Talk:Parkinson's disease/Archive 4

Useful "knol"
In the google wikipedia-like knol there is an interesting article on PD: See:. Since it's license is CC atribbution 3 compatible with wikipedia we could copy useful parts from it. It has been written by a physician with an interest in movement disorders. Although it has few references we could easily find refs for it. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Pop culture ignorance
What about adding something about how pop culture thinks of Parkinson's as a "funny" disease like tourette's syndrome? --Phil1988 (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you give some suggestion of sources that discuss that attitude? Looie496 (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Creation of signs and symptoms secondary article
In the past few months I have been improving the signs and symptoms section. Now it is fully referenced and quite exhaustive. I am planning to summarize it and create a secondary article since it is really too long. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.--Garrondo (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really fair on tourettes sufferers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.145.198.172 (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ??? Why? Not sure what these article and subarticle have to do with tourette syndrome...--Garrondo (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Merges
Shortly after creating Signs and symptoms of Parkinson's disease I found Non-motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease. Both of them have a lot of overlap in content with the former having additional content to the latter since it has a broader coverage. I believe the article "non motor symptoms" should be merged into the more general "signs and symptoms". Additionally the signs and symptoms subsection is now a summary of the signs and symptoms article. Anybody opposing?

Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is done.--Garrondo (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

classification
I've created this section to discuss whether we should merge Parkinson plus syndrome into this article--Robert Treat (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC).
 * I agree: at this point the parkinson's plus article is of very low quality and would not probably improve in the short term since it receives around 60 visits a day. Nevertheless in the process of merging references should be added; since at this point it has none. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The Parkinson's article is about idiopathic parkinsonism, and we need a very clear distinction between PD and its related movement disorders. This page could assume the format of a disambiguation page, but I disagree that it should disappear just because it's of low quality. JFW | T@lk  20:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No merge: They are different. For example; "Dementia with Lewy bodies" has a completely different pathology to "Parkinsons disease". Snowman (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like it needs expansion, but a merge isn't on the cards - am tidying up the merge messages as done. Lee&there4;V (talk • contribs) 14:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments on classification
I might have found a typo? 3rd Paragraph of the "Classification" secion. 1st 2 Sentences read: "These Parkinson-plus diseases may progress more quickly than typical idiopathic Parkinson disease. If cognitive dysfunction occurs before or very early in the course of the movement disorder, then DLBD may be suspected." As far as I can tell, this is the first time "DLBD" appears in the article, so I suspect it is supposed to be "dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB)". If I wasn't so sleep deprived right now, I would probably make that edit on the main page myself.

Additionally, the 4th paragraph is not entirely clear: "The usual anti-Parkinson's medications are typically either less effective or completely ineffective in controlling symptoms; patients may be exquisitely sensitive to neuroleptic medications like haloperidol, so correct differential diagnosis is important."

I would suggest adding "Parkinson-plus diseases" somewhere in there for those of us that have gotten a little bit lost in the medical terminology, and multiple acronymed types of Parkinson-plus diseases. Perhaps: "The usual anti-Parkinson's medications are typically either less effective or completely ineffective in controlling symptoms of Parkinson-plus diseases; patients may be exquisitely sensitive to neuroleptic medications like haloperidol, so correct differential diagnosis is important." 24.180.99.144 (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)bill.landis@gmail.com
 * I have been working on the article for a few months improving section by section, but I have not yet attacked the classification section. However I spect to do it soon, and most probably I would change it dramatically, reducing much of the information on parkinson plus, since there is already an article for it. On the other hand any comments on the other sections would be most welcome. --Garrondo (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The following wording in the Classifications section makes no sense to me: "having PD also characteristics of the former:" Gypsydoctor (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Bicycle riding
Kinesia paradox. . - Kittybrewster &#9742;
 * Wow... the video is amazing.--Garrondo (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Picture of James Parkinson
I can't bring myself to believe that James Parkinson died as early as 1824 when there's a Daguerreotype/Photograph available of him. Either that or the guy in the picture isn't him. Does anyone have the solutuion? Marco :-0 Bonteburg (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have found the following in an historical review article in a journal (see ): His modesty and decency are reflected by the fact that, although, during his life he was held in respect in both medical and geological circles, no portrait has as yet come to light. Parkinson also chose to write his critical and often acerbic polemical pamphlets under the nom de plume of Old Hubert, although this may have been more to preserve his anonymity in turbulent times.


