[no subject]

[Barbara Patterson <patterso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Date: Sun, 3 Dec 95 02:08 GMT
From: amarshall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Alan Marshall)
Subject: Re: Parkinson's

In-Reply-To: <199511280213.VAA18606@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Eddie Amundsen <EAmund2667@xxxxxxx> posted the following on Thu 23 Nov:
>My name is Eddie and my dad has had Parkinson's for 15 years now.
>I have two questions:
>       1.  Is Parkinson's hereditary.
>       2.  Is there a way that a doctor can test me to see if I have it.
> ...

I can offer the following from experience only. I am no expert.
The reply from Edwin Partridge on Fri 24 Nov was very well presented,
and summarises neatly what I have been able to find out for myself.

1. Whenever I ask a doctor I get the same reply, along the lines of
   there being "no conclusive evidence". I am a sufferer (43yo,5.5yrs),
   my paternal aunt was, and so was her aunt. You will therefore not
   be surprised if I remain sceptical.
   There is some acceptance of possible genetic susceptibility - that
   the presence of a particular gene may lead some people to contract
   the disease more readily than others. The difference is between a
   defect in our basic makeup, or a defect in our immunity to
   "infection", whether viral, radiation or chemical in nature.
   No-one can yet say for certain what causes PD; why some people lose
   the 80% of the cells within the substantia negra that is required
   before clinical symptoms become evident. Suggestions of environmental
   poisoning have become popular since induced cases of Parkinson's were
   discovered among heroin addicts.  However, pointing a finger at the
   use of modern  fertilisers and pesticides doesn't explain the existence
   of the disease in earlier generations.

2. The affected cells do not show up in the previous generation of
scanners ("CAT"?), so if used, it is in order to discount other
   conditions with similar symptoms. A PET scan shows brain activity,
   which can be used to show Parkinsonism by inference.  I suspect this
   is not very effective up to the point where early symptoms begin to
   appea                        r.
   The appended posting by Jessie Masterson on 22nd Nov looks promising
   for the future, but I'm pretty sure no test is yet available that can
   identify Parkinson's in its early stages. I have not yet obtained the
   article to which Jessie refers.

Ask yourself this question:
        "How would it affect my life if I knew for certain that
         one day I will be a victim of Parkinson's Disease?"
There are some things you just don't want to know!

I remind you again that I am no expert, though if I read enough of the
mail from this excellent list I may get there someday.

Alan Marshall  (amarshall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)

---------------------------------------------
Jessie Masterson wrote:

> Forwarded message:
> Subj:    DETECTING PARKINSON'S
> Date:    95-11-21 13:36:29 EST
> From:    Jessie clay
> CC:      jmasters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> December Reader's Digest 1995 "News from The World of Medicine" page 121
> Dr. Edwin Montgomery from the U. of AZ and Dr. William Koller from
> U of Kansas Medical Center have a new test for Parkinson's. It can
> detect symptoms in the earliest stages.
>    "Since a drug is available that may slow Parkinson's there is
>     tremendous  pressure to diagnose as early as possible"  AP
> My question is the drug  Eldepryl ?
> Thank you.    jessieclay@xxxxxxx
>
> Jessie Masterson 71/1/PD
>