WLUX (now WPFC). The station broadcast Christian feature stories, preaching and teaching to various fundamentalist and Pentecostal denominations and playing black gospel, Southern gospel, and inspirational music. Swaggart sold many of his radio stations gradually throughout the 1980s and early 1990s.

Shifting to television
By 1975, the television ministry had expanded to more stations around the United States, and he began to use television as his primary preaching forum. In 1978, the weekly telecast was increased to an hour.

In 1980, Swaggart began a daily weekday telecast featuring Bible study and music, and the weekend, hour-long telecast included a service from either Family Worship Center (Swaggart's church) or an on-location crusade in a major city. In the early 1980s, the broadcasts expanded to major cities nationwide. By 1983, more than 250 television stations broadcast the telecast.

Promotion of RENAMO
Throughout the 1980s, Jimmy Swaggart Ministries was one of many American Evangelical leaders who promoted the South African-backed Mozambican National Resistance, aka RENAMO, which was accused of committing systematic war crimes during Mozambique's 15-year-long civil war. In addition to moral support and publicity, Swaggart Ministries was repeatedly accused of providing funding and material support to the group. In September 1985, government forces supported by Zimbabwe captured RENAMO's main headquarters inside Mozambique, Casa Banana. Among the materials left behind by retreating rebels were piles of Swaggart's 1982 publication, "How to Receive The Baptism in the Holy Spirit", translated into Portuguese. During the 1988 trial of Australian missionary Ian Grey, who coordinated much of the private support to RENAMO, it was claimed by the defendant that Swaggart Ministries worked through Shekinah Ministries to provide support to RENAMO. That year, extensive media coverage of Swaggart and his businesses in the wake of a sex scandal largely excluded these allegations. In 1991, Covert Action Magazine and the government of Zimbabwe both accused Swaggart ministries of continuing to fund RENAMO.

Prostitution scandals
In 1988, Swaggart was accused of patronizing a prostitute. He was suspended and ultimately defrocked by the Assemblies of God. Three years later, Swaggart was implicated in another scandal involving prostitution. As a result, Swaggart's ministry became non-affiliated, nondenominational, and significantly smaller than it was in the ministry's pre-scandal years.

Swaggart's sex scandals received national media attention.

1988 prostitution scandal
Swaggart's first prostitution scandal occurred in retaliation for an incident in 1986 when he accused fellow Assemblies of God minister Marvin Gorman of having several affairs. Gorman was defrocked from the Assemblies of God, and his ministry was all but ended. Gorman filed a successful lawsuit against Swaggart for defamation and conspiracy to ruin his reputation; he was awarded damages amounting to $10 million in 1991. Following an appeal, the parties settled the matter for $1.75 million.

As a retaliatory measure, Gorman hired his son Randy and son-in-law Garland Bilbo to watch the Travel Inn on Airline Highway in Metairie, a suburb of New Orleans. At the Travel Inn, the two men photographed Swaggart outside Room 7 with Debra Murphree, a local prostitute. Gorman arrived at the Travel Inn a short while later and confronted Swaggart.

According to Swaggart: The Unauthorized Biography of an American Evangelist, Gorman secured a promise from Swaggart that he would publicly apologize to Gorman and start the process of Gorman's reinstatement to the Assemblies of God. Gorman offered to remain silent if Swaggart would state publicly that he lied about Gorman's affairs. Gorman waited almost a year, then hand-delivered a note to Swaggart informing him his time was up; Swaggart did not respond. On February 16, 1988, Gorman contacted James Hamil, one of the 13-man Executive Presbytery of the Assemblies of God, to expose Swaggart's assignation with the prostitute. The presbytery leadership of the Assemblies of God suspended Swaggart from broadcasting his television program for three months.

According to the Associated Press, Murphree failed a polygraph test administered by a New York City Police Department polygraph expert. The test administrator concluded that Murphree had failed to tell the truth on all key questions concerning her statement. The test was administered after Murphree offered to sell the story to the National Enquirer for $100,000. Murphree failed questions about whether she was paid or promised money to "set up" Swaggart, and whether she made up the story to make money from it. In place of Murphree's interview, Enquirer editor Levy published an accounting of Swaggart's family where they allegedly expressed their fears over Swaggart's health. Murphree, who blamed her failed polygraph on "cocaine use" the day before the test was given, went on to have her interview published by Penthouse magazine.

