Jump to content

Talk:Parkinson's disease

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleParkinson's disease is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 11, 2011.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 28, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 17, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
January 15, 2011Good article nomineeListed
March 5, 2011Featured article candidatePromoted
October 17, 2020Featured article reviewDemoted
February 15, 2025Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article


RfC: Should the four lead images be replaced?

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a resounding consensus against having this Lewy body as the lead image, so I'll close this per WP:SNOW. ~ HAL333 21:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the four images currently used in the infobox be replaced with this one of a Lewy body below? ~ HAL333 02:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Lewy body (stained brown), an abnormal protein aggregate found in neurons, a hallmark of Parkinson's disease

Past Discussions

[edit]

2023, 2022, 2013, 3-25-2011, 3-8-2011, 2008, 2006 ~ HAL333 02:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Support new image The current four images are low-quality, inconsistent, and unnecessarily clutter the infobox. More importantly, they fail to represent Parkinson's disease accurately, given its highly variable symptoms, which range from low blood pressure to cognitive decline. It's not even very clear what symptoms the current lead images are trying to illustrate, like the circled foot. These images violate Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section as they are not genuinely representative. In contrast, a Lewy body—widely recognized as the hallmark biological feature of Parkinson's disease—provides a more accurate and universal depiction. Trying to accurately depict patients afflicted with a disease in the lead image is almost impossible and is not the standard on Wikipedia: see Cancer, Tuberculosis, Syphilis, or other neurodegenerative diseases like Huntington's disease, the FA Dementia with Lewy bodies, Multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, ALS, or Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease. ~ HAL333 02:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone needs a direct comparison, these are the lead images on related articles:
  • No (Summoned by bot) I don't find microscopic images of damaged tissue very informative to understanding the effect of a disease. The current image has been in the article for about one year, and this simpler image of the "Gowers' illustration" was in the article as early as 6-1-2019. In 2011, it was even a featured article with the "Gowers' illustration".[1] Based on the discussions I included above, the Gowler's illustration seems historically significant--so I prefer seeing it included high up in the article as it is now. There seems to be a long-running consensus to keep an image such as the current one. About a year ago this image was floated and apparently rejected, which might be an acceptable alternative to the current one. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I don't think the proposed picture of a Lewy body helps the reader to understand anything at all about Parkinson's. --Alarics (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: per above. --ZZZ'S 16:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The proposed Lewy body image assumes the general user would understand or recognize the cellular effect, which is unlikely; see WP:WFTWA and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK #6,7. The disease symptoms image is a good choice for general users to visually grasp the article. Zefr (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prevention section

[edit]

The subhead is misnamed - there is no 'prevention', only potential reduction of risk. All the sources used in this section are research-in-progress. The section should be retitled 'Research on risk reduction' and moved to below the 'Prognosis' section. Zefr (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Prevention" subsection has been around for quite some time, and is the standard on related articles like Alzheimer's disease, and is suggested per WP:MEDMOS. I think that this objection might be rooted in a misunderstanding of the meaning of "prevention" in a medical context. It quite literally means "potential reduction of risk" (per the NIH: "Prevention = In medicine, action taken to decrease the chance of getting a disease or condition"). Also, "Research on risk reduction" is a somewhat ungainly title, and don't essentially all of these subsections result from research? Should they all be titled "Research on X"? It seems redundant. ~ HAL333 21:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word prevention may mislead general non-science users to conclude there are certain lifestyle practices for avoiding PD, WP:WFTWA. Moving this section into the 'Clinical research' topics seems the best place for it, but it should be significantly trimmed.
The phrases "may have a protective effect", "hypothesized to be neuroprotective" or "proposed to be neuroprotective" are non-neutral (as they may not), are based on primary research, and are MOS:WEASEL. That is why I removed this. Zefr (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some of that material was cited to primary research papers and you rightly removed them. However, the only sources I've used in that subsection are secondary review articles. Also, the subsection immediately and explicitly states "no disease-modifying therapies exist that reverse or slow neurodegeneration" at the very beginning, so I don't think anyone is being misled.
Regardless, although I see "Prevention" as a fine subtitle, do you think maybe retitling it as "Neuroprotection" or "Potential neuroprotection" would be a sufficient compromise? I also would not be opposed to splitting "Risk factors" from the "Causes" sections and then having a "Risk factors" section (as we used to) with "Positive risk factors" and "Negative risk factors" subtitles. ~ HAL333 22:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better to use the positive and negative risk factors for subheads. Also, this source is not MEDLINE-indexed, so its content should be removed as unreliable. The Frontiers journals trigger a dubious source alert - would be good to find better reviews or remove them. Zefr (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I'll integrate the Prevention section and take a look at those sources tomorrow. Cheers, ~ HAL333 04:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't really a concept of "positive risk factor" or "negative risk factor" so please don't create these as separate headers. You could talk about "protective risk factors" which is sometimes done. But probably best to just have a "risk factor" section. Smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer. Quit and it is protective. Start and it is the opposite. Same for most other risk factors - depends on whether the dose is increasing or decreasing. Jaredroach (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frontiers review articles should be OK. See WP:MEDRS. But if there is a higher profile or more recent reference for the same thing, may be better to replace it. If it is an extreme or implausible claim, then be careful of any single source. Jaredroach (talk) 05:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People who don’t read what the subsection immediately says are misled. You can’t fix stupid, but because of the inclusion on nicotine, it’s imperative to be extraordinarily careful not to inadvertently encourage smoking!47.144.7.66 (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of "prevention" includes interventions that are not 100% guaranteed to stop a disease. So a section on lifestyle interventions (such as exercise) that prevent (or stave off) PD is reasonable. All of medicine is in a process of continuous research, so it may not be necessary to overly emphasize that interventions (such as exercise) that are backed by a lot of research belong in a separate "researchy stuff" section. This article is in the scope of WP:MED, so it makes sense to follow WikiProject Medicine guidelines. I am not quite sure what a "non-science" user is, but if there is some writing that is hard to understand, we can work on making it more understandable, including links to epistemological concepts like risk factor (which needs some work) and causality. Jaredroach (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone is dancing around the real issue: someone will see “Prevention
Physical activity, nicotine, caffeine” and start smoking!47.144.7.66 (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Broken references

