Thank you so much for taking the time to reply in the forum. As patients with an obviously vested interest, we get frustrated with what seems like steps in the right direction that often seem to gain very little momentum. I noticed that the PD-DOC database was pretty limited in scope but was encouraged to even see the words 'epidemiology' and 'Parkinson's' on the same page, so I assumed that it plays a role in data collection, but apparently not beyond the most basic demographics.

I was really struck by your last sentence. While I don't expect collecting basic demographic data on people who are being treated for Parkinson's will result directly in a smoking gun in the environment as a trigger for some cases of non-familial PD, I do think we are at least acknowledging that it's important enough to begin tracking data in the first place. I am most curious to see who might be able to address your last thought; if the basic data will not lead to scientific insight, what kind of data do we need to lead us in that direction?

Laura