 |
 |
> I agree with with Walt Huegel that the over-riding objective which dominates > my life is to bring about the conquest of Parkinson's Disease. However, as I > read the rest of his note, I find that we are talking about Political > Activism; the implication being that all that is needed to bring about the > end of PD is the right actions from the Government - which I presume > translates into more money for PD Research, since at the end of the day that > is about the only power that a government can wield against something like > PD. > What concerns me is that I believe that there is a lot more to achieving > a cure for PD than simply generating lots of money... Hi Brian, I must agree. Throwing bundles of money at anything does not necessarily ensure a cure. Just look at HIV AIDS, for example. A good deal of any money raised will go into the pockets of multi-national drug companies, as it always does, and am I being too, too cynical if I say that they wouldn't *want* a cure for PD, as it would put an end to "a nice little earner", as a star of English TV comedy would say? And another portion would go to academics only interested in accumulating enough supporting material, to form the basis of yet another unread and unreadable thesis, and thus ensure their tenure. Next would be a line-up of researchers with the right intentions, but with a one-track mind, which has been honed in the "brain-factories" to follow a narrow line of enquiry, who will reject any material that does not come from sources as rigid as their own, and whose results will be published in a format so esoteric as to read like 15th century Haupt Deutsche. What *will* help find a cure, or a more successful medicine, or even a preventative, is firstly a wide-ranging epidemiological study, examining such things as foods eaten, sources of water, exposure to insects, natural and man-made pollutants or whatever. And that might answer some of the puzzling questions such as: Why is there a lower rate of PD among Mainland Chinese, and US-born Negroes, than among Caucasians? Why is there a statistically significantly higher incidence among people who have lived in rural areas compared to urban areas? Why does the disease strike many more men than women? Why is there a greater incidence in the western world, compared to other areas? Why does a disease that was thought to affect only the central nervous system appear to cause most of its peripheral discomfort through the sympathetic nervous system? And on, and on, ....... This list, and the people on it, and other similar lists and news conferences on the Internet, might provide a gold-mine of first-hand, broad-based, global experiences which just might provide the necessary clues for at least an initial essay at a solution. Jim