Jump to content

Talk:Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

huntington's corea

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)
15% of all CJD are genetic cases, caused by mutations in the PRNP gene. Huntington's disease does share some similarities with familial CJD (fCJD), in that they both are genetic neurodegenerative diseases with an autosomal dominant pattern of inheritance, caused by expansions of repeat amino acid sequence. Human PrP protein normally has five tandem octarepeats "PHGGGWGQ" at the N-terminus for copper binding. Insertion mutations introducing two or more of these octarepeats can lead to fCJD neurodegeneration.
It is also interesting that whilst polyglutamine expansion causes Huntington's disease, an increased glutamine content is also a characteristic of prion domains, at least in yeast.Edchoi 17:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

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)

Prion peer review

I've nominated the prion article for peer review, any comments welcome here! --Purple 02:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The article references the Lancet by "(Peden 2004)." The Peden reference seems to be a Wikipedia "thing" (ie can't be found by other searches). However the following reference http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14962520 gives the authors as Llewelyn CA, Hewitt PE, Knight RS, Amar K, Cousens S, Mackenzie J, Will RG. Not sure what the corrected reference should be, so I'll leave it for a more experienced editor 203.20.36.81 05:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Gary

I'm not sure that the restrictions on donating blood in Canada are correct. The Canadian Blood Services website sets the maximum allowable time in Western Europe at 5 years, not 6 months. See http://www.bloodservices.ca/CentreApps/Internet/UW_V502_MainEngine.nsf/page/Indefinite%20Deferral?OpenDocument#02 - 72.140.18.236 (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

From the Finnish "veripalvelu" regulations:

"•Living in Britain for over six months between 1 January 1980 and 31 December 1996 prevents blood donation permanently (risk of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease which is the human form of BSE or 'mad cow disease')."

Is there no way to identify carriers from blood tests then?--Hellahulla (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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 FUCKING 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)

Not for the first time, input from myself has been removed almost instantly from the Wiki CJD page. As Information Resource Manager of the CJD International Support Alliance, I think I am "reasonably" well placed to make the occassional contribution. Moreover, I note that "Famulus" who I don't know, but like myself is a relative of a vCJD victim has also had their reasonable input removed. The content that was removed was referenced.

I would never place information onto the internet that was not accurate. The only thing that is "controversial" is that a) Court Proceedings had to be instigated to explore this research avenue, and b) people are preventing discussion and information dissemination. People should be mindful of the conclusions of the BSE Inquiry in 2000 that highlighted the problems associated with a culture of secrecy and lack of openness and transparency.

http://www.mrc.ac.uk/consumption/groups/public/documents/content/mrc001707.pdf

I apologise for not referencing my comments and "lesson learned". I would be grateful if Siegmund reinstates my input with the inclusion of this reference.

Graham


We have been practicing an an Interdisciplinary Management Executive for 25 years covering many fields.

We began to address Lady Tacther government way back on 1986 on the issue of VCJD, We have also addressed Canterbury county court, and the European Court and the Parliament on this issues.

Aspect of our training and discipline cover para science.

The many incident in Britain the past 15 years over vcjd - scientist their explanation. One year ago BBC stated that very likely 80% of British pupulation are infected with vcjd.

There is a very strong evidance that vcjd is a phenomena which exploded on the back of what is termed "satanic rage/vibe" way back in 1986 for those who study this science the abnormal effect when individual become posess or consumed by "demoniac or satanic powers" the way the mind work and its state. That this state can be transmited to not just cows any animal or bird.

This is why we have battled the EU commission that instead of naming that special Department for Terrorism - they ought to have created a special department for abuse of para science and abnormal powers.

In Britain the legislations " nieghbor from Hell/ satanic rave/mad cow/vcjd/road rage" The scientist are failing. Not just Britain meanwhile this is a world epidemy and the scientist continue to cover up. Affecting all the world institutions, judiciary, decision making process, scientific and religious.

In USA and other part of the world the "state of the mind" of those who commit outrageous deadly incident.

