Talk:Variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease

Text is confusing
"Some sources (such as CDC) consider vCJD as a separate condition from classic Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease (though both are caused by PrP prions) while other sources (such as the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke) consider vCJD as a subdivision of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. ICD-10 has no separate code for vCJD and such cases are reported under the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease code (A81.0). "


 * All sources consider "classic CJD" and "variant CJD" to be separate conditions.


 * They are both subtypes of CJD sure. But that is a different discussion.


 * Have restored a simpler overly "It is different from classic Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, though both are due to prions."


 * The confusion the IP is having is that the term "Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease" is used BOTH to mean "Classic CJD" AND to refer to the group of CJDs that include the variant form. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * This ref says " acquired (kuru, variant Jakob-Creutzfeldt disease, and iatrogenic Jakob-Creutzfeldt disease)". Ie variant and iatrogenic are under acquired and thus does not support the text in question. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4879966/
 * The other ref has an impact factor less than 1 http://profiles.catalyst.harvard.edu/?pg=bibliometrics&tool=jbr&task=search&field=Communicable+Diseases Ie not a great source. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear DocJames,
 * I think the classification is not as straightforward. Of course vCJD is not the same condition as sCJD or fCJD, but sCJD is not the same condition as iCJD and no doubt exists that they are subdivisions of the same disease. The idea that sCJD, fCJD and iCJD constitute a separate condition or disease called cCJD and that vCJD is another condition independent from cCJD, such idea exists (CDC and other authors) but is not consensual. For what I have seen, the NIH makes no reference to "classic CJD" and it divides CJD into 3 types and vCJD is a subtype of adcquired CJD. ICD-10 has no separate codes for classic CJD and variant CJD, instead all cases of sporadic, familial, iatrogenic and variant CJD are classified under the CJD code. The first source states that kuru, vCJD and iCJD are acquired prion diseases not acquired cases of CJD. It also does not make a clear separation between cCJD and vCJD, instead it divides the disease CJD into 4 types (sCJD, fCJD, iCJD and vCJD). About the Australian source, I did not know about that and I will try to find another source. Having said this, I have to tell you that I totally understand your point of view: distinguishing the sporadic, familial and iatrogenic types of CJD from vCJD and join them under the designation cCJD is a completely valid classification scheme and supported by sources. What I am not sure is that cCJD and vCJD are different diseases or if they are subdivisions of the same disease. If we consider cCJD and vCJD subdivisions of CJD we have to state also that some authors chose to divide CJD into 3 or 4 types instead of 2 (cCJD and vCJD). Considering all of this, I would propose to keep in the introduction the information that some sources consider vCJD a separate disease from classic CJD (which then includes sCJD, fCJD and iCJD) and that other sources consider vCJD a type or sub-type of CJD (which is then divided in 2, 3 or 4 types). I hope you agree.
 * Yours sincerely,
 * 46.50.3.183 (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Newscientist
Is popular press and not suitable as a source for Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wrong. It is a valid secondary source. To equate New Scientist with the Daily Mail is foolish. Magnoffiq (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No one equated it to the daily mail. We have high requirements for medical content. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The main problem with this text "The study, of 32,441 appendixes removed between 2000 and 2012 from British people born between 1941 and 1985, showed that 16 people in the sample carried the prion that causes the disease." Is that their is no claim that the people actually developed the disease.

Providing that level of detail is undue wight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Epidemiology
This is mostly unreferenced and many of the sources are poor. This is by far a better source http://www.oie.int/en/animal-health-in-the-world/bse-situation-in-the-world-and-annual-incidence-rate/number-of-reported-cases-worldwide-excluding-the-united-kingdom/ Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I think someone has put a joke in the article
After September 2021 the term CJD was replaced by SUS and Finland by SUS tower in the paragraph about transfusions. I think it must be a childish joke. I cannot say in public what I think of that. I have never fiddled with wikipedia, so would someone who knows what to do please correct it? Borisacat (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)