Talk:Common Cold Unit

The link to the video clip returns a 404 error. There is a perfectly working example of the video on youtube. I changed the link on the Wiki but it was rejected by the "clever" bot.

so clever, it re-instated the dead link

(sigh..) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.133.94 (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/HealthandSafety/PortonDownVolunteers/TheMedicalResearchCouncilCommonColdResearchUnit.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1901012/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124964/

Video: http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=60334

Need more details of when this was published: http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/focuson/fightingthecoldwar/index.html

Has a section on CCU: http://www.rpsgb.org.uk/pdfs/mussheetcold.pdf Pvanheus (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The external reference https://sounds.bl.uk/Oral-history/History-of-the-Common-Cold-Unit

goes to a live page, but it's only a placeholder, with 0 documents available in the collection :(

Pgramsey (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pyrotec: Please, do not add information that is not related to the CCU (it violates WP:BALASP). From the history perspective, the detailed description of the Harvard Hospital site is not suitable for this article. It's suitable for the article about the Harvard Hospital, but not about the CCU. A few sentences would be enough for that section. And the added facts should be described in the sources about the CCU (or in the context of the CCU), but not about the war. The sources that are relevant for the article would make the weigh of the information obvious. Check this source, for example: . This source gives some description of the Harvard Hospital. It's about what amount of information would be enough. Some clarifications from the additional sources are permitted, but they should not add any excess details. D6194c-1cc (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

(←) @D6194c-1cc: My thanks for that very interesting - to me - link. I'm not sure if that was intentional or not, but you only linked the first page (Page 137). Page 138 is also about the Havard Hospital, but when it was being run by the U.S. army. The article is four pages long and only pages 139 and 139 are about the C.C.U. I make that a 50:50 ratio.

There is also WP:OWN and Wikipedia:Verifiability to consider. The one volume that I have used, so far, from the "History of the Second War" is certainly a Reliable Source; and, I am currently looking at another one on the Medical side. As there were several citation-needed flags, I am certainly allowed to add Reliable References - that I have access to - to address those flags.

The references at the bottom of the article in the Sources section were added by the user G716 on the 13 July 2007, which is nearly 20 years ago (OK nearly 19 years ago). As of March 2021 none of them were being used as citations.

I'm very happy to record that the article has been expanded almost three-fold since March 2021; and it's mostly verifiable. But, I find is somewhat unacceptable that one editor would try and stop other reliable sources being used to address citation-needed flags; and limit their use to what was added by one editor almost 19 years. Perhaps that is a misunderstanding on my part, but that it is what the edit-summaries appear to read when justifying removing material that you have not added.

• Note 1: I expect to have another book on this site, which was published about two years after the site was closed, its title refers to the C.C.U., but it might not be regarded as being a reliable source.

• Note 2: I am interested in looking at David Tyrrell and Michael Fielder's, 2002 book: "Cold Wars: The Fight against the Common Cold" book; and, I expect to have access to a copy (perhaps) in about two-weeks time. So, I might start using that as a Reliable source, but I can't use what I don't have access to at the present time.

If I was reviewing this article for a 'grade' - which I am not - my first comment would be that C.C.U.'s Discoveries and C.C.U.'s Results sections are far too short for an organization that was in existence for 43 years. If that is the sum total of what is going in, then both the Lead and the History sections are far to large for a C.C.U.-focused article.

The middle paragraph of the lead is non-compliant with WP:Lead. This is intended to summarize, in 3 or 4 paragraphs, material covered in the body of the article, but the body of the article does not really mention it. It would be far more productive to add a section title (perhaps) 'Use of Volunteer subjects' and copy that paragraph into it. That will expand the C.C.U. material by one extra paragraph. I will happy add citation-need and expand-section flags for you. I'm less inclined to add material that is likely to be deleted: I'm happy if it is corrected or improved, but that seems to be the exception here.

• Note: The results section does have a verifiable sentence "During the CCU's existence, thousands of volunteers participated in research in which they were inoculated with common cold viruses or were in a control group,[9] but no cure for the common cold was found". Sorry, but to me that seems to a summary of what is in the lead, not the other way round, as per WP:Lead.

