Talk:Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was externally reviewed on December 14, 2005 by Nature. It was found to have 5 errors. |
 |
WikiProject Echo has identified Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Spanish language Wikipedia. |
Is it possible that this disorder is related to Huntington's Corea. The systoms are quite simliar. I have several family members that are dying from this disorder. It is only confined to one set of gene pool. It has been noted that the spouse that doesn't carry this defect watches their other spouse die and then watch their children; and if they were married at a very early age as in the old time of exceptable marriages ages these spouses also watched their grand children die as well .....
- Probably not - Cretzfeldt-Jakob disease is caused by prions; as you noted, Huntington's is genetic. Both are neurodegenerative disorders, however, and some of the effects can be similar in two diseases with widely different causes. -- Sayeth 22:38, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
-
- There has been some speculation that prion diseases are exacerbated by a faulty PrP gene. However, this is very, very rare and not linked to Huntington's disease in any way. -- FirstPrinciples 14:28, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
Huntington's and prion diseases, as well as things like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, are all linked in a way because they are all protein misfolding diseases, i.e. a protein changes shape and that altered shape seems to cause damage to the brain. The differences between them are in which protein changes shape and what causes that change. Huntington's is caused by a genetic mutation where a particular bit is repeated over and over. This isn't what causes prion diseases like CJD, it is something else that changes the protein's shape and usually there is no mutation at all. Prion diseases are also unique because the abnormal protein is infectious.--Purple 01:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Prions section
May I suggest the following?
- Remove the portion of the section titled Prions that duplicates the content of Prion.
- Retain and expand the portions on pathology and epidemology, but retitle them appropriately.
Your comments are welcome. Walter Siegmund 02:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Nature claims 5 errors
Nature disputes the accuracy of this article; see http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/multimedia/438900a_m1.html and Wikipedia:External_peer_review#Nature. We're hoping they will provide a list of the alleged errors soon. —Steven G. Johnson 01:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Errors ID'd by Nature, to correct
The results of what exactly Nature suggested should be corrected is out... italicize each bullet point once you make the correction. -- user:zanimum
- The hereditary forms are always associated with mutations of the PrP gene. The sporadic forms are by definition not associated with mutations.
- The risk from HGH was only removed when this was medication was withdrawn in the USA in 1985.
- The original case from Jakob's papers have been re-examined and two were judged to have been suffering from CJD and at least two from other conditions. This did lead to confusion about definitions but it is wrong to state that the patients all had a different disorder.
- Although recent work has shown that PrPSc can be found with highly sensitive methods in some cases of sporadic CJD in muscle and spleen, the important point is that these tissues are negative using conventional tests in contrast to variant CJD in which LRS tissues are uniformly positive. This distinction is critically important for public health.
- The section on pentosan polysulphate gives an overly optimistic impression of the efficacy of this treatment.
[edit] Question
I have been reading a lot of material about nCJD being misdiagnosed as Alzheimers - supposedly indicating why cases of Alztheimers are doubling/tripling (?) recently. Can anyone provide points of view on either side of this aurgument ? Thanks Dlm4473 (talk • contribs)
- I have responded to your cross-posted post on Talk:Alzheimer's disease. JFW | T@lk 16:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Prion peer review
I've nominated the prion article for peer review, any comments welcome here! --Purple 02:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Other Comments
Cleaned up that diagnosis table a bit.. threw it into an HTML table, was previously very hard to read. Fixed up some links, and a typo. Unsure if dyesthesiasis should be dyesthesias, CDC uses the previous in thier article on CJD, but I'm pretty sure its supposed to be dyesthesias. --Malakalam 21:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The order should be changed; you talk about diagnosing vCJD before you identify what vCJD is. Just a minor change.--Brianbeck 20:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of sourced content
On 23 July 2006, I restored content deleted by User talk:Steelgraham. [1] In my opinion, that content satisfied the Wikipedia guideline on reliable sources. Via email, Steelgraham contends it is "scientifically extremely speculative at best and misleading". Since the research was published in the Lancet, it should not be difficult to find a reliable source to that effect, e.g., editorials or letters to the editor, etc. My reading of the neutral point of view policy is that both the University College London research and its criticism be presented in a fair manner without bias. Of course, if the research is so dubious that only a small minority of scientists find it credible, then it can be removed completely. I've seen no evidence that is the case here.
