Talk:Parkinson's disease/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Treating Parkinson's with Classical Homeopathy

There is no mention in the article about treatment of Parkinson's using Classical Homeopathy. Many Classical Homeopaths around the world are regularly treating Parkinson's patients with extraordinary results: either stopping the degeneration process or in some cases achieving improvement up to complete cure. Of course homeopathy, like all other forms of medicine doesn't always work and finding a qualified homeopath can be a struggle but given the successes already seen, it should be known as one of the options available to patients. Note that the current political environment regarding homeopathy is very heated so it's common for people from either the pro or anti homeopathy camps to quote studies that indicate clear proof one way or the other. Regardless of this, all can agree that homeopathy patients are receiving treatment with no side effects from drugs for diseases like Parkinson's that are otherwise incurable. RichardRo 16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't get rid of Parkinson's Disease. --Moses 2007 19:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

RichardRo, if you can provide a reliable source on exactly what substances homeopaths use, then it may be worthy of inclusion. The problem is that with homeopathy and other complimentary approaches it is very hard to produce such sources.

Wikipedia is not a battleground, and we need to be clear: if there is evidence that it works, we should cite it. If there is no evidence that it works but many people use it, we should state exactly that. But we should avoid inflated claims that do not hold up to scrutiny. JFW | T@lk 21:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

JFW, unfortunately, your request for a reliable source is very difficult to provide. There is tons of research indicating the effectiveness of homeopathy from various points of view and as far as I know, all of it is contested for one reason or another. Homeopathy is a complicated study that doesn't use one substance for treatment of a given disease. Treatment is individual and based on a complete picture of symptoms, in effect almost regardless of the disease (which is general and at best expresses a subset of symptoms which would be considered irrelevant by allopathic medicine). This makes it very difficult to set up a double blind study to prove effectiveness of treatment of a specific disease.

It seems like it should be easy to prove the effectiveness of homeopathy, especially with the availability of trained homeopaths worldwide, the growing number of schools teaching homeopathy, the growing number of health insurance companies that include homeopathy in their health plans, the large collection of trade journals available focused on homeopathy, the accrediting agencies set up in various countries, etc. Again, a sceptic will note that it’s not really known why or how homeopathy works. There are of course theories but that takes us right back to the research problems including those mentioned above. Case studies are available ad nausium but are disregarded as individual and statistically insignificant. Even case studies with treatment of animals are disregarded in the same way even though the placebo effect (the usual explanation by sceptics of individual successes) should be disregarded, as far as I know, in these cases. Case studies showing cure of otherwise incurable diseases are disregarded as flukes. Double blind studies are not cheap and the research money available for homeopathy studies is remarkably limited, given its widespread and growing use. Most people educated in homeopathy are treating patients or educating practitioners and not devoting any or much effort towards scientifically verifiable research.

So while I’d like to provide all sorts of research links and references to prove the effectiveness of homeopathy in the treatment of Parkinson’s or any other disease for that matter, I must note that this has been tried and tried and only serves to confuse the issue. The existence of so many full time homeopaths worldwide indicates people are using it and its use is growing. Please include classical homeopathy in the treatment section on the main page, even with a statement saying its effectiveness isn’t proven. RichardRo 01:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Let us see some clinical evidence or scientific basis. We haven't seen any yet. --XX7 12:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out before, clinical evidence is all disputed so what do you want to see? In the QiGong section, there are two studies listed: one showing it works, the other not at all. If this is what you would like for a Homeopathy section, please let me know. But personally, I fail to see how that would serve anyone. As I tried to stress, Homeopathy is being used and whether clinically proven or even provable or not, it's use is backed by insurance companies. The point is, it is one of the treatments being used. Simply state it's effectiveness is unproven. RichardRo 18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

PubMed referenes for the two most effective clinical studies would be interesting to see, plus information or links concerning the substances used if that is not obvious from the references, and if it is known, the scientific rationale. --XX9 19:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Deaths from Parkinson's disease

Is there such a thing? Deaths with PD might be more accurate. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Deaths with PD" would not of course be notable (cf "Deaths from ingrowing nails" might be more intriguing than "Deaths in those who happen also to have an ingrowing nail"). Yes PD does reduce physical health of patients and also can have associated mental deterioration (eg the Multiple system atrophy mentioned) and so life expectance is reduced in some patents. So for severe PD for which the patint's general health severely deteriorates and leads overall to their death, then yes "Deaths from Parkinson's disease" seems reasonable. David Ruben ^Talk 13:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In the medical lingo the phrase would be an illness with relatively low mortality and high morbidity,with the majority of deaths coming from secondary causes, such as aspiration pneumonia,injuries from falls,-- such as fractured hips, etc Bwthemoose 17:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In my mothers case, death came from pneumonia due to her body being in such a weakened state from nearly 30 years of battleling this condition. She went from a young woman to someone who suffered the pains of hell in a short time. In her liftime there was no support groups and both the surgery (which she underwent) and the experimental drugs (which she was also used as a test case) relieved symptoms only for a very little while. So gradually her body broke down and mercifully she passed on. God damn that disease! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.110.74 (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Parkinson's

Question to those who actually know about medicine: is there a difference between Parkinson's disease and Parkinsonism at all?

