Thank you kiwi33 and johnt for your critical comments regarding the non-existence of the "possible" cluster.

My knowledge of English is still far from capturing the humor, irony or sarcasm well, but I'm getting the picture.

My intention was to expose what Michael J Fox meant and means to the Parkinson's patients I have talked to about this (and to my father in particular).

Anyway, I was a family caregiver and I am a historian, not a scientist or a statistician. I am not concerned with the dilemma between objectivity-subjectivity, but with the honesty of the exposition. In the first instance, to put on record all the facts that might be relevant now or in a future, when we know more about Parkinson's. This is the case with Lyme disease, which we know much more about than we did when Fox was treated in the late 1980s.

In fact, what I think about Parkinson's today is 100 percent different than I thought in 1994.

I still find the observations of Dr. Sacks, Dr. Tanner or Dr. Clarke to be of some importance so as not to rule them out. Not to affirm, but to not deny.

There is no need to look for a "cluster" at the end of the 70s, when the whole world, especially the industrialized countries, are on the way to becoming a gigantic "cluster" in which the number of sick people has doubled between 1990 and 2015. Faster than Dorsey had predicted in his 2007 study. And it is feared that the next decades will double or triple again if we don't do something very different, as neurologists Dorsey and Bloem recommended in 2018.

In any case, the existence or not of the cluster seems to me to be a curious aspect, but nothing more. Tanner's reference to THE RARITY OF PARKINSON YOUTH CASES IN THE 70s seems more than interesting to me, as she is a world-renowned expert on Parkinson's, especially for her studies with tobacco and identical twins.

Two things are essential in this story: first, the case of Michael J Fox with many of his risk factors and, second, whether in light of what we know TODAY IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE in his case (as a stimulus for those facing him today) TO PREVENT THE DISEASE, as is the case with the consumption of coffee, tobacco, NSAIDs, green tea and a long etcetera.

What is really decisive is to bring together the possible causes of his Parkinson's disease based on what Michael J Fox himself stated in various interviews and books throughout his life. He is not sure about a blood test, an MRI or a statistic, but it should not be ruled out.

It's something neurologists are doing again (or at least should do as some neurologists advocate): asking the sufferer why he thinks he has Parkinson's. A source of information that in the hands of a specialist can provide valuable data to tailor treatment to each person.

Albert Einstein once wrote on a blackboard: “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.”