[edit]

@HAL333 I've fixed a bunch of the shortened footnotes – you might like to double-check the edits in this combined diff, but there were a handful I couldn't work out (ref numbers are in this version of the article):

  • #35 Weintraub & Mamikonyan 2019, p. 661 – I found this source but the page numbers don't match. Perhaps it's a typo for the paper cited in the previous reference?
  • #42 Palma & Kaufmann 2020, pp. 1465–1466 – I corrected the other Palma & Kaufmann refs to 2018, but here the page numbers don't match
  • #65 Tanner & Ostrem 2024 – no idea about this one
  • #230 Corcoran, Muiño & Kluger 2021, p. 1 – ditto.

You might like to consider installing this script, which highlights problems with {{sfn}}s for you in lurid pink – I find it invaluable. Thanks for your work on the article, and thanks in advance for fixing the references above. Good luck at GAN! Best, Wham2001 (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wham2001! I'll start tackling these. ~ HAL333 20:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Parkinson's disease/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: HAL333 (talk · contribs) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 01:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • This is a huge topic so it may take me longer than usual to review, I'll fill out the table as I go and make comments below so it is easier for you to respond. At first glance, there is a few SFN errors that should be fixed. Additionally per WP:MEDDATE we should be using articles published within the last 5 years wherever possible. Because Parkinsons is such a hot topic I would imagine there is enough research to be able to do this. If you plan on taking this to FAC then I'd try to use the 5 year rule, but for the sake of GAN I try to stick to 10 years. Meaning every source published before 2015 (excluding NICE reviews, Cocheran reviews, and history section) should be replaced with more recent sources. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 01:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate you tackling what will likely be a lengthy review. The ultimate goal is to bring this up to Featured status, so if you're more picky than is necessarily needed for the GAN process, that's quite fine for me. And I am perfectly happy if you take your time: I didn't expect this review to be initiated so quickly (I guess I've just been unlucky in the past) and I have an overseas mountaineering trip from December 31 through January 14. I'll try to make the occasional prose adjustment, but I'll only have my phone and an unreliable connection, so reference consultation will likely be limited. I'll be able to address all your comments within a few days of my return. ~ HAL333 00:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. Knowing that you plan to take this to the FA level I'll leave some additional comments that will hopefully get you moving in the right direction. These will be completely optional but I will include them to hopefully give you a headstart. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 21:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 21:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Some minor issues are listed below. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images are all captioned appropriately. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7. Overall assessment. On hold until HAL333 can address the issues I have found thusfar. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 21:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]
  • Under the autonomic section, I don't feel like your image caption of Dysphagia—an autonomic failure—and subsequent complications like aspiration pneumonia (pictured) reduce quality of life. is super helpful here. Could it be changed to something along the lines of Dysphagia can lead to aspiration pneumonia (pictured) as the QOL isn't brought up elsewhere in this section so it feels out of place. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption under the two images in the causes section may read better as The protein alpha-synuclein aggregates into Lewy bodies and neurites. Structural model of alpha-synuclein (left), photomicrograph of Lewy bodies (right). to better explain the two images. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under imaging the term "F-DOPA" is used but never explained. Is there a wikilink you could add or could you give a brief explanation on this? IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under levodopa the acronym LCE is used. Could you spell this out in full? IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording of the caption under the tricycle is a little odd. Could you reword it? IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under cell based therapies the caption says "one such iSPC differentiated" but I assume you mean iPSCs. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Optional/nitpicks

