Jump to content

Talk:ALS

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.18.160.47 (talk) at 04:05, 21 February 2014 (→‎Speech language pathology related to food?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeALS was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 28, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
WikiProject iconMedicine B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following paragraph was added on 6 January by new editor Flaviench. The figures from 1990 were later amended by Kashmiri. It does not appear to meet the standards of WP:MEDRS. The books by Vaughter did not appear in the bibliographic databases I checked and may be self-published, and the 1990 study by itself does not seem adequate, and is also very old. I have moved it here for discussion.-gadfium 20:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(QUOTE)
There is evidence that ALS could be caused by an infection of the central nervous system by spirochetes, in particular Borrelia Burgdorferi, the bacteria responsible for Lyme disease.[1] A paper published in 1990 by Halperin, et al. showed that 47% (9 of 19) of unselected ALS patients had evidence of past exposure to the bacteria, whereas prevalence in the control group was 11%.[2] There is also anecdotal evidence of ALS patients improving when taking antibiotics, pointing towards a bacterial origin.[3]
  1. ^ Vaughter, Sarah (2011). When ALS is Lyme (PDF). ISBN 978-0-578-09736-7.
  2. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 2334308, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=2334308 instead.
  3. ^ Vaughter, Sarah. "Antibiotics often work against ALS". Retrieved 6 January 2013.
(UNQUOTE)

Why are you saying the Halperin paper is not adequate? It is a peer-reviewed study, published in the Archives of Neurology, Volume 47, it seems to me it fits the standards of WP:MEDRS. As for being too old, this is the most recent published work I could find regarding this subject. The first reference to the Vaughter book is not absolutely required, as it only builds on top of the Halperin paper, so the reference could be removed, but the Halperin paper contains the important result. Flaviench (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have access to the scientific databases, you can readily find lists of papers which cite the Halperin paper. For example, I was able to quickly find "Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.3109/17482968.2012.717796, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.3109/17482968.2012.717796 instead.", one of a series of papers exploring whether there is a link between ALS and Lyme and not finding one, and also saying that patients with ALS are not cured by the Lyme treatments. This paper in the series is a review of “When ALS Is Lyme”, and concludes that it is filled with errors and omissions and fails to establish any connection.-gadfium 22:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read both of these papers, but that paper from ALSUntangled is fallacious at best, and does not provide any scientific evidence to refute the link between ALS and Lyme. And I won't even mention the conflict of interest (ALSUntangled prevents ALS cure by disinfo for profit?). They even advise against Lyme testing for ALS patients! Why would they say that when the ALS diagnosis is a diagnosis of exclusion? Again I am fine removing the reference to the "When ALS Is Lyme" document if you don't feel good about it, but the findings of the Halperin paper have never been refuted. 47% of ALS patients tested positive for Lyme, when according to CDC in the US in 1990, only 0.086% should have been testing positive. You have to admit this is a serious discrepancy. And just have a look at ALS forums, the number of patients misdiagnosed with ALS when they had in fact Lyme is disturbingly high, even though the test for Lyme disease gives a very high rate of false negatives (this was the case of my grand-father, he had to take the test several times before neurologists admitted he had Lyme). I just think people deserve to know about it. Flaviench (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise. I misunderstood you as saying that the Halperin paper was the most recently published work on the subject you could find. The ALSuntangled paper has the advantage over Vaughter as being from a reliable source; it is not surprising that Vaughter is upset at the criticism of her self-published work. As Vaughter's ideas are clearly not accepted by the mainstream, it is not appropriate for the article to include them.-gadfium 07:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worst disease ever- Jon's Vote 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.172.68 (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RNA Transcription problem

A new primary study here in Cell will be of interest to editors here, though not a usable wp:MEDRS. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

I've marked the article Extraocular muscles and ALS for merge, because it contains a significantly similar level of content, and also it's orphaned, so there are no other articles that lead to it.

Kind Regards, LT90001 (talk) 04:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support It's an orphan, and the only difference in content from the main article is its immaterial subject specificity. It'll help expand the ALS article to combine them... Cesium 133 (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Support However I'd say there is too much detail in the Extraocular article, reads more like a manuscript. --PaulWicks (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ubiquilin-2

The table says ubiquilin-2 has been described in 1 family. It has been described in several families in other studies, since the original Nature publication in 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.48.45 (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

need correction

"Studies in this field were awarded with the Nobel prize for Dr Gajdusek, Daniel Carleton in 1976 [55] "

This is not correct. Dr Gajdusek won the Nobel prize for his work on kuru. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.132.245.40 (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the Nutrition section of the Management section, it says "Speech language pathologists make food choice recommendations that are more conducive to their unique deficits and abilities." I'm confused. How is speech language pathology related to food choice? 76.18.160.47 (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ALS&oldid=596441482"