On February 21, 1988, without giving any details regarding his transgressions, Swaggart delivered what came to be known as his "I have sinned" speech on live television. He spoke tearfully to his family, congregation, TV audience, and ended his speech with a prayer: "I have sinned against You, my Lord, and I would ask that Your Precious Blood ... would wash and cleanse every stain until it is in the seas of God's forgetfulness never to be remembered against me anymore."

The national presbytery of the Assemblies of God extended Swaggart's suspension to their standard two-year suspension for sexual immorality. His return to the pulpit coincided with the end of the three-month suspension originally ordered by the denomination. Believing that Swaggart was not genuinely repentant in submitting to their authority, the hierarchy of the Assemblies of God defrocked him, removing his credentials and ministerial license.

Swaggart then became an independent and non-denominational Pentecostal minister, establishing Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, based at the Family Worship Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and the Sonlife Broadcasting Network (SBN) which can be seen in the United States and other countries.

1991 prostitution scandal
On October 11, 1991, Swaggart was found in the company of a prostitute for a second time. He was pulled over by a police officer in Indio, California, for driving on the wrong side of the road. With him in the vehicle was a woman named Rosemary Garcia. According to Garcia, Swaggart had stopped to propose sex to her on the side of the road. She later told reporters: "He asked me for sex. I mean, that's why he stopped me. That's what I do. I'm a prostitute." This time, rather than confessing his sins to his congregation, Swaggart told those at Family Worship Center, "The Lord told me it's flat none of your business." Swaggart's son Donnie then announced to the audience that his father would be temporarily stepping down as head of Jimmy Swaggart Ministries for "a time of healing and counseling".

Later career
, Jimmy Swaggart Ministries mainly comprised Family Worship Center, The Jimmy Swaggart Telecast, radio and television programs called A Study in the Word, SonLife Radio Network,  a website, and a 24/7 cable and satellite television network, SonLife Broadcasting Network (SBN). Swaggart's wife Frances hosts a television program, Frances and Friends, shown daily on SBN. Swaggart also hosts a daily Bible study program on SBN, The Message of the Cross. His son, Donnie Swaggart, preaches at Family Worship Center and also preaches in churches across America and abroad. Donnie's son, Gabriel Swaggart, has served as the ministry's youth pastor who leads Crossfire, Family Worship Center's youth ministry. SBN also delivers live broadcasts of all of its weekly services at Family Worship Center, as well as live broadcasts of all of its camp meetings.

As of 2024, Swaggart remains senior pastor of Family Worship Center.

Radio
Swaggart started SonLife Radio on the noncommercial FM band. Unlike his previous stations, SonLife was commercial-free and it did not sell time to outside ministries; the preaching and teaching were all produced in-house. The music which it played was primarily Southern Gospel. SonLife Radio is also streamed on the Internet.

List of radio stations
The network's flagship station is WJFM in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Notes:

Television
In 1973, Swaggart proposed to television producers in Nashville, Tennessee a television program including a fairly large music segment, a short sermon, and time for talking about current ministry projects. They accepted, and within weeks the Jimmy Swaggart Telecast was being broadcast around the United States.

In 1981, Swaggart launched a daily television program titled A Study in the Word. From the beginning, the primary cable channels which the program was aired on were CBN Cable (now Freeform), TBN, and the old PTL Network (now the Inspiration Network).

In 1988, Swaggart lost some of his broadcast and merchandise rights following his first prostitution scandal.

In 1991, Swaggart's career as a standard televangelist came to an end after more local TV stations cancelled their contracts with him following his second prostitution scandal.

Jimmy Swaggart Bible College
In autumn 1984, Swaggart opened Jimmy Swaggart Bible College (JSBC). The college originally provided education and communication degrees.

JSBC enrollment dropped drastically in 1988 when students left as a result of Swaggart's scandal, followed by accreditation issues.

In 1991, JSBC was renamed the World Evangelism Bible College and enrollment dropped to 370 students. The college shut down programs in music, physical education, secretarial science, and communications that October and disbanded its basketball team. In November "the college laid off three Bible professors and an English professor, effective at the end of the fall semester".

Print
Swaggart has written about 50 Christian books offered through his ministry. He is the author of the Expositor's Study Bible, 13 study guides and 38 commentaries on the Bible. The ministry also publishes a monthly magazine, The Evangelist.

Swaggart published Religious Rock n Roll: A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, in 1985.

