 |
 |
No. I think we should stick with the existing format of AGE and YEARS SINCE DIAGNOSIS. (That at least is what I thought we were all putting down). I believe this because our ages, and years since diagnosis (in my case 48/11) are known values of ongoing use in that: - they combine to identify us as either young or conventional onset PWP - the Years Since Diagnosis information establishes how long we have knowingly dealt with the disease. Adding Years Since First Symptoms (which in my OPINION would make me 48/17/11) adds a subjective, unverifiable, almost arbitrary, piece of information which tells us nothing of value to the everyday workings of the list. For example, two people may indicate that they believe they experienced a period of 6 years between onset and diagnosis. One, as in my case, may have experienced a series of vague symptoms, which in retrospect were clearly early PD symptoms which finally got compelling enough to mention to the doctor, after which a diagnosis was made in weeks. The other may have spent the 6 years with pronounced symptoms and struggling to find a diagnosis. Add in the element that symptoms which drive one person to the doctor as soon as detected will be ignored for years by another person and you are left with a piece of information that tells you nothing. And where would it end Dennis. 48/17/11/ 9/7/1.5/-4 months ( age / years since 1st symptoms / years since diagnosis / years since 1st took levodopa / years since 1st took agonist / years since pallidotomy / countdown to starting Tasmar) <grin> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dennis Greene 48/11 "It is better to be a crystal and be broken, Than to remain perfect like a tile upon the housetop." [log in to unmask] http://members.networx.net.au/~dennisg/ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: Janice Morgan <[log in to unmask]> To: Multiple recipients of list PARKINSN <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sunday, 4 October 1998 0:23 Subject: Re: Should we change our Identification Formula? >Hi to all > It makes sense to me Janice 51/6/1 >-----Original Message----- >From: Lanier Maddux <[log in to unmask]> >To: Multiple recipients of list PARKINSN <[log in to unmask]> >Date: Saturday, October 03, 1998 9:06 AM >Subject: Re: Should we change our Identification Formula? > > >This idea makes sense to me, I started out using date of first symptom, >which in my case was very clear, the tremor started up just like someone >had turned on a switch. But then I thought most PWP's were using date of >diag, which in my case was one year later. I had thought of this myself >but did not say anything about, so I am glad that Ivan brought it up. > >Lanier 63/2/1 > > > > > > > > >Lanier Maddux 63/1 N4AG >Chattanooga, (choo-choo town) Tenn. Home of Lookout Mountain and Rock >City >([log in to unmask]) >