Quote:
Originally Posted by lindylanka
Just to also say there is virtually no epidemiology, so even something simple starts to fill in some of the dots. At the moment there is just incidence, but this is patchy. Patients are in the unique position of knowing exactly where they are, what they are taking etc.
|
just from memory, the chances of pd are statistically greater if you are a welder, a teacher, live on a farm. been knocked out, had the flu - 1918 flu epidemic - and less if you drink coffee, green tea or smoke tobacco.
the fact that there are so few clusters would indicate that there is likely no smoking gun that statistics is going to find, it's likely the affect of overall pollution.
there have been clusters, remember that a lot of people working with MJF on some tv show in BC got pd? i don't think anything was tracked down.
i'm all for sharing experiences, opinions, links, participating in data collecting surveys, participating in clinical trials, making govt/rersearchers/business pay attention to our needs. i only disagree with amateurs trying to do statistics on epidemiology.
i'm all for anyone using reports or statistical analysis to report trends such as a pd increase/decrease in an area or age group, spending, patient visits, drug use, etc.