Music
In 1980, Swaggart received a Grammy Award nomination for Best Gospel Performance, Traditional for his album Worship.

Family
Since October 10, 1952, Swaggart has been married to Frances Swaggart ( Anderson, born August 9, 1937). They have one son, Donnie (born October 18, 1954), named after Jimmy Swaggart's brother who died in infancy. He has three grandchildren and several great-grandchildren.

Donnie Swaggart and his son, Gabriel Swaggart, are also preachers, making four generations of the Swaggart family to have become involved in ministerial work.

In popular culture
Swaggart's prostitution scandals inspired the Ozzy Osbourne song "Miracle Man" on Osbourne's fifth studio album No Rest for the Wicked (1988).

During his 1988 concerts, Bruce Hornsby would begin his song "Defenders of the Flag" from Scenes from the Southside with a tongue-in-cheek dedication to Swaggart.

Similarities were noted between heel World Wrestling Federation character Brother Love and Swaggart.

"Jesus He Knows Me", a 1991 song by Genesis, is a satire on televangelists such as Swaggart, Robert Tilton, and Jim Bakker.

Canadian rock band the New Pornographers took their name from a 1986 speech by Swaggart in which he lambasted rock music as "the new pornography."

American avant-garde musician Kristin Hayter (as Lingua Ignota) released the EP Epistolary Grieving for Jimmy Swaggart on the 5th of November in 2021.

title: Jimmy Swaggart


text:
Loa loa filariasis

Loa loa filariasis, (Loiasis) is a skin and eye disease caused by the nematode worm Loa loa. Humans contract this disease through the bite of a deer fly (Chrysops spp.) or mango fly, the vectors for Loa loa. The adult Loa loa filarial worm can reach from three to seven centimetres long and migrates throughout the subcutaneous tissues of humans, occasionally crossing into subconjunctival tissues of the eye where it can be easily observed. Loa loa does not normally affect vision but can be painful when moving about the eyeball or across the bridge of the nose. Loiasis can cause red itchy swellings below the skin called "Calabar swellings". The disease is treated with the drug diethylcarbamazine (DEC), and when appropriate, surgical methods may be employed to remove adult worms from the conjunctiva. Loiasis belongs to the group of neglected tropical diseases, and there is a call for it to be included in the high priority listing.

Signs and symptoms
A filariasis such as loiasis most often consists of asymptomatic microfilaremia. Some patients can develop lymphatic dysfunction causing lymphedema. Episodic angioedema (Calabar swellings) in the arms and legs, caused by immune reactions, are common. Calabar swellings are 3 – in surface area, sometimes erythematous, and not pitting. When chronic, they can form cyst-like enlargements of the connective tissue around the sheaths of muscle tendons, becoming very painful when moved. The swellings may last for one to three days and may be accompanied by localized urticaria (skin eruptions) and pruritus (itching). They reappear at referent locations at irregular time intervals. Subconjunctival migration of an adult worm to the eyes can also occur frequently, and this is the reason Loa loa is also called the "African eye worm". The passage over the eyeball can be sensed, but it usually takes less than 15 minutes. Eyeworms affect men and women equally, but advanced age is a risk factor. Eosinophilia is often prominent in filarial infections. Dead worms may cause chronic abscesses, which may lead to the formation of granulomatous reactions and fibrosis.

In the human host, Loa loa larvae migrate to the subcutaneous tissue, where they mature to adult worms in approximately one year, but sometimes up to four years. Adult worms migrate in the subcutaneous tissues at a speed less than 1 cm/min, mating and producing more microfilariae. The adult worms can live up to 17 years in the human host.

Transmission
Loa loa infective larvae (L3) are transmitted to humans by the deer fly vectors Chrysops silica and C. dimidiata. These carriers are blood-sucking and day-biting, and they are found in rainforest-like environments in western and central Africa. Infective larvae (L3) mature to adults (L5) in the subcutaneous tissues of the human host, after which the adult worms—assuming presence of a male and female worm—mate and produce microfilariae. The cycle of infection continues when a non-infected mango or deer fly takes a blood meal from a microfilaremic human host, and this stage of the transmission is possible because of the combination of the diurnal periodicity of microfilariae and the day-biting tendencies of the Chrysops spp.

