[Fwd: Re: Deprenyl - latest]

["J. R. Bruman" <jrbruman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------30D046F26853
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Paul, this reply to you was rejected by your local postmaster, with
the message "we don't accept spam"- so I'll try this route. Let me
know if you receive it, and correct your address if needed.
--
J. R. Bruman   (818) 789-3694
3527 Cody Road
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-5013

--------------30D046F26853
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Message-ID: <34138B73.1928@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 22:21:55 -0700
From: "J. R. Bruman" <jrbruman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: jrbruman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: paul Schlinker <P.schlinker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Deprenyl - latest
References: <199709062049.GAA06610@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

paul Schlinker wrote:
>
>      This email is addressed to you as one further source of
> information about the drug deprenyl used in the treatment of
> Parkinson's disease.
>      I have been treated for the condition for the past five
> years and the treatment has included the use of deprenyl.
> Recently my medicos have differed in their opinion on its
> potential therapeutic effects V mortality risk. The final
> decision to continue/discontinue the drug is mine but with such
> potentially damaging consequences from an error I wish to be
> fully informed before doing so.
>      Your Jan.96 contribution to the Parkinson's Web has been
> most helpful in this regard but are you now aware of any later
> studies and/or opinions than those mentioned in 'Current Science
> Reviews' - The Eldepryl Debate?
>      As a working academic (medical science is not my area) I
> have access to information retrieval tools so references would
> be sufficient.
> Paul Schlinker
> Faculty of Education
> Griffith University Q4111
> AUSTRALIA
> Email:P.Schlinker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 'phone:(07)38755764
> Home: (07)55311888

Dear Paul, First off, I'm no doctor or any other kind of medical
professional, so my opinions don't count against those of your
doctors. Second, I see from my CSR INDEX that I have posted reviews
(and reference citations) of at least 24 published science articles
about Eldepryl (look under selegiline, the generic name). Since you
mention my posting of Jan 96 I assume you are familiar with both
the Current Science Reviews and their subject INDEX. That's a good
place to begin learning all that's been said in the past year or
two, plus who the contestants are. Third, from there search (or
have your librarian do it) MEDLINE for "selegiline" and you will
be inundated.
Very briefly, the debate over Eldepryl's therapeutic value continues,
with issues of MAO, free radical, or antioxidant properties still
lingering. I happen to favor the 'pro' side, so I take it along with
Sinemet. The mortality scare, on the other hand, has apparently been
laid to rest. The first shot, by Dr. Lees, a staunch opponent, was
immediately attacked by Dr. Olanow on the other side, who said HIS
mortality data directly contradicted those of Dr. Lees. Most lately
J. Riggs (cited in this month's CSR) pointed out a fatal analytical
blunder by Lees, who after all is a neurologist not a statistician.
So the main risk from Eldepryl is of apoplexy or cardiac attack, if
you're not a lucky health plan member and learn what it will cost
(roughly $3 a tablet).
I hope this helps, please don't' hesitate to ask further. Cheers,
Joe

J. R. Bruman   (818) 789-3694
3527 Cody Road
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-5013

--------------30D046F26853--