There is nothing about laboratory equipment, I guess in WW2 days, there was the microscope, the Petrie dish and perhaps the Lovibond tintometer, but this is not mentioned. The C.C.U. would have taken over the emergency public health infectious diseases laboratory provided by the Red Cross / Harvard University back in the very early 1940s. The C.C.U. appeared to have state-of-the-art equipment for the period (1940s to 1980s),for example they appear to have able to determine the 3d-shapes of things of interest. There is a single sentence: "Later virologist June Almeida imaged virus for the first time and group of eight virologists including June Almeida named it coronavirus in their publication in 1968". But what was it imaged with (surely not a Mk 1 human eye, perhaps looking down an optical microscope. If so, what protective clothing did she have?). Perhaps it was a x-ray microscope, or a scanning version.

There are no expand-me flags on those sections, but there are those citations-needed flags added by you on the non-C.C.U. sections. To me, the focus is on the wrong part of the article. The C.C.U. material should be expanded, rather using WP:BALASP to remove material that could - in my view - may indicate why this site was used for the C.C.U. programme.

In my view the, sentence "The CCU was sometimes confused with the Microbiological Research Establishment at nearby Porton Down, a military unit with which it occasionally collaborated but was not officially connected" is some what misleading, or wrong. It was lifted straight from an MOD page, without a citation and then expanded with wrong information (or someone made a guess and choose the wrong one)- I'm very inclined to flag it citation-needed. There are two establishments at Porton Down, the M.R.E. is a civilian one, the other one is not. Deaths took place at the other establishment, between (perhaps) 1941 and 2005 and appear to have been hushed up, only coming out about 16 years ago; it has been suggested that some thought they were going to the C.C.U.for trials, not the MOD place.

Thank you for suggesting it, I do find the Havard Hospital precursor more interesting. In the Red Cross / Havard University days it housed a mobile public heath emergency field-hospital that went round the U.K. sampling for infectious diseases and there are statistics on what it did and where it did it. I can't recall the source, but there was an indication that after the U.S. pulled out the hospital was used to grow / bread cold virus (or perhaps the normal infectious 'things' that the general public might be exposed to - in contrast to war-like 'things') and that might have been one of the reasons why it became the C.C.U.

I'm beginning to warm to the idea of producing a wikipage on the Havard Hospital - say twice the length of the current C.C.U article - and linking it with a Main-link. Pyrotec (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• You can't comply with one rule and violate the other. WP:OWN isn't about making the article compliant with the rules, it's more about when someone expands, shrinks or modifies the article against the rules, or negatively affects it's quality in his own view of what should be in the article. Also, it misleads a little, since the editors are the owners of the text they added, but the license allows anyone to do whatever they want with the text within the terms of the license. D6194c-1cc (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• As per the prehistory and why the site was chosen to be the CCU, adding facts from the sources that are not related to the CCU to show some ideas on why the site became the CCU, one can write an original research, which is forbidden by the WP:No original research. That's why using not related to the article sources should be limited. D6194c-1cc (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I know about Original Research. I am not doing that. I am expanding the article by adding text that I will most likely do several copy edits on. There is no need to stick a citation on every sentence, only on every claim (and that might take several sentences or paragraphs) so I'm adding citations when I am ready to do so. To be absolutely clear, I am not (so far) added direct quotations, nor am I writing about living, or recently dead people. If the statements are likely to challenged or have been challenged then I do have to provide a citation. If there are / is conflicting views then I have to acknowledge that and give due weight.
  • No, Sorry, I disagree. Wikipedia's Verifiability requirement requires that I - all editors - use reliable sources to provide verification of claims made in wikipedia articles. It does not limit me, or them, to a narrow set of references that one kind editor added to this article 19 years ago to help later editors to add references, to what was until 25th August 2021 when you added the first reference to the article, an unreferenced / unverifiable article. Good work, by the way. Dr Christopher Andrews and Dr Tyrrell have each written a book about their experiences at the CCU and in a wider field of Common Cold research. These two books are not in the sources section, neither are any of the voluminous Official Histories of the Second World War, published by Her Majesties Stationary Office, a limited number of which directly reference the Havard Hospital; and possibly the parent organisations above the CCU - although I have not yet started checking this aspect. So, the sources section is clearly not a complete, or even an exhaustive list of sources. It does not event list, for example, the 159 page book, published in 1991 that I received this afternoon, with a Preface by Dr Tyrrell (see the article) and Forward Dr A.T. Roden (who was Medical Superintendent at the CCU from 1951-1956 and who knew the author. So, this book can't be written off as not being a reliable source. There could well be others. Pyrotec (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
• About the citation needed templates, feel free to add them. It's a good practice per WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. The information written without sources can be wrong, misleading, less precise or biased (without the source, it's hard to reveal these problems). D6194c-1cc (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• The main focus of this article is about the organisation and it's research. How it appeared, what they did, what they did wrong, how they did it, what they achieved, what finally happened to the organisation, what its role in the history is, etc. D6194c-1cc (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  • That may well be your intended aim, but what they did wrong, how they did it, what they achieved, what finally happened to the organisation, what its role in the history is, etc. is not in the article. However, it seems quite a reasonable plan for the article. Adding some place-marker section headers to indicate that would help other editors. Note: I have read in that last few days that Tyrrell considered the first 20 years a failure, as no results came out (possibly no answers to the questions being researched), but after they had successes. I was not looking for that so I did not noted down the reference. Perhaps that is what the Results section is trying so say. But, as it is current written, it reads more like a summary paragraph for the WP:Lead of a much longer article yet-to-be-written. Perhaps the two individuals books by Andrews and Tyrrell, that I commented on elsewhere in this page, may give more details on the wider field of cold research, and why this unit was closed down. I should I have one of the books by the middle of February, perhaps both.Pyrotec (talk)