Reservoir
Humans are the primary reservoir for Loa loa. Other minor potential reservoirs have been indicated in various fly-biting habit studies, such as hippopotamus, wild ruminants (e.g. buffalo), rodents and lizards. A simian type of loiasis exists in monkeys and apes but it is transmitted by Chrysops langi. There is no crossover between the human and simian types of the disease. A related fly, Chrysops langi, has been isolated as a vector of simian loiasis, but this variant hunts within the forest and has not as yet been associated with human infection.

Vector
Loa loa is transmitted by several species of tabanid flies (Order: Diptera; Family: Tabanidae). Although horseflies of the genus Tabanus are often mentioned as vectors, the two most prominent vectors are from the tabanid genus Chrysops—C. silacea and C. dimidiata. These species exist only in Africa and are popularly known as deer flies and mango, or mangrove, flies.

Chrysops spp. are small (5 – long) with a large head and downward-pointing mouthparts. Their wings are clear or speckled brown. They are hematophagous and typically live in forested and muddy habitats like swamps, streams and reservoirs, and in rotting vegetation. Female mango and deer flies require a blood meal for production of a second batch of eggs. This batch is deposited near water, where the eggs hatch in 5–7 days. The larvae mature in water or soil, where they feed on organic material such as decaying animal and vegetable products. Fly larvae are 1 – long and take 1–3 years to mature from egg to adult. When fully mature, C. silacea and C. dimidiata assume the day-biting tendencies of all tabanids.

The bite of the mango fly can be very painful, possibly because of the laceration style employed; rather than puncturing the skin as a mosquito does, the mango fly (and deer fly) makes a laceration in the skin and subsequently laps up the blood. Female flies require a fair amount of blood for their aforementioned reproductive purposes and thus may take multiple blood meals from the same host if disturbed during the first one.

Although Chrysops silacea and C. dimidiata are attracted to canopied rainforests, they do not do their biting there. Instead, they leave the forest and take most blood meals in open areas. The flies are attracted to smoke from wood fires and they use visual cues and sensation of carbon dioxide plumes to find their preferred host, humans.

A study of Chrysops spp. biting habits showed that C. silacea and C. dimidiata take human blood meals approximately 90% of the time, with hippopotamus, wild ruminant, rodent and lizard blood meals making up the other 10%.

Morphology
Adult Loa worms are sexually dimorphic, with males considerably smaller than females at 30–34 mm long and 0.35–0.42 mm wide compared to 40–70 mm long and 0.5 mm wide. Adults live in the subcutaneous tissues of humans, where they mate and produce wormlike eggs called microfilariae. These microfilariae are 250–300 μm long, 6–8 μm wide and can be distinguished morphologically from other filariae, as they are sheathed and contain body nuclei that extend to the tip of the tail.

Lifecycle

The vector for Loa loa filariasis originates with flies from two hematophagous species of the genus Chrysops (deer flies), C. silacea and C. dimidiata. During a blood meal, an infected fly (genus Chrysops, day-biting flies) introduces third-stage filarial larvae onto the skin of the human host, where they penetrate into the bite wound. The larvae develop into adults that commonly reside in subcutaneous tissue. The female worms measure 40 to 70 mm in length and 0.5 mm in diameter, while the males measure 30 to 34 mm in length and 0.35 to 0.43 mm in diameter. Adults produce microfilariae measuring 250 to 300 μm by 6 to 8 μm, which are sheathed and have diurnal periodicity. Microfilariae have been recovered from spinal fluids, urine and sputum. During the day, they are found in peripheral blood, but during the noncirculation phase, they are found in the lungs. The fly ingests microfilariae during a blood meal. After ingestion, the microfilariae lose their sheaths and migrate from the fly's midgut through the hemocoel to the thoracic muscles of the arthropod. There the microfilariae develop into first-stage larvae and subsequently into third-stage infective larvae. The third-stage infective larvae migrate to the fly's proboscis and can infect another human when the fly takes a blood meal.

Diagnosis
Microscopic examination of microfilariae is a practical diagnostic procedure to find Loa loa. It is important to time the blood collection with the known periodicity of the microfilariae (between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.). The blood sample can be a thick smear, stained with Giemsa or haematoxylin and eosin (see staining). For increased sensitivity, concentration techniques can be used. These include centrifugation of the blood sample lyzed in 2% formalin (Knott's technique), or filtration through a nucleopore membrane.

