 |
 |
For Janet Patterson. Thanks for the most imposing array of papers in praise of Selegiline. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if someone presents a paper having taught it to comb my hair and tie my shoelaces as well. I should say that I do respect the imposing array of research talent which has been brought to bear on the subject of Selegiline, however - I am not a biologist, just a simple Engineer, but I have post-graduate credits in Stubborn, so I don't intend to go down without a fight (and maybe with a laugh or two as well.) As a PWP who was diagnosed 18 years ago, with earliest symptoms 24 yewrs ago, I well remember the introduction of Selegiline: It was after the California 'Designer drug 'people hit the headlines with the unintentional manufature of MPTP, which seems to have a unique ability to zap the entire Substantia Nigra, and kill off all production of Dopamine. Someone popped up and said "Hey, supposing that this is how everyone gets PD?". The answer to that was Selegiline: it inhibits the action of MPTP. >From that point on many neuros started to add selegiline to their patient's drug list, especially newly-diagnosed PWPs. I was started on it, with the sort of comment that 'It can't be bad, and it might be good'. Well, I found that it Could be bad, causing me to have wild semi-waking dreams. (No-one knew about the take before midday rule then), so I took myself off it. My first point then is that Selegiline does have a down side, producing psychological disturbances, and for those who got past that one, I know that in some case patients have developed dependancy (whether physical or psychological I don't know). Some time later, came the infamous 'Increased mortality report' which I accept was flawed. (However, I have heard from one informed source that the errors that were made do not explain fully the very large numbers that were recorded.) The paper which you list by J E Riggs raises an interesting point: if I have understood it correctly, he is saying that two groups of people, both having the same average age, can display markedly different mortality trends. I can see that, in fact I intend to do a few sums on the subject (Statistics is an area which I enjoy). This brings me to my second point: Why shouldn't the same criticism apply to all the other papers on your list? I will keep you posted on my statistical efforts - it will require some programming, so may take me a while. Regards, -- Brian Collins <[log in to unmask]> -- Brian Collins <[log in to unmask]>