Currently Parkinson's disease is about Parkinson's (duh!), and Parkinsonism tells about differential diagnoses and conditions that true Parkinson's must be distinguished from. There is some spam thrown in at the bottom to "viartis.net", which looks like someone's website. 71.161.73.237 22:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, parkinsonism (the visible signs) does not equal Parkinson's disease (a specific neurodegenerative condition). PD is the most common etiological cause of parkinsonism, but certainly not the only one. -- MarcoTolo 23:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the Parkinsonism article and made a number of copyedits to (hopefully) clarify the issue. -- MarcoTolo 23:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, we've got General Tojo still with us, as you can see by the viartis spam. --Dan 18:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the FDA and other regulatory agencies worldwide believe there is a difference, since many medications which are approved to treat Parkinson's disease are not also approved to treat non-idiopathic "parkinsonism" - Ciaran 16 April 09

"Drug slows and may halt Parkinson's disease"

The drug rejuvenates aging dopamine cells, whose death in the brain causes the symptoms of this devastating and widespread disease. [1] Brian Pearson 00:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Autonomic disorder and seborrheic dermatitis

A citation regarding autonomic derangement and seborrheic dermatitis would be helpful-- I was not familiar with autonomic disorders causing oily skin. Typicially an autonomic disorder would cause problems such as vasodilation, or piloerection. I have seen many patients with parkinson's, and seborrhea seems to be the least of their problems. Furthermore,what of patients with other types of autonomic disorders such as diabetic neuropathy or Shy-Drager syndrome?Bwthemoose 02:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a separate category could be created for seborrhea and weight loss, as they probably don't strictly fall under "autonomic disorder." Andrew73 15:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been suggested recently that......

Type 2 diabetes could be one of the causes of Parkinson's disease due to their high correlation from some scientific perspectives. Please add the following info to the topic

http://tds.terkko.helsinki.fi/dspace/handle/2455/42010

http://www.alzheimerjournal.com/pt/re/adad/abstract.00002093-200704000-00013.htm;jsessionid=GhXb8gQpctN2rWSy0fHZNpdCLG1z0vVyRvndbmWBG7Jjbqg8FbJT!-199097273!181195629!8091!-1

Descriptive Epidemiology

Been a while since I looked at this, and there's really been some heavy clipping. The last sentence in the first paragraph, referring to the vanDenEEden study, no longer is complete. But I see our old friend, this piece:"It occurs in all parts of the world, but appears to be more common in people of European ancestry than in those of African ancestry. Those of East Asian ancestry have an intermediate risk. " is still with us. Whoever keeps putting it in, please stop. Rates in many countries are so heavily distorted by ascertainment bias that they are meaningless, to to infer racial or ethnic differences from those biased rates is irresponsible. --Dan 16:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

this is b davidson. i'm currently hospitalized and in the midst of a lengthy and exceptionally unpleasant divorce. the clean-up on this article pleases me a lot. tiny addition i'd appreciate is the word "lengthy" or "protracted" in reference to generalized dystonia. needless to say, these episodes are exceptionally painful and are in fact comprehensively disabling. thanks, and i hope to be around more in the future; i have a lot of interests. barb

Ferrous Iron - error

This Wiki article states "Ferrous iron, the essential cofactor for L-dopa biosynthesis was shown to relieve between 10% and 60% of symptoms in 110 out of 110 patients.[63] [64]". I could not get reference 64 but reference 63 is is about the _"off-effects"_ when using the drug L-dopa, not about PD progression. My point, is that the current interpretation of this reference is a misunderstanding. The great success (110 out of 110 patients) is not a measure of reduction of symptoms or progression of the disease (as implied from the sentence that proceeds it about tyrosine). Instead, this paper is talking about reducing the harm of the drug (L-dopa).