Back almost twenty years ago an editor kindly added a number of sources, that may have been used to create the article. I say 'may' because the article contained no citations at as recently as 2021. I am aware of two Official Sources, written in the 1950s when the unit was was still in use, and when many of the people who 'created' the unit were still alive and working. Thus, they meet the criteria of Reliable sources. So, those sources in the article do not in any form a closed group of sources. I have used of these Official Sources and may well use the other one, or idea any others that I find.Pyrotec (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• Pleased to say that about 30 minutes ago I took delivery of a third source, which above I (wrongly) thought might not a reliable source. The Preface was written by Dr D.A.J. Tyrrrell; the Forward by Dr A.T. Roden, Medical Superintendent of Harvard Hospital from 1951-1956; and the author worked at Harvard Hospital from 1946 to July 1898. It's, therefore a Reliable Source. Pyrotec (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• I was talking about the History of the Second World War book (I didn't check what's inside). It's about the war, and as I can see, some details' weigh is undue, like about the number of beds. Just keep focusing on the CCU and write in its context. If you want to expand the article, be bold, of course. But I still have to point to some issues if the article have such. D6194c-1cc (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
  • The title is specific: it is one Volume in the UK Civil Series (not the UK Military Series) and it is solely concerned with "Works and Buildings". There are other series; and I will be using one from the Medical Series. Havard also fits to the the Emergency Medical Services and was somewhat unique. The UK's medical services (my summary might have some errors) owned the land, paid for the cleaning and cooking; Havard University provided the hospital, the equipment, beds, etc, supplied the doctors (some of which died when their ship was sunk); and, the US Red Cross also provided staff. When they left the US Army ran it; and when they left Havard University and the US Red Cross gave it the the UK's medical services. I am using information in only one chapter of Works and Buildings: Part 4: "Building Programmes of Departments"
  • I am now trying to condense the non-CCU bits of the Havard hospital section. - It began as a 125-bed hospital rather than the more usual 600-bed emergency hospitals of the early 1940s. However, the number of buildings almost doubled (22 + another 20) when the US Army ran it, as it was also the blood distribution centre for the US Army for the whole of the UK and Europe - none of this is in the article, but it could be relevant. A 600-bed hospital site would be very much bigger; and not needed for what the CCU was doing. The CCU used the same (empty) buildings, as left by the US went they went: they took the equipment with them. I've found nothing so far that any new buildings were built for the CCU.
  • I don't have the reference yet, but Christopher Andrews starting testing human volunteers for colds in the UK in 1931 - he was the 1st one (in the UK) to do so - as using chimpanzees did not work. As he started the unit - somewhat surprised that this was not discovered and put into the article.Pyrotec (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

The book I have talks about rebuilding of the Havard hospital, the first meeting taking place in 1974, but nothing happening until 1979, at the MRC in London, when plans were drawn up. Finally plans were submitted in 1981. Then in the Spring of 1982, it was decided not to rebuild. I've seen elsewhere, in one of more of the sources in the article that the CCU was closed because "its work was done" direct quote from source - can't remember which.Pyrotec (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

The last trial took place in 1989, so that looks like a eight year run down in 50 year old prefabricated buildings. Some research is needed on what happened or did not happen to reach that final closure decision. Pyrotec (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Pyrotec, please, add the corresponding inline citations to the facts that you write about. It's your responsibility to make the information verifiable.