The fact that those who can exert special para powers, can cause certain disease to result. { Over the past 1000 years scientist mis explanations in many fields and continues} Grandlarousse 18:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)



Indented line —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.205.182 (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am having trouble understanding this entire entry by Grandlarousse. Demonic powers? Satanic rave? What exactly is he trying to say?

Transmission

I have a couple of Melatonin references that could be added, in line with the reference to HGH.

  • FDA Important alert: www.fda.gov/ora/fiars/ora_import_ia1704.html
  • Transcript: www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/AC/01/transcripts/3681t2.rtf

I cannot find any documented cases of this actually happening. Fri666 00:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


I removed the statement "Indeed, it was recently reported that a case of "mad cow disease" was transmitted via beef cooked on a George Foreman Grill.[citation needed]"

This may be true, but it is of little relevance to the ability of prions to survive extreme conditions: Note that parasites, bacteria and possibly some viruses could also survive cooking in such a poorly defined manner (e.g. what temperature and duration? Is this applicable to frypans too?).

Have subsituted this: Hamster-passaged scrapie agent ashed at 600°C then reconstituted still had residual ‘infectivity’ (was destroyed @ 1000°C). This is lifted from slides from a talk - I can't yet find the reference...it's out there somewhere. Chapper88 05:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"It is thought that..." This sentence needs a reference, or some other meaningful change. Thought by who? When? Why? On seperate note, considering that there is serious debate about this topic (particularly in the U.S. and South Korea) at the moment, it would be helpful to provide more information about person-to-person, as well as intraspecial transmission. RlndGunslinger (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Why has the external links section been removed from this wiki and what was the rationale behind doing so? There were many good resources there.[3]

Graham Steel

Information Resource Manager CJD International Support Alliance—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steelgraham (talk • contribs) 15:10, 2007 May 12.

Hereditary Exclusion

My paternal grandfather died of CJD of unspecified origin in the 60s. For over a decade, all of my relatives on my father's side have been barred from giving blood. I have contacted local blood banks, which have stated that this is standard policy. If someone finds a reputable source I feel it may be worthy of inclusion. OmegaPaladin 01:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


Spelling

Could we add a more redirects to help people who type different spellings into the URL? For example, someone might hear the name and go with the modern German spelling "Kreuzfeld". I see we have "Creutzfeld-Jakob" already -- how about some more?

Examples: "K" rather than "C" "z" rather than "tz" "d" rather than "dt" "c" rather than "k"

for a total of 2^4 or 16 permutations minus the 2 we already have (Creutzfeldt-Jakob, Creutzfeld-Jakob) = 14 new redirects:

Creutzfeldt-Jakob (exists), Creutzfeldt-Jacob, Creutzfeld-Jakob (exists), Creutzfeld-Jacob, Creuzfeldt-Jakob, Creuzfeldt-Jacob, Creuzfeld-Jakob, Creuzfeld-Jacob, Creutzfeldt-Jakob, Kreutzfeldt-Jacob, Kreutzfeld-Jakob, Kreutzfeld-Jacob, Kreuzfeldt-Jakob, Kreuzfeldt-Jacob, Kreuzfeld-Jakob, Kreuzfeld-Jacob

sure ya could

then again, most people get here from serch engines not from typing in urls. . . and some search engines can handle misspellings pretty well (like google)

but nothings stopping you from making redirects....that i know of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decora (talk • contribs) 00:02, 2008 December 19

vegetarians

so are vegetarians safe or not?

what is the rationale behind '3 months in the UK'... if you never ate meat there?

ok sop this article says that doesnt make you safe:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/03/bse.medicalresearch

but is that right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decora (talk • contribs) 00:02, 2008 December 19

while eating contaminated meat is the quickest known way to spread mad cow diseases it is by no means the only way. remember the cow had to get the disease from somewhere. also once a disease makes it into a human it is VERY easy for it to be transmitted around humans, we are natural courriers for ages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.153 (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

has the cattle industry been editing this article?