Antigen detection using an immunoassay for circulating filarial antigens constitutes a useful diagnostic approach, because microfilaremia can be low and variable. Though the Institute for Tropical Medicine reports that no serologic diagnostics are available, tests that are highly specific to Loa loa have been developed in recent years. This is despite the fact that many recently developed methods of antibody detection are of limited value because substantial antigenic cross-reactivity exists between filaria and other parasitic worms (helminths), and that a positive serologic test does not necessarily distinguish among infections. The new tests have not reached the point-of-care level yet, but show promise for highlighting high-risk areas and individuals with co-endemic loiasis and onchocerciasis. Specifically, Thomas Nutman and colleagues at the National Institutes of Health have described the a luciferase immunoprecipitation assay (LIPS) and the related QLIPS (quick version). Whereas a previously described LISXP-1 ELISA test had a poor sensitivity (55%), the QLIPS test is practical, as it requires only a 15 minutes incubation, while delivering high sensitivity (97%) and specificity (100%). No report on the distribution status of LIPS or QLIPS testing is available, but these tests would help to limit complications derived from mass ivermectin treatment for onchocerciasis or dangerous strong doses of diethylcarbamazine for loiasis alone (as pertains to individual with high Loa loa microfilarial loads).

Calabar swellings are the primary tool for visual diagnosis. Identification of adult worms is possible from tissue samples collected during subcutaneous biopsies. Adult worms migrating across the eye are another potential diagnostic, but the short timeframe for the worm's passage through the conjunctiva makes this observation less common.

In the past, healthcare providers used a provocative injection of Dirofilaria immitis as a skin-test antigen for filariasis diagnosis. If the patient was infected, the extract would cause an artificial allergic reaction and associated Calabar swelling similar to that caused, in theory, by metabolic products of the worm or dead worms.

Blood tests to reveal microfilaremia are useful in many, but not all cases, as one-third of loiasis patients are amicrofilaremic. By contrast, eosinophilia is almost guaranteed in cases of loiasis, and blood testing for eosinophil fraction may be useful.

Prevention
Diethylcarbamazine has been shown as an effective prophylaxis for Loa loa infection. A study of Peace Corps volunteers in the highly Loa—endemic Gabon, for example, had the following results: 6 of 20 individuals in a placebo group contracted the disease, compared to 0 of 16 in the DEC-treated group. Seropositivity for antifilarial IgG antibody was also much higher in the placebo group. The recommended prophylactic dose is 300 mg DEC given orally once weekly. The only associated symptom in the Peace Corps study was nausea.

Researchers believe that geo-mapping of appropriate habitat and human settlement patterns may, with the use of predictor variables such as forest, land cover, rainfall, temperature, and soil type, allow for estimation of Loa loa transmission in the absence of point-of-care diagnostic tests. In addition to geo-mapping and chemoprophylaxis, the same preventative strategies used for malaria should be undertaken to avoid contraction of loiasis. Specifically, DEET-containing insect repellent, permethrin-soaked clothing, and thick, long-sleeved and long-legged clothing ought to be worn to decrease susceptibility to the bite of the mango or deer fly vector. Because the vector is day-biting, mosquito (bed) nets do not increase protection against loiasis.

Vector elimination strategies are an interesting consideration. It has been shown that the Chrysops vector has a limited flying range, but vector elimination efforts are not common, likely because the insects bite outdoors and have a diverse, if not long, range, living in the forest and biting in the open, as mentioned in the vector section. No vaccine has been developed for loiasis and there is little report on this possibility.

Treatment
Treatment of loiasis involves chemotherapy or, in some cases, surgical removal of adult worms followed by systemic treatment. The current drug of choice for therapy is diethylcarbamazine (DEC), though ivermectin use while not curative (i.e., it will not kill the adult worms) can substantially reduce the microfilarial load. The recommended dosage of DEC is 8–10 mg/kg/d taken three times daily for 21 days per CDC. The pediatric dose is the same. DEC is effective against microfilariae and somewhat effective against macrofilariae (adult worms). The recommended dosage of ivermectin is 150 μg/kg in patients with a low microfilaria load (with densities less than 8000 mf/mL).

In patients with high microfilaria load and/or the possibility of an onchocerciasis coinfection, treatment with DEC and/or ivermectin may be contraindicated or require a substantially lower initial dose, as the rapid microfilaricidal actions of the drugs can provoke encephalopathy. In these cases, initial albendazole administration has proved helpful (and is superior to ivermectin, which can also be risky despite its slower-acting microfilaricidal effects over DEC). The CDC recommended dosage for albendazole is 200 mg taken twice a day for 21 days. Also, in cases where two or more DEC treatments have failed to provide a cure, subsequent albendazole treatment can be administered.