 * Unless we are sure that this man is the James Parkinson that described the disease we can not have its image in the article. Until then I am going to remove the image. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed name change
This is now recognised as a condition rather than a disease. In UK it is now known as "Parkinson's". Kittybrewster &#9742;  13:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not really understand your proposal... Nevertheless names follow nomenclature of the ICD-10, which talks about Parkinson's disease. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your changes per above. See Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Notable sufferers
The manual of style for medical articles (See WP:MEDMOS) says about notable sufferers: ''Articles on medical conditions often include lists of notable individuals who have (or had) the disease. This may be manageable if the disease is rare. For common conditions, it can become a distraction from the main article and contain much unreferenced and dubious material. If you do include such a list, ensure your entry criteria are well defined so that future editors may know if their additions are welcome. One restriction that some editors favour is to include only those individuals who have lastingly affected the popular perception of a condition, such as through public awareness campaigns or enduring media coverage.''


 * Parkinson's disease is clearly a common disease.
 * The list has grown over time and it is clearly not manageable
 * The list is completely unreferenced and may have therefor innacuracies.
 * There is no entry criteria at all.
 * I doubt that most of these people have lastingly affected the popular perception of a condition (specially since most people won't have heard in their lifes from many of them).

I have decided to eliminate the whole section and move it here. If somebody wants to search for references veryfing that some or all of them had PD such editor could create a secondary article with them. Nevertheless I think that to include any of them in the main article s reference where it is said that they have influenced the perception of the disease would also have to be found. I would say that right now the only two that merit inclusion are Fox and Phiney, since at least it is said that they have created two foundations... (I am even in doubt for the latter, but it can be discussed in the future). Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Notable sufferers
(Information taken from article the 17th of april 2010 and left here so a secondary subarticle can be created in the future if the info is correctly referenced)

''In addition to Michael J. Fox and Davis Phinney, famous sufferers include the late Pope John Paul II, baseball manager Sparky Anderson, playwright Eugene O'Neill, political commentator Michael Kinsley, author Nicholas Bethell, artist Salvador Dalí, hockey player Brent Peterson, boxer Muhammad Ali, basketball player Brian Grant, evangelist Billy Graham and former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno. Political figures suffering from it have included Adolf Hitler (not confirmed), Francisco Franco, Deng Xiaoping and former Prime Minister of Canada Pierre Trudeau. Numerous actors have also been afflicted with Parkinson's such as: Terry-Thomas, Deborah Kerr, Kenneth More, Vincent Price, Jim Backus and Michael Redgrave. Helen Beardsley (of Yours, Mine and Ours fame) also suffered from this disease toward the end of her life. James Doohan also suffered from Parkinson's disease, and later, Alzheimer's. Director George Roy Hill (The Sting, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid) also suffered from Parkinson's disease. Rabbi Nosson Tzvi Finkel, the Head Rabbi of the Jerusalem Mir Yeshiva, also suffers from this disease. The film Awakenings (starring Robin Williams and Robert De Niro and based on genuine cases reported by Oliver Sacks) deals sensitively and largely accurately with a similar disease, postencephalitic parkinsonism.''


 * Many of those mentioned here are perhaps not so notable because they began to show symptoms or were diagnosed in their old age, but I was very surprised to see that Muhammad Ali was not mentioned in the article. His lighting the Olympic flame in Atlanta in 1996 was, I believe, memorable enough to warrant his inclusion here, but perhaps time has already left him behind. Which brings me to a second point: I expected to see more about causes-- in the case of Ali, repeated head trauma. I came to this article after reading about Michael J. Fox, having always wondered about the cause of his Parkinson's. There was talk a few years ago about excessive use of cocaine causing or contributing to early-onset Parkinson's, and for actors in the 80s and 90s, this would not have been a surprising finding. However, I've never seen this even mentioned in relation to Fox. I have great admiration for him and I only hope that if drug use were a causative factor in his illness, he would talk about it as a warning to young people. Lisapaloma (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On a cursory overview, I find that Parkinson's is adequately mentioned in the relevant articles but cannot find any reference to cocaine abuse in relation to ether article, but even if it were so, it would require a reliable source independent of these people to make a cogent connection. Please feel free to cite, but at present I just don't see it. Rodhull  andemu  00:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say that many of today's notable sufferers have decided not to start their own foundations because they see the size and scope of the Fox Foundation. [Brian Grant] and [Andy Grove] have both stated they felt they could do more by working through the MJFF then starting something from scratch. Jhbarr (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I move here a few lines on the pope since they are referenced, but he has hardly changed perception of the disease. It can be nevertheless discussed if others think otherwise: '''Pope John Paul II was also diagnosed with the illness, although the Vatican administration kept this a secret until 2003. '''.--Garrondo (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