vCJD redirects here as does variant CJD and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. yet there is little about vCJD and nothing about how vCJD is caused by eating BSE infected meat. a glaring ommision. if anyone is more qualified than me please rectify, else i will in a bit --Mongreilf (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say you should definitely provide sources to any edits you make. I have yet to find a reputable article that firmly links vCJD to BSE, all I've found is the speculation already featured in the article. Frohike14 (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
On a related note, a ordinarily otherwise respected source, the NIH, contradicts this page. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001792 claims, "There have not been any cases of nvCJD reported in the U.S." This page indicates there have been; see the Kentucky squirrel brains. Was that an intentional spin on their part, an accident on their part, or a mistake in the sources for this page? --Mnp (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Mongrielf, something is definitely afoot with this article. In 2016, there *still* appears to be no Wikipedia article on the subject of vCJD. In fact the CJD article lacks a separate section for vCJD. Whom to blame for this? We, the Wikipedians, are responsible.--71.36.99.75 (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Taxonomy

As currently described in the article, we have the following taxonomy of CJD:

  • CJD
    • sporadic (sCJD)
    • variant (vCJD)
      • iatrogenic (iCJD)
    • familial (fCJD)

This web page suggests the following instead:

  • CJD
    • sporadic (sCJD)
    • acquired CJD
      • variant (vCJD)
      • iatrogenic (iCJD)
      • Kuru
    • familial (fCJD)

I haven't read them all cover-to-cover, but it's not clear to me that any of our sources provides strong support for the former taxonomy. Am I missing something? Bovlb (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This ontology seems to describe:

  • TSE
    • CJD
      • Genetic CJD (aka familial?)
      • Spontaneous CJD (aka sporadic?)
      • Iatrogenic CJD
    • Kuru
    • BSE
      • NV-CJD (aka vCJD?)
    • ...

But I don't see how you can justify making vCJD a syb-type of BSE. Bovlb (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC) 


  To be honest, I don't see how you can justify making vCJD a sub-type of CJD, even though it is named as such. Simply consider the route of transmission.--71.36.99.75 (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

mortality rate

The article says that CJK is "invariably fatal", with typical duration of a few months or up to 2 years at most, but most news reports quote deaths at orders of magnitude below infections. For example, this CNN article reports 702 CJK cases since 2001 in Spain, but only 5 deaths. Are different definitions being used somehow? Are the news articles just wrong? --Delirium (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC) 

  Per Nyberg, the author of the CNN article you refer to, is likely not Spanish, nor an expert on the subject of CJD, nor a  maths major. I would therefore ignore the article where CJD statistics are concerned.--71.36.99.75 (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

background rate

I'd like to know the background rate of CJD and vCJD. this would inform discussions greatly. (not that I have these facts to hand myself) http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/03/bse.medicalresearch notes 164 deaths in the UK over 13 years, or about 0.32 deaths/million years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.222.11 (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Article lacks Discussion of Spread of vCJD in the UK

Further to the comment above on the background rate, a glaring hole in this article is a discussion of the incidence and spread of vCJD in the UK subsequent to the Mad Cow outbreak. At the time, there were dire warnings of the possible extent of human infection with vCJD. What is the latest state of the evidence and the debate on this? Nandt1 (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).--Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Walter, Thank you for your friendly response. I am actually quite an active contributor to Wikpedia in the (several) fields in which I feel I have something to contribute. The present topic, however, is one in which I have no expertise, only a question... Which is why I raised it, in the hope that others, better qualified, would feel encouraged to try to answer it! Best regards. Nandt1 (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There is now new experimental evidence that there is a 1 in 2000 prevalence of vCJD prions in the UK. I have added the link to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.19.59.169 (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Controversy over Fore cannibalism?

Under "Epidemeology - New Concerns" there is a comment that no one has ever observed the Fore's old ritual of eating the dead. What about the Fore who participated in the ritual and described it to researchers? Are they not people? The only reason I was on this page was I just watched Kuru: The Science and the Sorcery which included interviews with elderly Fore who were describing the rituals which they claimed to have participated in before it was banned. There is also no mention on any doubt about the practice mentioned in the Wikipedia articles on Kuru or the Fore people. I added a citation needed to the comment - should it be removed? 110.174.16.192 (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have always heard of this disease as "Jakob-Creutzfeldt," never the other way around. Is that incorrect, or...?