Management of Loa loa infection in some instances can involve surgery, though the timeframe during which surgical removal of the worm must be carried out is very short. A detailed surgical strategy to remove an adult worm is as follows (from a real case in New York City). The 2007 procedure to remove an adult worm from a male Gabonian immigrant employed proparacaine and povidone-iodine drops, a wire eyelid speculum, and 0.5 ml 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000, injected superiorly. A 2-mm incision was made and the immobile worm was removed with forceps. Gatifloxacin drops and an eye-patch over ointment were utilized post surgery and there were no complications (unfortunately, the patient did not return for DEC therapy to manage the additional worm—and microfilariae—present in his body).

Epidemiology
As of 2009, loiasis is endemic to 11 countries, all in western or central Africa, and an estimated 12–13 million people have the disease. The highest incidence is seen in Cameroon, Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Nigeria, Gabon, and Equatorial Guinea. The rates of Loa loa infection are lower but it is still present in and Angola, Benin, Chad and Uganda. The disease was once endemic to the western African countries of Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Ivory Coast and Mali but has since disappeared.

Throughout Loa loa-endemic regions, infection rates vary from 9 to 70 percent of the population. Areas at high risk of severe adverse reactions to mass treatment (with Ivermectin) are at present determined by the prevalence in a population of >20% microfilaremia, which has been recently shown in eastern Cameroon (2007 study), for example, among other locales in the region.

Endemicity is closely linked to the habitats of the two known human loiasis vectors, Chrysops dimidiata and C. silicea.

Cases have been reported on occasion in the United States but are restricted to travelers who have returned from endemic regions.

In the 1990s, the only method of determining Loa loa intensity was with microscopic examination of standardized blood smears, which is not practical in endemic regions. Because mass diagnostic methods were not available, complications started to surface once mass ivermectin treatment programs started being carried out for onchocerciasis, another filariasis. Ivermectin, a microfilaricidal drug, may be contraindicated in patients who are co-infected with loiasis and have associated high microfilarial loads. The theory is that the killing of massive numbers of microfilaria, some of which may be near the ocular and brain region, can lead to encephalopathy. Indeed, cases of this have been documented so frequently over the last decade that a term has been given for this set of complication: neurologic serious adverse events (SAEs).

Advanced diagnostic methods have been developed since the appearance the SAEs, but more specific diagnostic tests that have been or are currently being development (see: Diagnostics) must to be supported and distributed if adequate loiasis surveillance is to be achieved.

There is much overlap between the endemicity of the two distinct filariases, which complicates mass treatment programs for onchocerciasis and necessitates the development of greater diagnostics for loiasis.

In Central and West Africa, initiatives to control onchocerciasis involve mass treatment with ivermectin. However, these regions typically have high rates of co-infection with both L. loa and O. volvulus, and mass treatment with ivermectin can have SAE. These include hemorrhage of the conjunctiva and retina, heamaturia, and other encephalopathies that are all attributed to the initial L. loa microfilarial load in the patient prior to treatment. Studies have sought to delineate the sequence of events following ivermectin treatment that lead to neurologic SAE and sometimes death, while also trying to understand the mechanisms of adverse reactions to develop more appropriate treatments.

In a study looking at mass ivermectin treatment in Cameroon, one of the greatest endemic regions for both onchocerciasis and loiasis, a sequence of events in the clinical manifestation of adverse effects was outlined.

It was noted that the patients used in this study had a L. loa microfilarial load of greater than 3,000 per ml of blood.

Within 12–24 hours post-ivermectin treatment (D1), individuals complained of fatigue, anorexia, and headache, joint and lumbar pain—a bent forward walk was characteristic during this initial stage accompanied by fever. Stomach pain and diarrhea were also reported in several individuals.

By day 2 (D2), many patients experienced confusion, agitation, dysarthria, mutism and incontinence. Some cases of coma were reported as early as D2. The severity of adverse effects increased with higher microfilarial loads. Hemorrhaging of the eye, particularly the retinal and conjunctiva regions, is another common sign associated with SAE of ivermectin treatment in patients with L. loa infections and is observed between D2 and D5 post-treatment. This can be visible for up to 5 weeks following treatment and has increased severity with higher microfilarial loads.