L -DOPA vs levodopa
Looks like there's a bit of trade name / chemical name mixup going on. Shouldn't the section in the article be ' L -DOPA' and mention levodopa as a commercial version. There's a few articles that might need addressing too.. levodopa already redirects to L-DOPA, but I notice there is Levodopa-induced dyskinesia, Carbidopa/levodopa and a potential Benserazide/levodopa. These might need to be renamed, the carbidopa/levodopa might even be merged back into carbidopa - for example the benserazide article already discusses its combined use so the extra article might not be needed... Lee&there4;V (talk • contribs) 15:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are completely right... It was me who did this by mistake (I have to say that I did not even know that levodopa was the trade name)... It would be great if you could fix the article, while I work on the history section. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am hunting around t'internet - not so sure now, the terms seems interchangeable .. am digging further.. Lee&there4;V (talk • contribs) 10:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * From the L-DOPA article discussion page: This article should be called L-DOPA. L-DOPA is the common, scientific name for a chemical which exists as a biosynthetic precursor to dopamine and can also be synthesized in the lab. Levadopa is the INN for synthetic L-DOPA intended for use as a pharmaceutical. Since this article is about the substance as a chemical (structure, synthesis, etc.), the natural biological properties (synthesis, function, etc.), and its use as a pharmaceutical (role in Parkinsons, dosing, etc.) we should use the most general name, not the pharmaceutical specific one.: I would say that if correct here we could use both as synonims and even premier the use of the levodopa term (since is the pharmaceutical name). Nevertheless in no case is the brand name. The only case were we should mandatorily use L-DOPA is when talking about "natural sources of L-DOPA". Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since levodopa is the INN I have tried to use levodopa when talking about the drug and L-DOPA (and not L-dopa) when talking about the endogenous substance. I would try to be consistent in the future.--Garrondo (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you've been consistent, its a slippery issue ...! I have elicited further discussion at the pharmacology Project (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology ) for rurther ideas! Lee&there4;V (talk • contribs) 13:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, have added 'When used in a pharmaceutical context, the INN designation 'levodopa' is normally used.' to l-dopa article. It all looks to be in order and the conversation was - don't worry too much as long as we are consistent. Lee&there4;V (talk • contribs) 11:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible protective effect of CoQ10
I added the following (21-July-2010):

"A 2002 study in 80 Parkinson’s disease patients found 1200mg/day of coenzyme Q10 reduced the disease progression by 44%. "

but it was removed (for dubious reasons) discussed on my talk page. Shouldn't we qualify rather than delete ? Rod57 (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Biomarkers
A lot of current PD research seems to involve looking for biomarkers. I expected to find something about that here. I hope someone will add a section on this. Gypsydoctor (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

New source on research
"No New Parkinson Disease Drug Expected Anytime Soon" 16 Aug 2010 has info on drug targets and animal models. Rod57 (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Heading towards FA
I have been rewriting the pathophisiology section with the intention of taking the article to FAC as soon as possible. Today I have greatly simplyfied the pathology subsection since it was too much specific (proof is that its contents were not covered at all in the main seminal reviews already in the article). Since its content had some possible useful sources and content I paste it here so it does not get lost in the history of the article, and if ever a pathophisioloy subarticle is created it can be integrated there. Content is:

''Excessive accumulations of iron, which are toxic to nerve cells, are also typically observed in conjunction with the protein inclusions. Iron and other transition metals such as copper bind to neuromelanin in the affected neurons of the substantia nigra. Neuromelanin may be acting as a protective agent. The most likely mechanism is generation of reactive oxygen species. Iron also induces aggregation of synuclein by oxidative mechanisms. Similarly, dopamine and the byproducts of dopamine production enhance alpha-synuclein aggregation. The precise mechanism whereby such aggregates of alpha-synuclein damage the cells is not known. The aggregates may be merely a normal reaction by the cells as part of their effort to correct a different, as-yet unknown, insult. Based on this mechanistic hypothesis, a transgenic mouse model of Parkinson's has been generated by introduction of human wild-type alpha-synuclein into the mouse genome under control of the platelet-derived-growth factor-β promoter. A recent view of Parkinson's disease implicates specialized calcium channels that allow substantia nigra neurons, but not most neurons, to repetitively fire in a "pacemaker" like pattern. The consequent flooding of calcium into these neurons may aggravate damage to mitochondria and may cause cell death. One study has found that, in experimental animals, treatment with a calcium channel blocker isradipine had a substantial protective effect against the development of Parkinson's disease. ''