I point this out because I was thinking of supplementing my diet with ferrous iron. Instead, I learned that "People with high levels of iron in their diet are more likely to develop Parkinson's disease, according to a study in the June 10 issue of Neurology, the scientific journal of the American Academy of Neurology." (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/06/030610081311.htm) and iron chelation (removing iron) might be a way to prevent PD - "Ironing iron out in Parkinson's disease and other neurodegenerative diseases with iron chelators: a lesson from 6-hydroxydopamine and iron chelators, desferal and VK-28". (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15105275&dopt=AbstractPlus) and PD patients already have abnormally high levels of iron "... a healthy adult brain might contain 50 mg of iron per gram of tissue. However, in Parkinson's sufferers, this figure can rise to 250 mg per gram of tissue." (http://www.srs.dl.ac.uk/Annual_Reports/AnRep94_95/Ch2/Iron.html)

I conclude that not only is this original reference about the benefits of ferrous supplementation a bad interpretation (because it deals with avoiding L-dopa problems not PD problems) but, more importantly, it may encourage behavior that increases the risk of PD (and, perhaps, its progression).

71.202.146.30 22:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Dr

PS: I am not sure that ferrous iron is "the essential cofactor for L-dopa biosynthesis". I could not confirm that with a reference. However, tetrahydrobiopterin (BH4) is an essential cofactor (working with tyrosine hydroxylase to turn tyrosine into Dopa). Perhaps this too is an error.

Editors should really check the original studies before coming to conclusions. I didn't find it therefore it can't be right is very poor science. The reference concerning the use of iron in Parkinson's Disease that the editor did not find does indeed show a large reduction in symptoms after iron administration. The full text of that study makes it very apparent. Ferrous iron has been known for decades to be the essential cofactor for the formation of L-dopa. See Udenfriend's 1964 Nobel prize winning study in the Journal of Biological Chemistry. The use of iron chelators for the treatment is pure speculation. It has no scientific basis, and has never been demonstrated. If you check the results sections, you will find that people with Parkinson's Disease do NOT have much higher levels of iron. As unfortunately often occurs, the abstract did not match the results. --Joe or Bob 21:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Tetrahydrobiopterin (BH4) is NOT an essential cofactor of tyrosine hydroxylase, except in bacteria. Tetrahydrofolic acid is the form in humans. --Joe or Bob 21:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

6-Hydroxydopamine toxicity should be mentioned in the article

The compond kills dopamine and noradrenaline —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.138.21 (talk) 09:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• If there is reliable evidence of its toxicity, then by all means add it to the article--Bwthemoose/Talk 15:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • a google search did turn up evidence that 6-OHDA is a neurotoxin, and that it is used experimentally to kill neurons inthe substantia nigra to model parkinsonism, but the next question is, does this happen in vivo?--Bwthemoose/Talk 15:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

anoxia

I added cerebral anoxia to the list of causative agents-- Secondary Parkinsonism can occur among victims of cerebral anoxia, particularly CO(carbon monoxide) poisoning. It has also been seen in post cardiac or respiratory arrest patients. One main difference bewteen this and primary parkinsonism is that it is less responsive to anti-parkinson agents.--Bwthemoose/Talk 16:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Cfd

I propose renaming Category:Deaths from Parkinson's disease to Category:Deaths with Parkinson's disease. - Kittybrewster ☎ 18:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Notable Parkinson's Sufferers

This is relatively insignificant, but I see that Mao Tse Tung is listed as a notable figure who suffered from Parkinson's disease. This piqued my curiosity since his Wikipedia article said he had ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Scelerosis). From what I know, these are two distinct disorders. Clarification, anyone? 131.215.227.21 (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Google suggests he had both. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Also Mohammed Ali didn't have Parkinson's Disease, strictly speaking. His symptoms are the result of head trauma, and thus his condition will not deteriorate. 24.17.202.188 (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You're correct - The Mohammed Ali page states he has Parkinson's syndrome which is a symptom of Dementia pugilistica, rather than Parkinson's disease. I think the confusion may arise from people being too respectful to say outright that he's punchy, even though that's par for the course when you let people ring your head like a bell for a living. removing him from the list. RayBarker (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I see some the punchy fraternity have returned. removed 1 boxer who is specifically diagnosed with dementia pugilistica, but put Ali back in, as according to the links from the dementia pugilistica page, his diagnosis has been changed to Parkinson's disease due to responding to appropriate medications... RayBarker (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Book section needed

I think this site needs to have an area of recommended books on Parkinson's to offer some support to those suffering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sseretti (talk • contribs) 14:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Are there any books you think are worth mentioning? We are already mentioning Lucky Man. JFW | T@lk 16:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

100 Questions & Answers About Parkinson Disease by Abraham Lieberman, MD with Marcia McCall. 2003. Jones and Bartlett Publishing. Sudbury, Massachusetts. and yes it's "Parkinson" without the "'s".

What about "real" people, as opposed to "Notable" people?