Also, anecdotally, I had always been given the impression that this disease was particularly prevalent among Ashkenazi (Eastern European) Jews. Yet, this doesn't appear in the article at all. Is that also a misconception, or is there something to it? Thanks. LordAmeth (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I also heard that CJD was linked to Jews (or certain Jews) and was surprised to find no mention of that in this Wiki article. However, a Google search quickly supported this concept, most notably by Jews themselves, on the website Jewish Genetic Disease Consortium. However, it is listed there as a disease among the Sephardic/Mizrahi Jewish Genetic Diseases but not among the Ashkenazi Jewish Genetic Diseases.

I encourage anyone with a bit of time on their hands to do some further research on the topic and update the main article with a summary of what you find. Or, someday I may get around to doing that myself. --Kentmoraga (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

clarification

The paragraph under Cause that begins: "Stanley B. Prusiner of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) was awarded ..." makes no sense. What does Laura Manuelidis & her challenges have to do with anything? Is she challenging prions? What are virus-like particles, and what do they have to do with the cause of the disease? And what does nucleic acids have to do with it, and how is finding it "less than 10%" of cells significant? Frankly, it reads like random words. 206.83.48.110 (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Category issue

This page is in the Category:Viral infections of the central nervous system. This seems at odds with the page. I was under the impression that Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease was caused by prions which are not virus. However, this is most defiantly NOT in my area of knowledge, so I will leave it to others to remove it, if it is not supposed to be in that category.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Classification section

Maybe this was the right edit to make. Maybe it removed an outdated conceptual framework or original research. There was no edit summary, however. Biosthmors (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Classifications!!

The Classification section needs to explain what the 3 subtypes of CJD actually are. (That is, *what* is Variant CJD? *What* is Sporadic? *What* is Hereditary? What's the difference??)

A chart in a later section randomly starts referring to two types, "Classical" and "Variant" CJD. These terms also need to be explained. Does "Classical" cover both "Sporadic" and "Hereditary"? It's very confusing. Terms should be standardized across the article, or in any case, EXPLAINED when they are used!173.73.129.205 (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)SAH

causes

As a layman reading the article, I thought that CJD was mostly spread by eating infected meat or botched transufsions. There is no mention of it occuring sporadically, which CDC says is the most common.

"The most common form of classic CJD is believed to occur sporadically, caused by the spontaneous transformation of normal prion proteins into abnormal prions." http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/cjd/index.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.142.177.208 (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Mortality in UK

As someone who recalls the news of deaths in the 1990s but have heard nothing over past decade, I have just looked for but not found any figures relating to deaths in the UK. It would be useful to add, for historical perspective.Cloptonson (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

In the 90's the UK government was in total and disgraceful denial and from memory, Michael Howard was even refusing to co-operate on European police matters until Stephen Dorrell admitted the problem. I added details of fatalities to the Bovine spongiform encephalopathy article some time ago. JRPG (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Blood Donor Restrictions - UK

Sorry to add to this (already) extensive talk page.

Reference 28[1], which is (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1123672/) is used here to support that since 1999 there has been a ban of using blood from the UK to produce fractional blood products. As far as I can work out the source does not say this, it simply says that "In the United Kingdom all cellular blood components have been leucodepleted at source since November 1999 to reduce the potential transmission of vCJD, thought to be facilitated by B lymphocytes.22" Any thoughts? Cjeam (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Why no separate article on Variant CJD?

The absence of a Wiki article on *Variant CJD* is surprising at this late date. There is not even a section on Variant CJD in the CJD article. One would nearly surmise that this is a deliberate attempt to disguise the existence of "Mad Cow Disease" in humans.--71.36.99.75 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1123672/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creutzfeldt–Jakob_disease/Archive_1&oldid=1136641819"