Talk:Variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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,
- 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2018 (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)
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.
|Country||BSE cases||vCJD cases|
|Republic of Ireland||1353||4|
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)
- "BSE in Belgium". 12 November 2006. Retrieved 9 November 2008.
- "Variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob Disease, Current Data (October 2009)". The National Creutzfeldt–Jakob Disease Surveillance Unit (NCJDSU), University of Edinburgh. October 2009. Archived from the original on 21 July 2012. Retrieved 14 October 2009.CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown (link);
- "BSE Cases in North America, by Year and Country of Death, 1993–2008". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services. 2008. Retrieved 9 November 2008.
- "BSE Positive Findings in the Czech Republic" (pdf). State Veterinary Administration, Ministry of Agriculture, Czech Republic. 2007. p. 2. Retrieved 9 November 2008.
- "The Current Status of BSE and scrapie in Denmark" (PDF). Danish Veterinary and Food Administration. May 2007. Archived from the original (pdf) on 16 December 2008. Retrieved 9 November 2008.
- Rosa, Jean (February 2006). "Comment l'épidémie d'ESB a-t-elle été sous-estimée en France ?". Comptes Rendus Biologies. 329 (2): 106–116. doi:10.1016/j.crvi.2005.12.004. Retrieved 23 September 2017.
- "BSE in Greece". Retrieved 9 November 2008.
- "Israel: BSE testing according to source of cattle and age groups, 2002–2008". 5 March 2008.
- "vCJD Cases Worldwide 2011". 2 July 2011.
- "BSE cases – Italy 2001 – 2006". 2006. Retrieved 10 November 2008.
- "Overzicht BSE-gevallen" (in Dutch). Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit. 2008. Retrieved 9 November 2008.
- http://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/documents/figs.pdf; April 2013
- Dan, Flynn (19 July 2017). "USDA says mad cow case in Alabama is 'atypical' and not risky". Food Safety News. Retrieved 19 July 2017.