I read with great interest the article on Parkinson's Disease. While I appreciate the list of organisations at the end there are no links to places where those who suffer from this debilitating and frustrating disease - like me - or those who care for them, can go to get support from real people. While I acknowledge the guidelines for talk, which prohibit personal promotion,I wonder if a link to a blog site such as mine (http://blog.colinengland.com)which I am currently putting together for this purpose, might not provide comfort and support to many? ColinEngland (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Colin, whilst I agree and applaud the efforts of all those who work on behalf of patient education (I also work on a website for people with PD), that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. If readers do want to access those sites they can do so relatively easily via Google. Best wishes, --PaulWicks (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Capybara

The capybara is the largest rodent in the world. WP:TOJO thinks it needs saving. While that may be the case, the Parkinson's article is the wrong place for such a campaign, especially if it requires recurrent blanking by accounts sequentially named Kapibarra 1 (talk · contribs), 2, 3, 4 etcetera.

I have now fully protected the article. I hope someone saves the capybara, so we can carry on working on this article without interference. JFW | T@lk 14:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

α-synuclein

{{editprotected}} Could someone change the first mention of α-synuclein into a wiki-link to alpha-synuclein? Thank you.--69.118.143.107 (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Strike that first request, the first mention of alpha-synuclein is already a wiki-link. However, for the sake of consistency it should be referred to as either alpha-synuclein or α-synuclein. This page uses both versions, please change them so that they are all the same. Thank you.--69.118.143.107 (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Was originally going to leave this open for discussion as to whether "α" or "alpha" would be preferred, but checked and saw that the overwhelming majority of mentions in the article already used "alpha" -- only one used "α". With that in mind, it seems reasonable to assume a preference, there. Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits needed.

The last sentence of the third paragraph doesn't read smoothly. I think the simplest revision would be to remove the 'where'. While you're in there, you might consider adding a comma after 'toxicity'.

Current: 'While many forms of parkinsonism are "idiopathic", "secondary" cases where may result from toxicity most notably drugs, head trauma, or other medical disorders.'

Suggestion: While many forms of parkinsonism are "idiopathic", "secondary" cases may result from toxicity, most notably drugs, head trauma, or other medical disorders.

Bonniecresap (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence which reads "Disturbances in REM sleep: disturbingly vivid dreams, and REM Sleep Disorder, characterized by acting out of dream content - can occur years prior to diagnosis" does not appear to make sense, particularly at the point "acting out of dream content". I am unsure of what the correct wording should be.

Afromcbenny (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional treatment: Medical Marijuana

Medical marijuana has been an effective treatment for some symptoms of Parkinson's, and should be added under the section of treatments. Americans for Safe Access has compiled first hand accounts here: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=4562. One Czech study reported that half of participants reported relief from use of medical marijuana (Reuters: http://www.ukcia.org/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=5813). A recent study of the body's own endocannabinoid system indicates that it plays a role in attenuating the symptoms of Parkinson's (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/62616.php). Those interested in learning more about the use of medical marijuana for Parkinson's should visit Americans for Safe Access (http://www.safeaccessnow.org/). It can be effective for muscle stiffness, pain, and can also have a positive emotional effect. Some studies suggest that by protecting against oxidative damage to neurons, cannabinoids in marijuana also help slow the progression of Parkinson's.

I hope this information can be inserted in an appropriate format into this article. My father has Parkinson's, and I know through his experience that medical marijuana offers him a dramatic improvement in his quality of life. It is not a cure for his condition, but it does help him to live a more fulfilling life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmccraig (talk • contribs) 05:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

CopyEdits required

{{editprotected}} This article is locked. Please make the following CopyEdits.

1. "rigidity,bradykinesia" <= add space after comma
2. "pregression" <= should be "progression"?
3. "Procedings" <= Proceedings

Regards, JohnI (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the protection level of the page, so you can do it yourself. Good luck fighting General Tojo! Happy‑melon 15:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

History of Levodopa

I am not sure it is correct to state that 'l-dopa entered clinical practice in 1967'. A paper in 1961 described the use of l-dopa in Parkinson-akinesia (referenced below). Although this was an obscure journal for the standards of english-speakers (it is not only a German journal, but one published in Vienna, Austria), it did initiate the use of l-dopa in Parkinson's disease in Europe, quite prior to 1967.

