On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:00:44 -0000, "pearl" >
wrote:

>"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 01:01:47 -0000, "pearl" >
>> wrote:

>> >
>> Truly, I am sorry, but you are quoting a journal article that is 9
>> years old.
>
>What bearing has that on mistaking CJD for other neurological disorders?

Plenty. I have searched the literature and can come up with little
other than Laura Manuelidis who has taken this tack. SHe is quoted
over & over & over again, yet no succeeding studies have verified
these numbers since her or your other article were published.
Knowledge of the disorders has come pretty far since then, as has, as
a matterof fact, knowledge of Alzheimer's. Predicating an entire
theory on such limited research with little corroboration over the
years makes no sense whatsoever.
>
>> None of this has borne out with recent numbers.
>
>Provide citations.

The chart of numbers from Britain was already posted in this thread
in tabular form. Did you miss it?
>
>> At the time
>> this article was published, the estimates of nvCJD that were to be
>> occurring were alarming everyone the same way. This, too, was in
>> error.
>
>It's too early to conclude anything of the sort, considering the
>lengthy incubation period.

No it is not. The same numbers chart posted yesterday or the day
before shows these numbers since 1990. That is long enough to track
the data through incubation and disease diagnosis.
>
>> It is not that BSE, or nvCJD or CJD are pleasantries or fluff - all
>> are quite serious, but Chicken Little, Casandra and the Boy who Cried
>> Wolf only serve to raise rabble and make fancy sound bites, quick
>> headlines & flame wars.
>
>When the population is at risk, it is far better to be safe than sorry.

The population is at far greater risk from any number of clear and
present dangers. To siphon off funding and research monies to pursue
something that afflicts so few is cruel and wasteful.
>
>> Hard numbers and facts that have been shown to
>> be solidly based in research are much more intelligent and ultimately
>> effective than unsubstatiated percentages, scare tactics or ****ing in
>> the wind.
>
>Give us citations for the percentage of dementia sufferers autopsied in the
>UK, and the percentage with CJD that were misdiagnosed before death.

Non one in teh US except Laura Manuelidis seems to give a flying horse
pucky in the last 8 or 9 years, which leads me to think there is no
reason or interest in pursuing a blind alley. Even she is off on an
infectious agent angle nowadays.

Look...I have a connection on the human subjects committee at a major
teaching hospital that is involved with Alzheimer's research. That
isn't much a citation for you , I am sure, but I do get to read quite
a bit of what comes up. Bark. Wrong tree.

Boron