# Talk:Prion

Must this section really sound so ghoulish? Is the section necessary at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.31.171 (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - this section seems inappropriate in multiple ways, and I think it should be removed. For one, tone-wise it reads as if it is promoting the use of prions as bioweapons, especially since it is not describing any previous use as such (of which there is none). On top of that, it just seems highly unnecessary and tangential to the focus of the article. Polynumeric (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm the user who started that section. In case you didn't know, Wikipedia _DOES NOT_ censor anything. Here is the quote from the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not-page: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." --Pek~enwiki (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree it's a thing to be taught that may be necessary. Wikipedia DOES NOT INCLUDE censorship Random kid who likes science (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Continuing this discussion, this section does seem necessary, but I believe it's better to note how it could be expressed with more relevant evidence or application than just "it could be used as a bioweapon." Technically, wouldn't forced hunger result in prion transmission due to a lack of sterilized food sources? Voltairienne (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Voltairienne
The part I'm stuck on is how it's entirely speculative. There are a miniscule number of publications talking about how maybe possibly perhaps someone could arguably potentially use prions as a weapon--but the lack of actual real-world examples of usage, stockpiling, or even serious development of prion-based weapons argues against expounding on the idea here. Prions just aren't very good bioweapons, with their inconvenient delivery, low infectivity, and long latency. The result is that low-impact sources are wagging the encyclopedia's dog.
We don't have a section in our article on golf balls about how terrorists or state actors could use golf balls as projectile weapons—even though a well-struck ball can kill (and sometimes has.)
Editors arguing for inclusion cite WP:NOTCENSORED, but I would argue that the more relevant policies are WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and even WP:NOTCRYSTAL. We should drop the section on bioweaponry not because we wish to censor the viewpoint, but because the viewpoint is a negligibly-small - even fringe - part of the discourse on the topic and therefore not ripe for inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
I agree that this section seems entirely unnecessary. If it cited sources that biological weapons had been developed or researched, it may have more relevance, but for now it's not providing much - literally "There are no prion weapons, but if there were, they would be effective". This doesn't add to the article and I agree with TenOfAllTrades that this isn't an issue of censorship, but rather of not including superfluous information. KorvalYubilson (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

>Amyloids are also responsible for several other neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease.[12][13]
wasn't that found to be wrong recently? 2A02:8070:6287:E0C0:7069:2168:A092:FD4E (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it was disproven, however, amyloids are found in post mortem brain tissue samples of people that have died with Alzheimer's. Read-write-services (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

The link for Citation #63 goes to a website called "men's journal", so it should be fixed, but it appears a lot in the article, so we might have to work together to fix it. TypoEater (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Given the quantity of information on the "Fungi" section, fungal prions are enough to warrant their own section. However, this very obviously points towards the necessity of a more general "Occurrence" section which allows for the introduction of more info on prions found in other living beings. I'm sure readers will appreciate knowing about non-fungal prions as well, and it could help clear up what's the extent of prions in animals alone (e.g., only in mammals? vertebrates? chordates? any animal?). — Snoteleks (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello!!! I'm raising my hand in class! This goes out to all the people who believe in prions. You've made this article that says "A prion is this". But I'm here saying "I don't believe there is such a thing as a prion." And guess what? A prion is a hypothesis. And if you are here to say we have such and such evidence I will tell you that gravity is also a hypothesis and the bloody existence of reality itself is a hypothesis in the modern philosophical 'situation'. So given that your prion thingy is really a prion hypothesis, I believe (by tradition) the burden of proof is on you to show that it is indeed something real. So yes I am standing up here in class and I am saying I don't buy it. I don't buy your hypothesis, alright? So let's get started on some discourse here so we can come to a bloody resolution. Would someone who cares to play the game please tell me: what is the prion hypothesis? What are you claiming with this prion hypothesis so that we can be on the same page about what we're talking about. So, if you would, please state the prion hypothesis as concisely as you can and we'll see if maybe, MAYBE, HYPOTHETICALLY, we can find one or two problem assumptions and we can make some bloody progress on this disease for the first time in 30 years. How about that I raise my hand. ~2025-31082-45 (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)