BIRKMAYER W, HORNYKIEWICZ O. (1961) [The L-3,4-dioxyphenylalanine (DOPA)-effect in Parkinson-akinesia.] Wien Klin Wochenschr. 1961 Nov 10;73:787-8. German. PMID: 13869404 Konradic (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I would not call the WKW an "obscure" journal, but most sources seem to support 1967 as the time when levodopa made a worldwide appearance. Do you have secondary sources to support the claim that the 1961 paper made a significant impact (citations, recorded eyewitness accounts)? JFW | T@lk 11:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Reading Jankovic JNNP 2008 it seems these reports indeed reflect early clinical use of DOPA, but somehow the Nobel Committee favoured Carlsson because his work identified dopamine as the missing neurotransmitter. JFW | T@lk 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

bnmvmv

vnfcgngh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.206.136 (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

468rtdx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.31.16 (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, now it's my turn: erklnjf;lkf JFW | T@lk 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dementia: a later development in approximately 20-40% of all patients

Can you please change this to an accurate number? how can it be "between 20% and 40%"? it's either 20%, or 28%, or it depends on geographical location, or on the weather outside, or what? this statement is not informative, please correct. --Gyll (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What does the source say? JFW | T@lk 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

neuromelanin

I'm no physicist but I am pretty sure that neuromelanin is not "an electronically active semiconductive polymer" Gareth.14:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a physicist and apparently melanins in general are conducting polymers 97.123.8.252 (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Parkinson's Disease infectious or non infectious?

I need help and im un sure if Parkinson's disease is infectious or non infectious if you can help please tell me. Fitzyex (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-infectious. - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

at least, we're pretty sure it's non-infectious and will feel silly if it turns out we're wrong - see the story of cervical cancer progressing from "absolutely non-infectious" to "caused by wart viruses" Ooops. --Dan (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Drug-Induced Parkinsonism

We need to include hydroxydopamine, Interferon-Alpha and Interferon-Gamma as drugs that induce Parkinsonism. How can we do this if the page is protected from editing?! Cransona (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Alex Cranson, 4-8-08

Me again. I have been working on a Manganese toxicology experiment for a while, and this page seriously lacks info on drug-induced Parkinson's disease... particularly related to endogenous drugs (i.e. interferon-alpha and -gamma injections to treat hepatitis B and C, and myelogenous leukemia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cransona (talk • contribs) 23:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that Parkinson's disease or parkinsonism? JFW | T@lk 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

no imaging can help diagnose?

that is very inaccurate and misleading.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/445631 206.248.149.122 (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

see also this news release on recent work by Turi O. Dalaker et.al. LeadSongDog (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Both of these are not yet widely used. JFW | T@lk 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Notable Suffers

Notable - worthy of note

I think that all suffers of Parkinsons are worthy of note. Perhaps this can be changed to Public Suffers or Famous Suffers. The term notable implies that other people are not worthy and this is just plain wrong.

"notable." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008.

Merriam-Webster Online. 21 May 2008 <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/notable> WArthurton (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

On wikipedia, 'notable' means something very different - see WP:Notability and WP:BIO. Notable means 'having their own wikipedia page' or 'having received large amounts of media attention'. WLU (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any evidence to suggest that there are more notable sufferers of Parsion's disease than would be predicted if it were random? Looking at the list, it seems to me that really 'pumped' people get it later as if they burn themselves out. If so then one would expect actors/politicians/super-confident-boxers/evangelists to get it more. Original research, yes, but is there any research out there? --Timtak (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

PARKINSON - PBS (Peripheral Brain Stimulaton) with Ear-Implant-Acupunture

The PBS (Peripheral Brain Stimulation) is a treatment for Parkinson patients introduced by Dr. med Ulrich Werth, brain researcher and specialist for neurology, in 2001. The treatment is based on the implantation of special titanium needle pins in the subcutis tissue of the outer ear. Many treated patients experienced various improvements of their condition, ranging from the stabilization of the progressive disorder to an almost complete retrogression of all symptoms. In the introduction phase of the Werth-Parkinson-Implant-Therapy (WPIT), treatments were conducted with 20 to 30 implants. Now, considerable experience was gained with about 3,000 patients, which allowed refining and perfecting the therapy. Currently, one treatment includes the implantation of 60-90 needle pins, i.e. the optimum to achieve a considerable therapy success. In many patients, the progression of the disorder can be stabilized; the medication dose can be successively cut down and the symptoms like rigor and tremor can be reduced with lasting effect.

