 |
 |
> Like, very learned people have been unsuccessful in determining > the causes of what we have, so, who are we wo question, let us > just wait until they are done, eh? Hi Heather Elizabeth, The problems with this approach are: 1. Many cures and treatments in history have been accidental discoveries while looking for something else, or were "lucky accidents". 2. Research into such a complicated disease as PD requires a cross-disciplinary approach, and most research is within one discipline. 3. Much research is undertaken not to examine the epidemiology of a disease, and thereby arrive, hopefully, at a solution, but to pursue a "pet theory"; the result of this is that when the theory is disproved, that research stops. 4. The great bulk of medical research is carried out by drug companies seeking products to sell. Pardon the bluntness of this statement, but no profitable commercial organisation is philanthropic. 5. Much more research is directed towards treatment than towards cure. An illustration of the above points is the case of malaria and quinine. Malaria is a disease caused by sporozoan parasites which enter the blood when a human is bitten by an anopheles mosquito carrying the parasites. Benign strains cause repeated attacks; malign strains cause death unless treated. Malaria was endemic to *all* continents, including North America and Europe. Up to the 17th Century, malaria one of the greatest killers in Europe. By a "lucky accident" it was discovered by Jesuit missionaries in Peru that the natives used the bark of the cinchona tree to treat malaria. The Jesuits introduced cinchona bark to Europe, and the incidence of malaria dropped drastically; even if people were still bitten by anopheles mosquitos, they couldn't get malaria if the mosquito had been feeding off other people without malaria. Right up into the present century, the U.S. and several European countries had colonies in Africa, South America, South East Asia and the Pacific. It was essential that not only the colonials, but also the natives, be protected from the disease, not only because of the risk of spreading, but because workers who are ill, or who die, are an economic burden. The supply of cinchona bark was nearly exhausted by the increased demand, and attempts were made to grow the tree in other areas. The Dutch East Indies was successful in this endeavour, and obtained a virtual monopoly on the supply. The Japanese invasion of the East Indies in WWII cut the supply to the Allied powers, and synthetics were developed and produced in large quantities for the protection of Allied troops. After the war, it was discovered that DDT would kill off the anopheles mosquito, and vast spraying operations were undertaken. A quinine substitute, chloroquine, was found to prevent, as well as cure, malaria. As a result, malaria was virtually eliminated in North America and Europe, and brought under substantial control in the colonies of Africa and South East Asia. With the gradual withdrawal of the colonial powers from their former colonies, came an increase in the incidence of malaria in those countries. There are over 100 million cases yearly in Africa and South East Asia, with about one million deaths per year. Why don't the citizens of those countries attempt to eliminate malaria? Several reasons, including lack of resources, lack of coordination between countries, etc., but principally, cost, both of medications and insecticides. Most of the Western World is not interested in helping. But strains of malaria have developed that are resistant to chloroquine and other synthetic drugs; further, strains of the anopheles mosquito have developed that re resistant to insecticides such as DDT. This not only poses a danger to North American and European travellers to affected countries, but, because of the intake of migrants and refugees to non-affected countries, there is a danger of re-introduction to the Western World. So, finally, researchers are working on a vaccine for general distribution. The *need* was always present, the *incentive* has only appeared recently. That is why the passing of the Udall Bill is so important; 1. It provides the incentives to researchers who say, "Make it worth my while." 2. It provides incentives for cross-disciplinary research. Without this, there is little chance of either a cure or a universally effective treatment. And why should we PWPs and carers continue to discuss the problem, and suggest answers? Well, *some* researchers read the letters in this list, and who knows, another lucky accident, or a product of lateral thinking, just may provide the spark that prompts the discovery. Jim * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * James F. Slattery, J.P., M.A.C.S. JandA Computing Consultancy E-mail: [log in to unmask] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *