Saint John Paul II real soon!

[Act_of_Reparation]

99. No, what's weak is your understanding of the practice of medicine

Parkinson's is diagnosed via differential diagnosis. To dumb it down: the fucking process of elimination.

As Parkinsonian symptoms exist across myriad other conditions, it is incumbent upon the specialist to rule these other conditions out. Presently, the only way to do this with absolute certainty is to wait for the patient to die, and then test midbrain tissues for the presence of abnormal protein aggregates called Lewy bodies. As this is impractical for the purposes of treatment, specialists will treat for Parksinon's while periodically reviewing the diagnosis as the disease progresses. Because Parkinson's is degenerative, it develops over time. Patients with advanced cases are, therefore, the most easily--and accurately--diagnosed.

I should add here your miracle nun was diagnosed at the age of forty, which is well below the average age of onset for most Parkinson's patients.

And because you seem to think I'm making this shit up, here's some peer-reviewed scientastic goodness for you, as you obviously lack a subscription to PubMed.

PD is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder manifested by a broad spectrum of motor and non-motor features. The natural progression of PD is variable but is usually more rapid in patients with late onset and with the PIGD form of PD. In a comprehensive review of the literature, the standardised mortality ratio has been reported to range between 1 and 3.4.144 Because there are no definitive diagnostic tests for it, clinicians require thorough knowledge of the clinical manifestations of PD to aid them in differentiating it from related disorders. Future research may uncover disease specific biomarkers allowing for its differentiation from other neurodegenerative disorders. Not only will such testing be useful for diagnosing the disease in affected persons, it will be useful for identifying family members or populations at risk, thus providing an opportunity to initiate neuroprotective therapy at an asymptomatic stage.

Jancovic, J. (2007). Parkinson's disease: clinical features and diagnosis. Retrieved from http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/79/4/368.full

3.1 Key priorities for implementation

- Referral to expert for accurate diagnosis.

People with suspected PD should be referred quickly* and untreated to a specialist with
expertise in the differential diagnosis of this condition.

- Diagnosis and expert review

The diagnosis of PD should be reviewed regularly** and reconsidered if atypical clinical
features develop.

Acute levodopa and apomorphine challenge tests should not be used in the differential
diagnosis of parkinsonian syndromes.

*The GDG considered that people with suspected mild PD should be seen within 6 weeks but new referrals in
later disease with more complex problems require an appointment within 2 weeks.
**The GDG considered that people diagnosed with PD should be seen at regular intervals of 6 to 12 months
to review their diagnosis.

(2006). Parkinson’s disease: National clinical guideline for diagnosis and management in primary and secondary care. London: Royal College of Physicians.

http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/10984/30087/30087.pdf

Incidentally, "miraculously recovering practically overnight" is a clinical feature atypical of Parkinson's Disease.

So, I have to wonder--if you're not too busy smarmily demanding credentials in a vain effort to dodge questions which clearly destabilize your carefully constructed worldview--what's more likely? A simple misdiagnosis, or the intervention of a dead priest? But, seeing as we already know the answer to that question, I think the more pressing issue is why you think you should jump to an extraordinary explanation without first ruling out a rather simple, perfectly natural and human explanation?

Maybe because you don't understand how differential diagnosis works?