--Garrondo (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Associations
Searching for secondary sources on PD advocacy associations I have found few to none. Therefore I have decided to eliminate most of the info on them which from my point of view was self-promotional (until a secondary source states that such info is notable), leaving only that info that was in secondary sources. I have also left the name of the two associations that were already in the article as examples of associations even if there is no secondary info for them. --Garrondo (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In glancing at the article to assess this, I realized that there is no mention of Muhammad Ali. I think he is as notable a victim as Michael J. Fox, or even more so. Looie496 (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all: he was notable as a boxer, I doubt that as much as PD sufferer, but we could search for references which say that he was notable as a person with the disease. Secondly and more important. Ali suffered from parkinsonism but not PD: his symptoms were a direct consequence of boxing and as such are not covered by this article, which according to secondary sources, defines PD as idiophatic (primary), common presentation, of parkinsonism. Ali suffered from secondary parkinsonism (dementia pugilistica).--Garrondo (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I might have answered too quickly: After some searching I see now that both Ali and his wife had made public appeareances to talk about the disease, that there is a Muhammad Ali parkinson's center and that several articles talk about him suffering PD... On the other hand is also true that several pubmed articles say that he had parkinsonism due to boxing and not exactly PD. I'll try to integrate all the info soon. Thanks for the interest.--Garrondo (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have given it a try. I will add the references soon.--Garrondo (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

To set a rule: From WP:MEDMOS on notable sufferers: ''f you do include such a list, ensure your entry criteria are well defined so that future editors may know if their additions are welcome. One restriction that some editors favour is to include only those individuals who have lastingly affected the popular perception of a condition, such as through public awareness campaigns or enduring media coverage''. Idea would be to include only those that have been notable as PD sufferers, independently of whether they were notable of not before diagnosis. In this sense at the moment we have two inclusions which created foundations for PD which have been covered in secondary sources. New additions should be considered on a one to one basis against sources stating how they have affected the perception of a condition.--Garrondo (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Not that it's needed at this point, and of course youtube is not a usable source, but just to make his notability as a Parkinson syndrome sufferer clear, it might be worth watching this video. Looie496 (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In one word: wow.--Garrondo (talk) 06:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have changed image to a photo of Ali, since Fox's picture had copyright issues and there were no other high quality images of him.--Garrondo (talk) 06:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Image problem
We have a probably copyright problem with an image. Image is: File:PET scan Parkinson's Disease.jpg. Description states that it was created by NASA. However while it appears in a document by NASA at no point it is said that it was created by them. In addition it seems an internal document for a lection. Moreover I do not think that NASA is interested in performing PET scans to parkinson's disease patients. I participated in a discussion with a similar image 2 years ago in the Alzheimer's disease article: See here. For the moment I am going to eliminate image from article and I have asked an administrator for help about how to proceed.--Garrondo (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just found the following notice in the index of the tutorial from where the image was taken:I GET MANY REQUESTS FOR PERMISSION TO USE ILLUSTRATIONS FROM THE TUTORIAL, OR ACTUAL COPIES THEREOF. ABOUT 95% OF THOSE YOU SEE WERE EXTRACTED OFF THE INTERNET (AND I HAVE INEXACT RECORDS OF THEIR SOURCE); THE OTHER 5% CAME FROM MY PERSONAL COLLECTION WHICH I HAVE SINCE GIVEN AWAY. I AM THEREFORE UNABLE TO FILL ANY REQUESTS INCLUDING PERMISSIONS, SO PLEASE DON'T SEND ANY.: So now it is clear that it is a copyright infrigement.--Garrondo (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have nominated it for deletion at commons: interested users see here.--Garrondo (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Wording
A few suggestions -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not like the term "sufferer" even worse than patient IMO.
 * We should us generic not brand names first ( see the image )
 * Some of the images have formatting problems on my screen.
 * I'll fix the sufferers and generic issues later or tomorrow. Regarding formatting: No idea why that occurs. I have no problems. Thanks for the help copy-editing.--Garrondo (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have eliminated the word "sufferer" (and even the use of the verb suffer in some cases). I have also reduced the use of patient, and tried to leave it we were specifically talking about a patient-physician relationship. Regarding the generic: in this case I disagree, since the preparation is "stalevo", which is a specific combination of entacapone, levodopa and carbidopa. Nevertheless I am going to add to caption, a commercial preparation combining entacapone, levodopa and carbidopa, and put the name in italics per manual of style.--Garrondo (talk) 08:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Link suggestion
can we please add this link? Study: Brain 'energy crisis' may spark Parkinson's, Associated press, via usatoday website, 11/4/10. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's really not suitable for this article -- in place of a long explanation of why not I'll point you to WP:MEDRS. Also as a general rule, important information should always be added to the text of an article rather than by inserting external links.  The last thing we want is for Wikipedia articles to turn into link farms. Looie496 (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you add the European Parkinson's Disease Association to the external links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EPDA (talk • contribs) 09:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose you refer to the website. I have taken a look at the site and has quite a lot of info, which would never be included in this article even if FA, therefore it qualifyies for inclusion. I have added it to the article. Thanks.--Garrondo (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Commonest form of parkinsonism?
From "Classification", paragraph 1: "Parkinson's disease is the most common form of parkinsonism", referenced to Jankovic and Poewe. This is, I think, a questionable statement. Vascular parkinsonism contributes a significant proportion of parkinsonism. Axl ¤  [Talk]  10:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This article indicates that vascular parkinsonism accounts for 4.4–12%, but with the caveat that true incidence are prevalence are not known. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  10:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been taking a look at the refs. It seems I messed the refs because it does not appear in the sources given, but it does in the Sami's lancet article (I have corrected it in the article): it specifically says: Parkinsonism  describes   a   syndrome   characterised   by rigidity,  tremor,  and  bradykinesia,  of  which  Parkinson’s disease  is  the  main  cause.; although it gives no ref for it. Nevertheless I would say that the source you gives does not contradict the lancet article: Vascular parkinsonism accounts up to 12% but, that still leaves quite a lot of space for PD to be the most common... Even so I will try to find another source for that.--Garrondo (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The book by Jankovic and Tolosa on PD and movement disorders (See here (I have the 5th, spanish edition) reviews differential prevalence according to origin of parkinsonism, and all of the primary articles reviewed by them give the higher rates to PD and much lower to other causes including vascular parkinsonism. Some of the primary articles reviewed in such book are:, , . I will add the book and chapter as soon as I can for stronger sourcing of the statement.--Garrondo (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for looking closer at the sources. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  10:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope: thanks to your comment: now we have a much more complete ref and no doubts on the issue :-)--Garrondo (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Mycrography image
I was thinking of an image for the symptoms section, and I thought of a writting by a PD patient with micrography. I do not have such kind of image, but maybe somebody is capable of getting one directly from a patient. Best image would be a short text with some rule on it to show scale... --Garrondo (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Genetics
From the section "Causes", subsection "Genetic", paragraph 1: "At least between 5 and 10% of the patients are now known to have monogenic forms of the disease." Wouldn't it make more sense to say "At least 5% of the patients are now known to have monogenic forms of the disease."? Axl ¤  [Talk]  10:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources says between 5 and 10: I suppose there is no clear agreement. Nevertheless I am going to carry on with your proposal.--Garrondo (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