Haematuria and proteinuria have also been observed following ivermectin treatment, but this is common when using ivermectin to treat onchocerciasis. The effect is exacerbated when there are high L. loa microfilarial loads however, and microfilariae can be observed in the urine occasionally. Generally, patients recovered from SAE within 6–7 months post-ivermectin treatment; however, when their complications were unmanaged and patients were left bed-ridden, death resulted due to gastrointestinal bleeding, septic shock, and large abscesses.

Mechanisms for SAE have been proposed. Though microfilarial load is a major risk factor to post-ivermectin SAE, three main hypotheses have been proposed for the mechanisms.

The first mechanism suggests that ivermectin causes immobility in microfilariae, which then obstructs microcirculation in cerebral regions. This is supported by the retinal hemorrhaging seen in some patients, and is possibly responsible for the neurologic SAE reported.

The second hypothesis suggests that microfilariae may try to escape drug treatment by migrating to brain capillaries and further into brain tissue; this is supported by pathology reports demonstrating a microfilarial presence in brain tissue post-ivermectin treatment.

Lastly, the third hypothesis attributes hypersensitivity and inflammation at the cerebral level to post-ivermectin treatment complications, and perhaps the release of bacteria from L. loa after treatment to SAE. This has been observed with the bacteria Wolbachia that live with O. volvulus.

More research into the mechanisms of post-ivermectin treatment SAE is needed to develop drugs that are appropriate for individuals with multiple parasitic infections.

One drug that has been proposed for the treatment of onchocerciasis is doxycycline. This drug has been shown to be effective in killing both the adult worm of O. volvulus and Wolbachia, the bacteria believed to play a major role in the onset of onchocerciasis, while having no effect on the microfilariae of L. loa. In a study done at five different co-endemic regions for onchocerciasis and loiasis, doxycycline was shown to be effective in treating over 12,000 individuals infected with both parasites with minimal complications. Drawbacks to using doxycycline include bacterial resistance and patient compliance because of a longer treatment regimen and emergence of doxycycline-resistant Wolbachia. However, in the study over 97% of the patients complied with treatment, so it does pose as a promising treatment for onchocerciasis, while avoiding complications associated with L. loa co-infections.

Human loiasis geographical distribution is restricted to the rain forest and swamp forest areas of West Africa, being especially common in Cameroon and on the Ogooué River. Humans are the only known natural reservoir. It is estimated that over 10 million humans are infected with Loa loa larvae.

An area of tremendous concern regarding loiasis is its co-endemicity with onchocerciasis in certain areas of west and central Africa, as mass ivermectin treatment of onchocerciasis can lead to SAEs in patients who have high Loa loa microfilarial densities, or loads. This fact necessitates the development of more specific diagnostics tests for Loa loa so that areas and individuals at a higher risk for neurologic consequences can be identified prior to microfilaricidal treatment. Additionally, the treatment of choice for loiasis, diethylcarbamazine, can lead to serious complications in and of itself when administered in standard doses to patients with high Loa loa microfilarial loads.

History
The first well recorded case of Loa loa infection was noted in the Caribbean (Santo Domingo) in 1770. A French surgeon named Mongin tried but failed to remove a worm passing across a woman's eye. A few years later, in 1778, the surgeon François Guyot noted worms in the eyes of West African slaves on a French ship to America; he successfully removed a worm from one man's eye.

The identification of microfilariae was made in 1890 by the ophthalmologist Stephen McKenzie. Localized angioedema, a common clinical presentation of loiasis, was observed in 1895 in the coastal Nigerian town of Calabar—hence the name "Calabar" swellings. This observation was made by a Scottish ophthalmologist named Douglas Argyll-Robertson, but the association between Loa loa and Calabar swellings was not realized until 1910 (by Patrick Manson). The determination of vector—Chrysops spp.—was made in 1912 by the British parasitologist Robert Thomson Leiper.

Synonyms
Synonyms for the disease include African eye worm, loaiasis, loaina, Loa loa filariasis, filaria loa, filaria lacrimalis, filaria subconjunctivalis, Calabar swellings, fugitive swellings, and microfilaria diurnal. Loa loa, the scientific name for the infectious agent, is an indigenous term itself and it is likely that there are many other terms used from region to region.

title: Loa loa filariasis