[edit]

SG feedback

[edit]

When I last edited this article in 2023, the citations were clean. Content was being added and copied from other articles without bringing over full citations or entering correct citations, such that I finally gave up and unwatched, and now the article is flagged as problematic, with scores of citation errors. I recognize that the citation consistency standards for GA are not as high as FA, but there are citations in this article for which no source is supplied, and sources listed in this article for which no citation is used. It doesn't strike me that should be happening at the GA level. HAL333 please install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js to realize how bad the problem is. Sources which were copied from other articles will need to be brought over here, and sources which are not used need to be removed. Meanwhile, I do not suggest considering this article as remotely close to FA standards yet, and suggest an extended peer review will be needed first. Also, a WP:CWW check might be in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback Sandy, I haven’t even gotten to the sources, let alone the prose yet as I started with addressing the images and requesting more recent sources as well as checking if all the sources are reliable. I would agree that a Peer review would be helpful for such a massive article like this. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 21:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't pretend to understand the GA standards, so some of my commentary could be inapplicable here and the candidate shouldn't be penalized per me ... but the problem with citations has been nagging at me for a long time, and I saw it mentioned at WT:MED, and then I added some other things as long as I was here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absent better (broader) sourcing, this content looks WP:UNDUE and promotional:

A however check may be in order (there are eight instances):

These might be WP:MEDDATE problems (2016 source?):

  • Dairy consumption correlates with a higher risk, possibly due to contaminants like heptachlor epoxide.[120] Although the connection is unclear, melanoma diagnosis is associated with an approximately 45 percent risk increase.[120] There is also an association between methamphetamine use and PD risk.[120]

Have these statements borne out over time? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This statement might be subtly incorrect:

  • Isolated RBD is a particularly significant sign as 90% of those affected will develop some form of neurodegenerative parkinsonism.[139]

My understanding is that RBD is better than 90% predictive for a synucleinopathy -- not necessarily the same as "some form of neurodegenerative parkinsonism" -- that is, please check other sources. Also, what is meant by the word isolated here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of surprising statement requires a better-than-2017 source:

  • Differential diagnosis of Parkinson's is among the most difficult in neurology.[149]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check throughout for statements like this which are giving medical advice-- rephrase to avoid giving medical advice:

Copyedit need here:

  • Around 30% of Parkinson's patients develop dementia, and is 12 times more likely to occur in elderly patients of those with severe PD.[224]

WP:MEDDATE issue here (2017):

This statement is verified by the source, but needs to be checked versus other sources:

  • As of 2024, Parkinson's is the second most common neurodegenerative disease and the fastest-growing in total number of cases.[231][232]

Most sources say that Lewy body dementia is the second most common-- that would be Parkinson's disease dementia together with dementia with Lewy bodies. Perhaps some rephrasing will adjust for the discrepancy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A 2011 source:

  • Cognitive impairment is the most common exclusion criteria.[197]

Is this still true 14 years later? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense and HAL333: I thought I would go in and try to clean up the citation issues myself, but I've now looked at the very large number of sources that are red-flagged by User:Headbomb/unreliable (Headbomb might have a word here), and between that and the HarvRef errors, I believe this article meets the quick fail criteria for GAN. A peer review to get the sourcing cleaned up here is probably the fastest way to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which sources you see flaged in red. There's a lot of yellow though, mostly stemming from shit MDPI journals, questionable Frontiers ones, and retraction-prone/paper-mill friendly Hindawi. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did address the flagged citations in my feedback, requesting that they be changed. However since I've already started the review, I'd much rather give a full review in the hopes that it can get some of the issues out of the way before a peer review. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 02:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay nvm, I'm going to give some general feedback and close this. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 03:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