For more Informations look at http://www.parkinson-therapie.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.40.128 (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

THIS IS PROPAGANDA:Provide non commercial, peer review evidence. I believe the link to the commercial site should be considered spam and eliminated even from the talk page.--Garrondo (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Genes table

The genes table is too much specific for a general article. It could fit in an specific subarticle centred in causes or genetics. I move it here until such article is created. --Garrondo (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Table

Genetic forms that have been identified include (external links in this section are to Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man):

Type	OMIM	Locus	Details
PARK1	OMIM #168601	4q21	caused by mutations in the SNCA gene, which codes for the protein alpha-synuclein. PARK1 causes autosomal dominant Parkinson disease. So-called PARK4 (OMIM #605543) is probably caused by triplication of SNCA.
PARK2	OMIM *602544	6q25.2-q27	caused by mutations in protein parkin. Parkin mutations may be one of the most common known genetic causes of early-onset Parkinson disease. In one study, of patients with onset of Parkinson disease prior to age 40 (10% of all PD patients), 18% had parkin mutations, with 5% homozygous mutations. Patients with an autosomal recessive family history of parkinsonism are much more likely to carry parkin mutations if age at onset is less than 20 (80% vs. 28% with onset over age 40).Patients with parkin mutations (PARK2) do not have Lewy bodies. Such patients develop a syndrome that closely resembles the sporadic form of PD; however, they tend to develop symptoms at a much younger age.
PARK3	OMIM %602404	2p13	autosomal dominant, only described in a few kindreds.
PARK5	OMIM +191342	4p14	caused by mutations in the UCHL1 gene which codes for the protein ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1
PARK6	OMIM #605909	1p36	caused by mutations in PINK1 (OMIM *608309) which codes for the protein PTEN-induced putative kinase 1.
PARK7	OMIM #606324	1p36	caused by mutations in DJ-1 (OMIM 602533)
PARK8	OMIM #607060	12q12	caused by mutations in LRRK2 which codes for the protein dardarin. In vitro, mutant LRRK2 causes protein aggregation and cell death, possibly through an interaction with parkin. LRRK2 mutations, of which the most common is G2019S, cause autosomal dominant Parkinson disease, with a penetrance of nearly 100% by age 80. G2019S is the most common known genetic cause of Parkinson disease, found in 1-6% of U.S. and European PD patients. It is especially common in Ashkenazi Jewish patients, with a prevalence of 29.7% in familial cases and 13.3% in sporadic.
PARK9	OMIM #606693	1p36	Caused by mutations in the ATP13A2 gene, and also known as Kufor-Rakeb Syndrome. PARK9 may be allelic to PARK6.
PARK10	OMIM %606852	1p	-
PARK11	OMIM %607688	2q36-37	However, this gene locus has conflicting data, and may not have significance.
PARK12	OMIM %300557	Xq21-q25	-
PARK13	OMIM #610297	2p12	Caused by mutations in the HTRA2 (HtrA serine peptidase 2) gene.

Parkinson's Rates Among Parsi people

Recently, a line about the high rate of Parkinson's disease among the Parsi people in India was added to the Epidemiology section of this article. A look at the references and a quick google suggests that this might be notable, but I lack the scientific/medical background to know if it really is, and how it might be better incorporated into the article (also, the second reference looks questionable to me).-Polotet 04:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Misfolding disease

Parkinson's is now seen as a misfolding disease, linking it with Alzheimer's, ALS, and other diseases. Parkinson's is the outcome when autophagy cannot keep up with protein degradation needed in dopaminergic neurons.

Physicsjock (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Dumb it down, please?

I'm not a physics scholar. I'd really like to know what my brother died from and understand it without attending Med School. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.193.234 (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

please reread WP:NOT & WP:BOLD. wikiepdia is not a free dmedical education, and its not realy the point to spoonfeed things like this to you to make sure you understand. if you find the article unclear or difficile to underfstand, please make a not of exactly what you dont understand so that other editors may go forth and try to make it better for everoyne OR, better yer, you could do some researhc oyurlsef and contribute tothis article. YOU can edit; therefore YOU hav eth epower to mae this article a better article TODAY. :D Smith Jones (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Insidious anon introduced errors

In the "treatment" section, I noticed that someone put in "at present there is a cure for PD". I changed the phrase with the correct info. Made me consider that it was more than just an error, since the letter 'a' is nowhere near the letterS 'n,o'. I cite the resource:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/parkinsonsdisease.html
which reads, "There is no cure for Parkinson's disease".- Brattysoul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brattysoul (talk • contribs) 01:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Good catch - it looks like a series of anon editors have been making minor mischief over the past 24 hours or so (see here and here and here and here). I've reverted the other pair of mal-edits, too. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a process to have those perpetrating these so called "revisions" banned from editing Wiki articles ever again? Brattysoul (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No, we have tried for years to no avail, for one individual in particular (look up user 'General Tojo' someday if you're bored) but he and, I suppose, a few other vandals feel it's his mission in life to sway us to his belief, and failing that, to vandalize. Sock-puppets galore are the main tool. The first two entries MarcoTolo cites are in all likelihood that person, who holds a patent on a discredited - PD treatment. I expect he'll comment on my last remark. --Dan (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There has yet agaoin been another bit of vandalism on this page with someone stating there is a cure for PD. It's beginning to be really annoying-can't we block this within Wiki? I thought there was a way to block a page from editing for a certain to hopefully halt vandalsim of an article Brattysoul (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Been trying forever - that's our old pal General Tojo, in all likelihood. --Dan (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the first picture really appropriate?

