{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030379746835443037, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00590717299578059, 'mean_word_length': 5.275132275132275, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A new differential for pyrexia of unknown origin?

The helpful article by Thanacoody and Waring on toxic effects on the cardiovascular system mistakenly described the substances involved as ‘toxins’ (Clin Med February 2008 pp 92–5). For more than a century that term has been applied only to complex substances, almost always of biological, origin form plants, micro-organisms etc, and not to simple organic chemicals of the type discussed in that paper. The distinction is recognised in standard ‘British’ and ‘American’ English dictionaries, eg the Oxford English and Webster’s dictionaries, in specialised dictionaries, such as Dorland’s and Mosby’s, and in the titles of many journals and monographs. The specific term ‘toxin’ is valuable because it immediately alerts the reader to the general nature of the chemicals being considered and the likelihood of special features of their origins, properties and effects. The simpler, organic substances may be called ‘toxic chemicals’ as there is no single equivalent word other than the less familiar ‘toxicant’. Please let us maintain a helpful linguistic distinction in English and one that is also mirrored in many other languages.