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing one inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

D6194c-1cc (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• Thank you for that link. Most useful, especially this paragraph:
  • "Whether or how quickly material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step to removing unsourced material, to allow references to be added.[d] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable.[e] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before removing or tagging it."
• I am currently working on a new sub-section which is both incompleted and unreferenced. It will be referenced when I am satisfied with the texts, as written. The quote above does seen to suggest that a there is some flexibility on how quickly unreferenced material is removed - and there is no suggest that I am refering to live people (but perhaps I am).Pyrotec (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I quote for earlier up this talkpage: "The main focus of this article is about the organisation and it's research. How it appeared, what they did, what they did wrong, how they did it, what they achieved, what finally happened to the organisation, what its role in the history is, etc." Were you intended to cover this at some point in time? The unit closed down and there is a comment at the top of this talk page, which I'm sure you would consider to be unreferenced and possible original research, But, as the closure was more than 30 years, the relevant files may have been released by the National Archives. However, moving on quickly, was it a case that they no longer need to work on human volenteers any more? I'm happy to work my way down the article add material and citations (but possibly not at the same time), but I am not a medic (not practial nor theoretical) so I'm not confortable working on evaluation of medical stuff.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrotec (talk • contribs) 20:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not a medic too, but I wrote a lot about medicine and some diseases (common cold, covid-19, acute respiratory viral infections, etc) in the Russian Wikipedia. I edited this article a long time ago because I found an article that could be improved when I had little experience in writing in English (and I respect the work they did). The article was some kind of a training for me in writing in my own words in English. But the article is not in priority for me at the moment, since it's mostly historical. I usually write about what affects health or helps to understand how something work or evolved (like the mammalian kidney) among other things. D6194c-1cc (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

As for the medical claims, be aware that each biomedical claim must be provided with the reliable source that complies with WP:MEDRS. I might check some claims from time to time, but I cannot promise anything. If you need help or a review of medicine-related information, ping me. I'll be much less active in Wikipedia for some time. D6194c-1cc (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, it's very useful. Thanks very much for the offer. I will work my way though the article and add stuff, with references. I should be able to, perhaps, double the length of the article, but I have no idea at the moment how to finish it off. The Common Cold article dismisses the Unit as only having one success - research on zinc gluconate lozenges. Not much for 40+ years work.

Note: I have just come back after three years off - editing wikipedia can be a bit addictive. Not done any foreign language articles, but I have reviewed a GA a fair number of Norweigen railway articles. All the best. Pyrotec (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Their experiments helped to debunk the myths about the common cold as the disease caused by exposure to cold temperatures (though as I remember, I didn't find sources that explicitly say that). In my country, it was still an issue some time ago that people believe in the common cold as a result of cold temperatures exposure. That's why I rewrote the article about the common cold in Russian Wikipedia. And it wasn't easy not because of little information available on the topic in Russian, but because there was a resistance in the Russian Wikipedia despite I used the reliable sources (in English). D6194c-1cc (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, I looked a bit into the article, and I'm confused a bit, since your English is bad there, but rather good here. How come? I often make errors on the talk pages, but in the articles, I usually recheck my texts (unless it's a draft). D6194c-1cc (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that short section was somewhat unfinished. It was my intention to complete it yesterday but I had to go out, so it was never finished. I've worked on it today and it should now read a bit better.Pyrotec (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• I was living in Salisbury for a few years when the Unit was working, but I never went there. So I knew it was fairly near to Salisbury, but not exactly where it was. In addition, some of the larger Saturday & Sunday papers - such as The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian, etc, (or the BBC), sent one of their journalists there; and the journalist afterwards wrote a large article (several pages long) in the magazine section. So, I also read about it in the weekend papers. People with those sorts of memories, or perhaps their parents, or just one of them, went there as a volunteer, or worked there. So they are interested in the Volunteer's experience and they look the CCU up on Wikipedia for this reason; but not because they are interested in the medical trials results. This aspect needs to go into this article, so I have been WP:Bold and I am currently adding material to cover this non-Medical aspect. Disappointingly, I'm seeing "Undue Weight flags due to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies" appearing in the article. I don't believe there are any of these. The problem as I see it, is that Discoveries and Results sections are little more than Stubs. This article has been rated, I've not checked when / who, as C class. Discounting the Discoveries and Results sections, I would tend to agree with a C class rating; however, if I only look at the Discoveries and Results sections, I would rate this article as being a Stub class. So I've added Needs Expansion templates to both of those sections.Pyrotec (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)