Hi everyone,

I am a little late to this discussion because we have spent some days away
at the Edinburgh Festival.

Brian, welcome back. You wrote in part:

>This means that all those who are diagnosed as having PD have less than
>20% of the normal dopamine cells left, and inevitably we must assume that
>another dose of whatever it was that caused each of us to drop from 100%
>to less than 20% would, if it happened again, probably blow us sky-high.
>And yet, we Parkies manage to carry on to a normal age these days, with
>the help of the usual drugs.
>
>It would appear that either the original cause of the stress which
>destroyed our Dopamine cells has gone away with the decopmposition  of
>those cells, or the same stress, resulting from who-knows-what is (like
>lightning) not likely to strike the same person twice.
>
>If you are still with me, how do you answer ths question: Why are you
>taking Eldepryl ?  You have got PD, so you have less than 20%  Dopamine
>cells, and it is not going to happen again, so why take Eldepryl ?
>
>The once-in-a-lifetime event has happened, and you got the short straw,
>so I see no point in trying to prevent a second event which has such a
>low prbability.
>
>Now here's the stinger: IF this case is correct, we ought to be saying to
>the REST OF THE WORLD: Why are you not taking Eldepryl? because they are
>the ones at risk, not us.!!!



It is an interesting point you pose and you are right IF there is only the
one scenario you describe.  However, I believe that there are three possible
scenarios, not one. (If you can have "plethora" and Dennis can have
"manifest", I can have scenarios!)

SCENARIO 1.   An individual experiences the huge toxic shock, or insult,
which you describe as reducing the dopamine cells by 80-90%.  In this case,
after the initial loss, the cell death rate drops to that expected in normal
aging and wear and tear.  This slow progression fits in perfectly with the
observation that, generally, younger people who develop PD progress more
slowly than older people who develop PD.

SCENARIO 2.   An individual experiences a series of separate toxic shocks
over an unknown period and at varying intervals.  These could be anything
from a series of antibiotics which their body finds particularly toxic, to
how their body chemistry handles stress.  This could account for the fact
that many people have found that the PD progresses in "steps".

SCENARIO 3.   An individual's body reacts to a regular medicine,
environmental pollutant, food, food combination etc to which they are
allergic or sensitive.  This would account for those unfortunate enough to
experience a more rapid decline because they are unaware of the damaging
agent which is continuing to affect them and therefore unable to avoid it.

We can probably do nothing about case 1, other than what you suggest, but in
the other two cases there is a chance that with very careful observation and
record keeping one might be able to identify an adverse effect and
therefore, possibly, the causative agent.

As for neuro-protective effect (eldepryl or other drugs) it is so difficult
to prove a case in humans because rates of progression are so variable.  For
example, if you yourself were taking Eldepryl, you would be a pretty good
example to quote for showing the benefits of the drug in slowing
progression.  A researcher would have to have a massive study group to
determine for certain the effect on rate of progression.  It is easier to
show symptomatic control of PD with a drug, than it is to show the effect it
is having on progress of the disease. I have read a tremendous amount on
Eldepryl and I can still see both sides of the argument as far as PD is
concerned.  If it does have a protective effect, then it would obviously
help protect those in the last two scenarios, though finding the toxic
element or cause would be even better.

However, as far as increasing longevity in the non-PD population is
concerned, I am definitely highly sceptical.  The life extension properties
of Eldepryl were based on the results of tests on rats.  The rats taking
Eldepryl lived an average of 192 weeks compared to the control group who
lived to an average age of 147 weeks.  With rats not living anywhere near as
long as humans, could not other long term side effects play a part in humans
which do not have time to surface in rats?  Not much point in taking
Eldepryl to live longer only to find that it damages your liver or kidneys
after about 40 years!  Besides, how many humans die of simple old age
anyway? I reckon good quality nutritious food is far more likely to add
years to your life.

By the way, that's not what I think when Julia prevents me from going for
that second helping of ice cream, darn it! <Grin>

Ernie.
Ernie Peters <[log in to unmask]>