 |
 |
I am wondering why there is so much objection to registering in Nebraska. Doesn't the CDC register diseases all the time? I can think of much positive that could come of it, including the promotion of PD research and funding. It seems to me that accurate data regarding the number of PWPs could only further the cause of research and funding. An accurate database would be a terrific start for someone seeking to research PD in order to develop a cure or better medications. My brother recently received his Ph.D. researching cystic fibrosis. Who knows whether some bright Ph.D. or M.D. student might suddenly take note of the still developing field of PD research and make a career of it. Registering can only make his or her job more accessible. Perhaps there are "pockets" of Parkinsons Disease which no one has yet pinpointed, or common environmental factors which contribute to the disease and which have yet to be discovered. Here is an opportunity to begin to provide the very information that will help scientists to make such discoveries. A call for registration seems to me to be a step in the r i g h t direction. It means that Parkinsons Disease is getting recognized and taken seriously, perhaps partially as a result of the work on Capitol Hill (who knows). This is a positive thing. I am curious to know what it is that people are afraid will happen to the information they provide. Other than the discomfort all of us feel when divulging personal information to nameless organizations, I am hard pressed to understand the negative implications of registration. PD research is a desirable thing. Accurate data is critical. Perhaps it would be useful to find out ways similar data has been used in the past for research on other diseases. I'm not from Nebraska, and I come from a family of scientists and educators (with a few artists thrown in), so I guess that's where my perspective comes from. Julie King [log in to unmask]