Peter dawkins wrote:
>
> The new blood test for Parkinson's is a genuine thing but
> at least ten years
why would it take so long?????
if it just requires a blood sample --
it would not affect the safety or health of the patient.
therefor, no need to go through lab and clinical studies.
blood drawing is done routinely everywhere with little risk.
it sure beats getting injected with
radioactive-isotope-labeled dopamine agonists,
which was the last sure thing for diagnosing pd.
i vehemently objected to that one...
ought to be reserved for research
or desperate need to know only.
> from testing to use. It is 80% accurate so far in
> confirming diagnosis but
> needs time to confirm early Parkinson's in people with the
> potential to
> develop the disease. Dr Kay Double and her colleagues
> also want to come up
a quick look on pub med shows
several other leading edge papers by this researcher.
> with some neuroprotective drug when confirming early
> diagnosis. There seems
there seem like a number of possibilities in this regard--
as understanding grows of the mechanisms of pd
there will be anti-apoptotic neuro-preservatives,
which will be necessary for transplantation survival also.
maybe an anti-oxidant,
or turning genes on or off,
or blocking a protein,
or something else.
> little advantage in confirming a diagnosis ten years
> before the symptoms show
i spent three years going to various doctors--
for a number of problems...that are now fully explained by parkinsons.
others on this list have even talked of unnecessary surgeries.
knowledge is power.
> and offering no help.
> Peter Dawkins PD Australia
best regards to our pd friends
and researchers in Austrailia.
Ray Strand
--------on the edge of the prairie abyss---------
48/dx PD 2 yrs/40? onset/retired
list instructions:
http://parkinsons-information-exchange-network-online.com/mailopt.html