[edit]
  • Seeing as this article has quite a few issues, I think it would be a waste of my time to give it a full review in it's current state. Before you renominate I'd suggest making the following changes:
    • Fix HARV errors. There is unused citations and SFNs without a full citation
    • Update the sources. Parkinsons disease is a hot topic in medicine. I find it hard to believe that there is not more recent research available. For a GAN, excluding NICE and cocheran guidelines, I expect sources to be from within the past 10 years. At a FA level this would most likely be tightened to the past 5 years.
    • Check the reliability of the sources. At this point in time, there should be no reason why you would need to use primary sources or sources flagged as not super reliable when writing about a topic such as Parkinsons disease.
    • Copy editing. Any article of this size is bound to have some wording issues. I think this article would benefit from some copy editing and some work to make it a little less technical. This is an article that will absolutely be read by non medical professionals and I think we need to keep that in mind while wording things. Some level of technical wording is to be expected with medical articles but I'm not convinced that in it's current state the article has prose that is at GA level.
  • I am going to leave this page unarchived for discussion purposes. I am more than happy to help out with some of the process and would also gladly give this article another review once these issues have been improved upon. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 03:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are the first illustrations helpful?

[edit]

This is my first time at the article and I intended to suggest A,B,C, & D aren't useful. I see there was a discussion about this recently. So I'm just documenting my view. The symptoms image which was mentioned is much more useful to a general reader but it isn't in the article at all.

Humpster (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Humphrey Tribble I'm going to ping HAL333 here as they are currently working on improving this page. I'd also recomend you bring this converstation to the attention of WP:MED if there isn't mcuh conversation generated in the next two days.
Two things here: the current images and the proposed image.
The current images, in my opinion, help give a easily understandable visualization to Parkinson's. The images themselves aren't overly technical and they are easy to understand. They also show what I would consider a very easily recognizable image of Parkinson's. If you've ever met someone with Pardkinson's it is very easy to draw similarities between the real life presentation and the drawings, especially for A, C, and D. These images show some of the most easily recognizable signs of Parkinsons (the gait and posture) which I think really helps to give a visual.
The image you proposed is nice and I could see it fitting into the Signs and symptoms section. However I do have a couple issues with it. The first one being that it isn't sourced, which may become an issue if this article makes its way to WP:FAC. Also the image doesn't really give a visual representation of Parkinsons as a disease. Unlike the current images it doesn't give visuals for specefic images. This is also why I don't think it would be an ideal image to place in the lead and would instead be better fit for the signs and symtpoms section.
I'm interested to hear what others have to say and I'm glad you brought this up as lead images are super important in medical articles. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 23:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To me, they aren't at all an "easily recognizable image of Parkinson's." Perhaps I haven't met such a person.
.
I came across a similar discussion in another article. Someone posted a quote from MOS on lead image:
Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic.
Perhaps this article doesn't need a lead image.
Humpster (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally disagree but I think it's a good idea to get some more opinions here so I'm going to start a convo on WP:MED about this. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 03:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Humphrey Tribble, when you say "Perhaps I haven't met such a person", do you mean that you have no personal experience with Parkinson's, or that the people with PD that you know don't look anything like any of these images? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could be both. I haven't met a person with PD. But perhaps I did yet didn't recognize that they had PD. Either way, the illustrations don't "say" anything to me. Just trying to be helpful. Humpster (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think would be a good visual for Parkinson's? IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 14:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked at 10 or so websites related to PD. The majority do not have an image. Of those which had images, the only one which seems useful is the following:
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/8525-parkinsons-disease-an-overview
Humpster (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you prefer an infographic style. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:IMAGES Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. (emphasis added). While I don’t have access to any right now, I suspect that if you checked high quality reference works such as textbooks you would most likely find images similar to those used in this article and less of infographic style images. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 22:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica has two videos: https://www.britannica.com/science/Parkinson-disease/images-videos but I didn't see any other images. The Oxford World Encyclopedia has only a couple of sentences and no image. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I haven't had time to search better qaulity referance works on the topic, quite a few images that appear on a google search of "Parkinson's disease" do bare resemblance to the photos we included. Examples: [31][32][33][34] IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 03:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I've argued above, I do not believe that the current lead images are helpful. However, there's seems to be a consensus for them. ~ HAL333 20:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trichloroethylene

[edit]

Any strong evidence for trichloroethylene causing Parkinson's? The current research seems very coincidental because of the small number of cases. 176.55.164.53 (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change Causes glyphosate

[edit]

Review_glyphosate_neurological disorders This is the first time I do something other than reading a wikpedia article. I apologize in advance if I make some mistakes. I don't think that the current evidence concerning glyphosate and Parkinson's disease is able to support the claim that glyphosate exposure and Parkinson's disease "are likely causal". The linked meta study does not show a link between glyphosate and Parkinson's disease. I don't think that high dose animal experiments in which glyphosate is directly injected are evidence enough to state that there is a link. Could someone clarify the rational behind this statement. Thanks in advance Johannes000 (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parkinson%27s_disease&oldid=1275791817"