 |
 |
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]>