Talk:Dementia: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Understood) |
(→proposal to start over here: yes, this is a hot potato.) |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:: capiche. Thanks, Pat. [[User:Jack S. Byrom|Jack S. Byrom]] ([[User talk:Jack S. Byrom|talk]]) 12:40, 24 October 2024 (CDT) | :: capiche. Thanks, Pat. [[User:Jack S. Byrom|Jack S. Byrom]] ([[User talk:Jack S. Byrom|talk]]) 12:40, 24 October 2024 (CDT) | ||
:::I rather boldly added some stuff to the intro, and I'm willing for you to rearrange it as you think best, especially the Marcus Aurelius quote. However, the fact of medical diagnoses being sometimes controversial is a very important point. Also, some forms of dementia that result from medical conditions could theoretically improve if the condition improves. Certain pharmaceuticals, for example, may affect short term memory and cause cognitive impairment behavior, but stopping taking the drug (or changing the dosage) might result in an improvement. These factors make medical and legal diagnoses even more perilous. I am personally incensed that my personal doctor decided to give such a "cognitive" test to me, recently, without seeking my permission. I believe I "passed" the test, but I also felt it was a badly designed test. For example, they had me repeat a complex sentence back to them; fine, I did this. Then, five minutes later they asked me to repeat the sentence again. Although I was able to remember the sentence, on any given day I might NOT have remembered it--because they did not tell me to remember it! I know many younger people who might not pass that test, and in my case, the legal consequences of the doctor writing in my file that I have memory issues could be dire. So I'm pissed that I wasn't asked to give permission. I will never willingly take such a test again. [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 08:24, 25 October 2024 (CDT) | |||
::::: looking good.. I'll try to look at this when things slow down here in a few days. Yes, the whole issue of dementia and Alzheimer's in our modern society is a mess. Just look up what happened with the pharmaceutical products recently put out to fight Alzheimer's, e.g., leqembi, the so-called monoclonal antibodies that attack beta amyloid. What a mess. And don't you dare, dare, dare [ever] say the word ''aluminum''. That will get you thrown off Wikipedia in a heartbeat, in this context: It's a central dogma. The problem is that there is massive published scientific evidence going back decades that aluminum definitely has something to do with the development of Alzheimer's dementia. I hope that we as encyclopedia editors are a lot less interested in prevailing popular opinions than in what is actually proven to be true. Otherwise we are just propagating ignorance. [[User:Jack S. Byrom|Jack S. Byrom]] ([[User talk:Jack S. Byrom|talk]]) 21:43, 25 October 2024 (CDT) |
Latest revision as of 20:43, 25 October 2024
proposal to start over here
I'd like to see much more of a narrative here than a list of bullet points. That's typically what a good encyclopedia entry is, a story, an academic story peppered with facts... just heads up that if there is no serious subjection, I may just scratch this version and start with a new version that's much more of a story. This is an important topic. Worldwide there is a brewing epidemic of dementia, the majority of which is Alzheimer's. Jack S. Byrom (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2024 (CDT)
- What is there already was written by a professor of medicine, so it's very minimal and clinical. He write it more than 10 years ago. I have no problem with you starting over, but if there's anything here of value, I would at least trust the information though it might not be the latest and greatest. I agree this is a topic of growing importance. Have at it! Pat Palmer (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2024 (CDT)
- capiche. Thanks, Pat. Jack S. Byrom (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2024 (CDT)
- I rather boldly added some stuff to the intro, and I'm willing for you to rearrange it as you think best, especially the Marcus Aurelius quote. However, the fact of medical diagnoses being sometimes controversial is a very important point. Also, some forms of dementia that result from medical conditions could theoretically improve if the condition improves. Certain pharmaceuticals, for example, may affect short term memory and cause cognitive impairment behavior, but stopping taking the drug (or changing the dosage) might result in an improvement. These factors make medical and legal diagnoses even more perilous. I am personally incensed that my personal doctor decided to give such a "cognitive" test to me, recently, without seeking my permission. I believe I "passed" the test, but I also felt it was a badly designed test. For example, they had me repeat a complex sentence back to them; fine, I did this. Then, five minutes later they asked me to repeat the sentence again. Although I was able to remember the sentence, on any given day I might NOT have remembered it--because they did not tell me to remember it! I know many younger people who might not pass that test, and in my case, the legal consequences of the doctor writing in my file that I have memory issues could be dire. So I'm pissed that I wasn't asked to give permission. I will never willingly take such a test again. Pat Palmer (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2024 (CDT)
- looking good.. I'll try to look at this when things slow down here in a few days. Yes, the whole issue of dementia and Alzheimer's in our modern society is a mess. Just look up what happened with the pharmaceutical products recently put out to fight Alzheimer's, e.g., leqembi, the so-called monoclonal antibodies that attack beta amyloid. What a mess. And don't you dare, dare, dare [ever] say the word aluminum. That will get you thrown off Wikipedia in a heartbeat, in this context: It's a central dogma. The problem is that there is massive published scientific evidence going back decades that aluminum definitely has something to do with the development of Alzheimer's dementia. I hope that we as encyclopedia editors are a lot less interested in prevailing popular opinions than in what is actually proven to be true. Otherwise we are just propagating ignorance. Jack S. Byrom (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2024 (CDT)