A useful code for the redlinks is as follows: [[ Wikipedia:INSERT REDLINKS NAME HERE|INSERT REDLINKS NAME HERE ]]

This code results in the following:


Please, take some time to edit the redlinks out of this article. --Zombiepedian 11:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


i cant agree with the assessment that smell is used to identify the non-infected, for the simple reason that after becoming infected, Don kills Alice who is already a carrier.

Someone has never done research in a lab before

I read through the 28 days later, prehistory of the research of the Rage Virus. A) they already know how to inhibit rage through a series of neural chemicals that affect the Amygdala (the part of the brain in charge of such things as rage - sort of the rage center). The Amygdala can also be physically interfered with via surgery or accident (there is actually a documented case of a man who was in an industrial accident where an iron bar went into his head and afterwards he had uncontrollable boughts of rage). B) They could not experiment on humans first. It's illegal. Yes, not everybody obeys the law, especially mad scientists, but if you are a poor (without money) mad scientist working in a college research lab and you want to find a way to pay for that cutting edge research, chemicals, volunteering subjects, you have to obey the law in order to get that money. C) They work in a college research lab, they have to follow the laborotory procedures in order to keep working there (they want to follow their own procedures, then they've got to open their own lab with their own money). Public labs (such as those at Universities) are highly, highly monitored by the government. And, to be quite honest, so are private labs. In order for them to operate they have to get and keep accreditation (at least that's what they have to do in the US and you can't tell me that labs in the UK are less government supervised), if they don't get accredited, they can't practice. No accredited labs would test human subjects before animal subjects - it just doesn't happen - EVER (and you have to do months and months of paperwork to be able to do animal subjects, more or less human).

If the researcher doing the work got accidentally exposed, that would make more sense (more realistic). But a real scientist who has been trained in proper scientific method and laborotory procedure, would know better than to just give his buddy some experimental fluid (not anybody smart enough to get into a lab at Cambridge, unless you're telling me that scientists at Cambridge don't know proper scientific method and laborotory procedure - yeah, right! 18:52, April 23, 2010 (UTC)).

Background dispute

I did a little research, and I couldn't find any link between British Violence in the 80's and Boyle's inspiration for 28 Days Later. Likewise, I couldn't find data on this scientist who leaked rage research to the press in violation of the Official Secrets Act. Please provide sources if this content is to remain.

 — <<— Philodox —>> talk 15:07, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

One should ask the question, why would scientists be investigating the causes of such extreme violent behaviour in the first place? Since 28 Days Later is fiction anyway, I see no reason why you cannot invent a background that makes the whole story more plausible. Britain plagued by urban violence in the 80s seems a perfectly good starting point for a project or experiment to curb violent behaviour that goes disastrously wrong and leads to the creation of a RAGE virus. Does it have to be something the director specifically cited or are we not alowed to fill in the gaps ourselves? After all, he never specifies the time at which these events happen, although footage of the poll-tax riots in 1990 are clearly visible in the opening sequence with the chimps in the lab, so it fits with my scenario. Why don't you just chill out and stop being such a tight arse about it, it's not as if these are 'historical events'! Also, read the point made above about how sponsored research projects are subject to sringent regulation and controls. If this was a secret government research project prompted by defence/security concerns, then it makes it plausbile that the scientists could be allowed to get around such restrictions and use a live human specimen - especially a criminal - and even cover up murder/manslaughter. In the 1950s and 60s young conscripts were tricked into being exposed to doses of anthrax and radiation and there's a Scottish island which is still uninhabitable because of anthrax experiments.

"....or are we not alowed to fill in the gaps ourselves?"
No, you are not. Zombiepedia is an online encyclopedia - an informational resource. Just as you cannot go to the Marvel Comics wiki, and speculate that the reason Spider-Man wears tights is because he is a homosexual, you cannot include assumptions or conjecture. Despite the fact that the content is fictional, there are still two concepts that are vital for a wiki like this one - Canon and Verifiability. All zombiepedia articles are presumed to be factual and objective unless otherwise noted. Your ideas are plausible, and interesting, but they are still conjecture. If you are looking for a creative outlet, you may want to search this wiki for "Fanfiction" or "User Plans". Or start a blogpost.
 — <<— Philodox —>> talk 17:32, May 26, 2011 (UTC)
Too bad because the inconsstencies and inaccuracies pointed out by the first post are not addressed by your narrow and in my opinion totally arbitrary definition of what should be permitted and what not.

"Carriers" section is factually incorrect.

"28 Weeks Later explores the discovery that there are certain people who will not display any symptoms of the virus except for partially red sclera. These people are classified as 'asymptomatic carriers'."

The partially red sclera is a symptom of the virus. The carriers exhibit symptoms of the virus and are therefore not asymptomatic. I'm not sure if carriers are 'allowed' to exhibit symptoms of the virus they have, but I don't think they are. If they do they're just regular infectees. I think that the so called 'asymptomatic carriers' are simply people with the rage virus displaying an unusual lack of symptoms (like the desire to infect others), except one (red sclera). The movie may have called them carriers and I don't have a problem with films bastardizing science, but I have a problem with that same bastardization being carried over into peoples attempted explanation of a hypothetical scientific topic. I feel that the films incorrect definition/depiction of asymptomatic carriers should be clarified on the Rage Virus page.

"The person is not immune to the virus, however, just the symptoms, and the person can spread the virus as easily as any other Infected (such as (sic) saliva contact)."

This is unneeded. "carrier" has already been defined (albeit incorrectly) and it's been established that the person ALREADY has the virus so it is completely redundant and patronizing to say they're not immune to the virus.

I realize that people who read this article may not know anything about virology (except what was depicted in 28D/W L), but misinforming them, then treating them like a mentally challenged individual by telling them things you told them literally 5 seconds ago isn't helping anyone, and it certainly isn't forming an understanding of science like this section of the article appears to be attempting to do.

I just came to this wiki so I don't want to get all up in anyones business and edit whole sections of the article that someone worked on, but it would be nice if someone could edit the article to say that the film incorrectly classifies people with the rage virus who display a small amount of symptoms as asymptomatic carriers, when in reality asymptomatic carriers, and people with a virus who display unusual/few symptoms are two separate things. I'm not sure if 2nd film says the same thing this wiki says since I haven't watched it, but based on the behind the scenes vid I watched on youtube (that blatantly sensationalized/desecrated science), I don't doubt it.

I may check back in a few days/weeks and edit it myself if I remember to. 17:06, June 28, 2011 (UTC)Mint

I don't really have a problem with any of the issues you've raised. With all due respect to the editors responsible, this isn't exactly the highest quality article on Zombiepedia. But like it says on wikipedia, no article is ever truly done; all can be improved. The best person to set this issue straight is someone who has the film, and can cite the exact wording. If the wording is scientifically incorrect, then the citation should also have a disclaimer stating this - not unlike Brooks' take on the M1A1 Carbine. The only reason I hesitate to remove the suspect passages is because if what is written really did come from the film, it shouldn't be removed, it should be modified, and the inaccuracies addressed.
 — <<— Philodox —>> talk 00:39, June 29, 2011 (UTC)