No doubt the illustration from the nineteenth century is of some historical interest, but as one who has just had a dear friend of many years diagnosed with Parkinson's, this picture of a bent shuffling figure is frankly rather distressing. Does this really need to be the way the article launches its discussion of this very sensitive topic? 192.86.100.200 (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The first drawing is essentially a caricature of a sufferer of Parkinson's disease, from a time when the condition was poorly understood. Parkinson's sufferers are not shabby hobos: this article needs to be compassionate and highlight the dignity of the patients, not hundred-year-old stereotypes. --24.34.222.177 (talk) 05:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Generally good to have some image of a condition, and frankly a completely well looking patient's photograph of a modern treated patient with mild disease will be indistinguishable from an older patient with heart disease or a sore throat. Wikipedia is not written for patients (go read the disclaimers), but the general readership who will gaion from the image many things: its historical nature (it is not a "new" disease), it affects (generally) older people, it can affect posture, the image shows a small shuffling gait and (having read the article) even hints at the hand tremor. Sure not all patients are so affected, but it is so possible and to "tame" the image would do a diservice to those who are sadly seriously affected (either in developed countries despite access to medication, or more worldwide were medication may be sadly unavailable) - go look at breast cancer, some may be upset by the images but such discussion over "taste" been repeatedly had before and not found convincing. Similarly the image at Cluster headache is for illustrative purposes and similarly queries over the image previously raised, and repeatedly rejected as being useful. David Ruben ^Talk 11:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

From my point of view image is perfect per reasons given by David Ruben. The fact that for some might be "scary" is not an encyclopedic reason to eliminate it.--Garrondo (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As a person living with PD and understanding Wikipedia is not censored, I have no problem with the image. However I am aware the condition affects different people quite differently. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Third line of signs and symptoms: Patients' individual symptoms may be quite dissimilar and progression of the disease is also distinctly individual.: It is true that it affects differently each person (No less differently that most other neurological diseases anyway), and this is prominently said in the article. The image represents common symptoms of the disease, specially without medication. The fact that it is a 100 years old does not mean it is less correct today. Sadly once the patients organism gets used to L-dopa; symptoms are not different from those described in the 19th century. Best regards.--Garrondo (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

cant we remove teh picture to some place lower than down on the article? Th way it is now is very, garish and moving it to a section specificlaly discussing the historical nature of the disease would be much better for all concerned. Smith Jones (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Does General Tojo still edit?

I've read that you've had considerable problems with General Tojo on this article. Has he stopped editing? Captain Ahab's scar (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, he is still around and lacking a hobby - he usually leaves pretty clear footprints with his vandalism. --Dan (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any definite Tojo activity for some time. JFW | T@lk 22:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Glucocerebrosidase??

I've stumbled upon some implication of Glucocerebrosidase in Parkinson's, as described on that page. Can this be confirmed and should it possibly added? VashTexan (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/19/1972 - unsure how much empirical basis this epidemiological observation has? JFW | T@lk 22:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Add EPDA to links

The EPDA (European Parkinson's Disease Association is a european umbrella organisation with member organisations across Europe. Would like to add EPDA to the list of external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.120.3 (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate to add a link to our article to the "See also" section. Internal links are always more appropriate than external ones.-gadfium 17:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Fast review

I would have loved to review this article in its GA nomination since neurodegenerative diseases is one of my favorite themes. However right now I have a lot of work off wikipedia. Nevertheless I have done a fast review on the article and I have some important points that I believe that should be addressed for this article to become a true GA (note that this is far from being an exhaustive review, simply some comments for improvement):

Signs and symptoms

Mnemonics are discouraged (considered writing for professionals)

Most symptoms do not have a citation, while the ones that have them are primary sources: a text book or seminal review could be used to give a reference for them; eliminating primary sources per WP:MEDRS

Since it is a GA nomination this is not as important, but the section would look much better if prosified instead of having a list format. Additionally maybe such an extensive list of symptoms maybe is not as important as a summary of the evolution-importance of the different groups of symptoms.

Causes

I believe this section is quite misleading and should be reviewed with secondary sources; probably there is a confusion between PD and parkinsonism.

Introduction: More importance should be given to idiopathic PD since it is the most common. Citations needed.

Toxins: Probably a combination of undue weight: Do secondary sources give so much importance to toxins? I doubt it. Second and third paragraph would be better moved to research directions as they do not truly talk about parkinson but about an induced parkinsonism with no evolution which is used as animal models (See for example Huntington's disease)

Head Trauma: Too much importance to single primary sources.