From "Causes", "Genetic", paragraph 2: "A number of specific genetic mutations causing PD have been discovered.... SNCA ... UCH-L1 ... etc." Does everyone with these mutations get PD? Or are they risk factors? If so, by how much is the risk increased? Axl ¤  [Talk]  10:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * They are very related to the disease. They cause familial PD. This does not mean that everybody who has them will suffer the disease, althought it is quite probable. The article already gives numbers to 2 of them: SNCA have been found in non symptomatic carriers leading to the conclussion that penetrance is incomplete or age-dependent; LRRK2: The penetrance of the G2019S mutation ranges between 28% at age 60 and 75% at age 80 with sex having no effect. Giving the penetrance of each of them I believe will be exccesive for the article. I am going to add an "over-simplified introductory" sentence saying: In most cases carriers of such mutations will develop PD.--Garrondo (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. However I don't think that "carriers" is a good choice of word. It has a specific meaning in genetics. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  09:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? I think we are using it correctly: people who carry the mutation. Could you clarify your comment? Thanks.--Garrondo (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A genetic carrier has the gene associated with the disease, but does not have any symptoms. If a "carrier" develops the disease, he is not a carrier. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  09:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have changed the wording. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  10:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I thought that it meant that he carried the gene, independently of whether he had symptoms. Many thanks for all the copy-edit and useful comments.--Garrondo (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Agent Orange Exposure in the Military
Parkinson's Disease is a disease officially linked to the exposure of Agent Orange for VA Benefit Claims.

http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/conditions/parkinsonsdisease.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.83.90.214 (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the place to give medical or social recommendations: Accordingly I have eliminated part of your comment. Nevertheless the information you provide is of great interest for the article and I will try to include it as soon as possible. --Garrondo (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done: I have added the review on evidence and the website you provide. Many thanks for your helpful comment.--Garrondo (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)