Talk:Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy

message: I reverted one of the changes made by anonymous editor 81.62.11.30, who replaced "Most patients die within four months of onset" with "If the immune system is not immediately reconstituted, patients die within four months of onset. Patients who survive PML may nonetheless be severly disabled from the disease." First, what does "immediately reconstituted" mean, and are there any specific examples? In the case of most AIDS patients with PML (and all the ones I've seen), by the time they're diagnosed with PML, the immune system is already pretty far gone and "immediate reconstitution" just doesn't happen - certainly not more immediate than four months. As for survivors, I'd like to see a study.
Anyway, this all gets back to the need for sourcing. I'm under the impression that HAART has made a difference - though some say that as patients survive longer with HIV, incidence of some neurological diseases has actually gone up - but I need to do a journal review to get the real numbers. If someone who has more time can do this quicker than me, please do. But I'd like to avoid any further changes to the article that make claims without references. If that means eliminating some of the current content until the original sources can be tracked down, so be it. ←Hob 01:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Better statistics and sourcing needed

message: User:Arcadian kindly added these references, but I'm parking them here until I can read the articles and connect them to some actual facts in our article. I have a long reading list now - lots of publications on PML in the last two years, trying to weed out what's redundant.
* Koralnik, I.J. (2004) New insights into progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Current Opinions in Neurology 17, 365-370. 
* Kunschner, L. and Scott, T.F. (2005) Sustained recovery of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy after treatment with IL-2. Neurology 65, 1510. 
* Du Pasquier, R.A., Kuroda, M.J., Zheng, Y., Jean-Jacques, J., Letvin, N.L. and Koralnik, I.J. (2004) A prospective study demonstrates an association between JC virus-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes and the early control of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Brain 127, 1970-1978. 
←Hob 04:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References temporarily removed 

message: doi:10.1128/CMR.05031-11 is a huge review in a highly reliable source. JFW | T@lk 09:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review in CMR 

message: I just want to note that the bit in the lede saying "progressive damage (-pathy)" is both ambiguous and not wholly accurate. First of all, the syntax leaves it up to the reader whether -pathy is alleged to mean "damage" or "progressive damage". More important, however, is the use of the word "damage" itself. Both Merriam-Webster and OxfordDictionaries.com define -pathy as either a feeling (not relevant here), or a medical approach (i.e. medical system, or type of treatment; also not what is meant here in the lede), or a disorder. One might argue that disorders cause damage, but one would not be entirely correct; and that is certainly not the literal meaning of -pathy. This interpretive portion needs to use the word "disorder" rather than "damage", and of course needs to make it clear that -pathy- means only "disorder", saying nothing about the progressive nature of the disease. (Either that, or less satisfyingly, -pathy could just be taken out altogether here.) This may seem like a nit-pick, but it matters: These details govern the reader's quality of learning.--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''-pathy'' 

message: I broadly concur with the comment above but the definion this person uses is too broad. In this context, the term is used technically and in medicine and pathology, the suffix "-pathy" has a very specific and simple meaning. It simply the state any tissue that is diseased (eg peripheral neuropathy, or damage to nerves outside the central nervous system which can fluctuate or improve with time). The suffix "-pathy" does not imply progressive disease. This is why PML includes P, it would not need it if any -pathy was progressive by definition. The root of the term is pathos in Greek (pain) but in this context, it has, over the centuries, taken a broader and yet more specific meaning. Not all disease processes involving -pathy cause pain. Moreover appending the term "or inflammation" is frankly incorrect. The correct suffix for inflammation is "-itis" such as hepatitis, myocarditis etc. Not all -pathies involve inflammation for example that subset of peripheral neuropathies that result from compression of nerves by scar tissue.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.176.247 (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The implied defition of -pathy as given in this article is incorrect 

message: I added the information about Gilenya now being affirmatively linked to PML into the MS medications section.  For reference, I am a Gilenya patient but not JC positive, so for now, I don't need to worry about PML.  But with these new patients being identified as Gilenya-only PML patients, I'm now starting to get JC virus tests every 6 months.  Schlice (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gilenya added to MS meds section