Diagnosis

I believe that UPDRS is not used for diagnosis but for evolution following.

Are there any proposed diagnostic criteria? Which ones? (See Alzheimer's disease)

Regarding "diagnostic tools": In text only DatScan is commented while image talks about 18-F PET: What are their differences and similiarities? When is better used each one?

Treatment

It should be stated when each treatment is recommended.

L-Dopa

L-Dopa is the most common treatment, however its section is completely unreferenced.

I also feel that italics use per MOS for trademarks is uncorrect (I believe trade names should be italized)

Surgery

It should be much more explained: how is it work?, what kind of surgery is it? Same for deep brain stimultion, which only has a line.

Prognosis

Scales are unreferenced

Epidemiology

I am sure that something else than a line could be said

Research directions

it is probably too long: maybe it could be summarized and moved to a secondary article (See Alzheimer or Huntington diseases articles).

Complementary treatments: it probably has problems of undue weight. Secondary refs should be searched to achieve balance.

Notable sufferers:

Not a single ref is provided.

It is simply a list of sufferers with no reason for the inclusion of each one. Section has to be fully cleaned up.

Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits by Paul Wicks

Let me summarize the situation. Dr Paul Wicks (talk · contribs) a couple of days ago made a massive edit to the article, without discussion or edit summary. The edit was reverted by Garrondo, and a bit of an edit war developed. I've spent some time looking over the edit, and my impression is that although it is not perfect in every way, it improves the article pretty significantly. The editor is behaving pretty badly, but on the other hand this is Wikipedia and we should try to hang on to any improvements we get, so after discussion with Garrondo (who however may not approve), I am going to revert back to the Wicks version. I feel a need to do this quickly before it goes stale -- there are already a couple of later changes, but they are small enough to easily apply after the revert. I beg everybody involved, but especially Paul Wicks, to discuss things rather than edit-war. Looie496 (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Could I attract your attention to User:PaulWicks (the actual person), WP:TOJO and the fact that there has been recent sockpuppetry from the Tojo range? Will you then reexamine the edits and consider whether they may have been in good faith? JFW | T@lk 23:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, you're saying that Dr Paul Wicks (talk · contribs) is probably a TOJO sock and that there is some sort of POV-pushing in the edit in question. I couldn't see it, but if it is clear to you, feel free to take the action you think is appropriate. Looie496 (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Pseudo-Wicks' edit is in fact a revert to an old version. I can't find the oldid without using Wikiblame, but that's the only valid conclusion. I too can't find anything badly wrong with it apart from the removal of interlanguage links and disambiguation of certain terms. Given that you have made edits subsequent to the restoration of the pseudoo-Wicks edit, perhaps you could be so kind as to redo your edits in the pre-redo edit. JFW | T@lk 21:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Benson is also likely to be a TOJO sock. I do recognise the modus operandi: claiming academic credentials, making bold claims without sufficient sources, etc. I have absolutely no desire to engage in a block war with this known sockpuppeteer, and all I can recommend is watching the article carefully, removing unsourced claims, and not engaging in pointless discussion with obvious sockpuppets. Life is too short. JFW | T@lk 08:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much

My beautiful father passed away in April 2009. He was diagnosed about 6 years ago with PD. Your article describes him perfectly and is one of the best I have read so far.

My father had all the classic symptoms, including the Incontinence and Dementia. It helped me understand him so much better. I was his primary caregiver without any support so it was very difficult watching him going through all these things without understanding what was happening to him.

He was eventually confined to a wheelchair and could only eat soft foods. The doctors warned as well that even the slightest cold could be his last. His skin also became extreemly delicate as well.

Eventually cancer got the better of him. As he was so frail from the Parkinsons, they were unable to treat the cancer or even properly diagnose him. The dementia also caused him to live in denial as to any pain which made the diagnoses even more difficult. The pain from the cancer caused him to have a stroke and he passed away four days later.

What does concern me now is that I also get tremours, especially in my right hand, where I even sometimes battle to hold a cup. Some time back a neuro surgeon said that I had action tremour syndrome. Now that my father, who I am a lot alike, has had Parkinsons, what are the chances I can get this as well? I am a single parent so dread having my son go through with me one day what I went through with my father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.200.68 (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I hate to respond to such a message in an insensitive way, but we really have to stick to the principle that talk pages are for the purpose of discussing the article, not the topic. The place to ask questions is the Science Reference Desk, but as somebody who participates there frequently I can tell you that we have a strict rule against providing medical advice -- anonymous Wikipedia editors just aren't qualified to do that. You will have to consult a physician for that. In any case, thanks for the positive feedback. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)