 |
 |
There is an article in the 1998 issue of the American Neurological Association (Supplement) by Drs. Marsden of the Institute of Neurology in London and Olanow of Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York titled "The Causes of Parkinson's Disease Are Being Unraveled and Rational Neuroprotective Therapy is Close to Reality" which summarizes the current status of medical research on PD from the point of view of neurodegeneration and neuroprotective therapy. I had intended to study it and possibly produce a summary for the list, but I got bogged down in its technical terminology, much of which was new to me. There is prominent mention made of antioxidents as ready and needing to be tested for effectiveness. Now I will get back to it, because it is relevant to this discussion. Also relevant is the recent discovery that brain cells continue to reproduce at least in one part of the brain, and I hope there is some research soon as to whether this does or can occur in the substantia nigra. Wendy wrote: > My intent here is not to be negative or cynical, but rather to make > a point by holding the medical establishment up to the same level > of scrutiny that is normally only reserved for areas which fall > outside its traditional domain. You have to distinguish between science on the one hand and scientists on the other. Science, strictly performed, will arrive at the facts sooner or later, because the scientific method is based on interrogating the facts and having them speak for themselves. Science when practiced properly is highly self-scrutinizing, self-critical and self-correcting. Scientists, on the other hand, are people like you and me, equally honest and dedicated, subject to biases, politics and all other human weaknesses. As people they choose what to investigate, may commit errors, and may ignore facts or even occasionally lie about them. Wendy mentioned animal research. Science is neutral on whether or not to do animal research. Scientists make that choice. Regarding "snake oil": I tend to prefer a treatment that is thoroughly researched, because strictly performed scientific research ought to flush out whether the treatment is effective and what the downsides are. There are lots of alternative products that remain to be researched, some of which may prove beneficial, some harmful, some useless. Scientists are I think very slow in getting around to studying them. In the mean time, how am I to know what works and what doesn't? The next best source of this information is from the people who on their own initiative use these products and find them effective. It would be good if such information were collected and evaluated in a systematic manner by people who have no interest in the success or failure of these products. Lacking this information, there is little guidance. Therefore I am cautious about all those pills for sale in health food stores. I don't have a good way to evaluate them, plus, judging by the prices, someone is raking in big bucks. In this regard, I'd be interested in people's reactions to the program designed by PD patient Annette Freeman and now promoted by a dietary supplement manufacturer. See http://www.ceri.com. Snake oil controversies are much more heated in other areas of medicine. Take cancer, for example. See www.cancermed.com. Wendy wrote: > In my opinion, many drugs that are widely accepted and used, should > also be given the designation of snake-oil, as it seems to be > defined here. None of them used for pd, and often also for other > diseases, represents a cure. Nobody ever claimed that any existing PD drugs are a cure. If they were claimed to cure, then they would be snake oil. > I've read before, that death due to fatal drug reactions and > interactions, ranks among the top 10, if not among the top 5, > leading causes of adult deaths in this country. A good reason for caution. Most medical personnel who administer drugs are aware of their potential dangers. Phil Tompkins Hoboken NJ age 60/dx 1990