Also, possibly relevant to this discussion is an edit by User talk:Grahamsteel (note similar username) restoring content identified as inaccurate by the Nature review. [2] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spiroplasm Theory
This article isn't following NPOV, it completely disregards and ignores the spiroplasm theory, stating the prion theory as if it were fact.
- do you mean spiroplasma? If so, I'd say it doesn't have enough support to call it a legitimate alternative, or at least it doesn't according to the wikipedia aricle, if you have more information, feel free to let us know.--Shadebug 18:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blood Transfusions by Country
I've noticed that there seems to be an attempt at listing blood transfusion restrictions and as such I'll copy out a translation of the back of the spanish blood donation contract (translated by me), I'll leave it for others to decide copyright issues or whether it's relevant. Reasons for which blood donation is excluded permanently (definite exclusion) are as follows: ... -Having received transfusions in the United Kingdom or in countries where Malaria, AIDS, HTLV infection and Chagas are endemic The medical history questionairre also asks as to whether you have lived for a year between 1980 or 1996. I only mention this as i am a brit who tried giving blood in spain and was told that officially it wasn't allowed and that I knew why. They seemed a bit cagey about the whole affair The spanish blood transfusion article also mentions the restriction, though not the reasons--Shadebug 18:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Overall Impression
I agree with Brianbeck ('Other Comments', June 06). Not so minor, I also feel that there is not enough separation of the different forms of CJD. 4 forms are covered by this article - sporadic/classical (sCJD), iatrogenic (iCJD), variant (vCJD) and familial (fCJD). The section on incidence, age distribution, duration etc describes only sCJD - vCJD and fCJD have very different profiles. Concerns about iatrogenic transmission are relevant to all forms, except for Blood Transfusion which is currently believed to apply only to vCJD. Concerns about incubation relate specifically to vCJD, although they may also be relevant to iCJD. I note that Kuru, GSS and FFI have their own articles - all of these diseases are members of the 'human prion diseases' family. Is the grouping of these 4 forms simply due to the coincidence of a shared name? I'd be happy to draft a more coherent coverage of vCJD if editors feel this would be appropriate. I'd also like to provide a clearer link to the BSE article, as much of the history of vCJD is covered there.
On Pentosan Polysulphate, a monitoring study was completed this year on a number of patients undergoing this treatment. Commissioned by UK MRC, a press release summarising its conclusions and recommendations was issued in July 2006, can be seen on the MRC website.Draft minutes of an advisory committee have recently been posted, which include the full conclusions and recommendations. Is this appropriate information for this article? - I'm new to Wikepedia, so would welcome your views. It's worth mentioning that in the UK this treatment is seen as controversial, and balanced coverage of the pros and cons would be valuable to new patients and their families who may be faced with deciding whether to try it or not. Sadly, there has been polarisation between 'conservative' medical advisors and patients/families who are unwilling to watch patients die while they wait for a tried and tested therapy. This means that it's difficult for patients/families to know who to listen to, or for support groups to give balanced information. Famulus 23:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Just had a brief look at the Spanish featured article - my knowledge of spanish is negligible, but at first sight it looks as though their separation of the different kinds of CJD is clearer. I'll try the babel fish suggestion, and see if there's stuff there that's worth bringing across.Famulus 00:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The above comments originally posted under 'Other comments', but not sure if it's OK to post under a section that's 6 months old, so have moved them to a new section for clarity. Famulus 18:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Go for it! Just remember to provided sources for what you add. Don't worry too much about getting the citations in proper forms. Others will come along and fix any problems. -- Donald Albury 03:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
