Victorialou,

Thanks for sharing your background. This is precisely the sort of "fuzzy" data that researchers need to get a much quicker grasp of what our shared experiences or exposures might be. We all need to be in that National registry for PD and MS that can run queries or analyze.

What makes this all the more complex is that most likely we all have very individual paths but meet at the same watering hole so it is hard to say with any confidence that it is due to just one environmental thing in an area. It could be that your PD is more due to genetics (it can be just that) or maybe a concussion or viral infection when you were younger...I'm not even sure we need an environmental toxin component.

What I don't like is how we living with all these clues are all but ignored except for drug trials because that is where the profit lies. No one makes any money testing us for trace metal levels. I think they know enough environmental triggers at this point so are we not given a battery of tests to look for pesticides, manganese and other trace elements or metals in all of us? Gee, this may actually lead to putting some of the puzzle together but no one bothers with meta data it seems...

A few other PD correlates to add and extend the map globally. PD seems to occur most frequently at higher latitudes....rare to find it below the equator. I think in US, the highest rate of incidence is in Minnesota (some one correct me if I am wrong). In Europe, it is Scandinavia that is hit the hardest. We hear that more men are diagnosed than women, but in Japan it is just the opposite. I think by studying these oddball or anomaly things we can find a lot of answers too.

Laura

In addition to local factors and genetics, my hunch is that there is a climatological connection.

The Parkinson's distribution maps hint at a relationship between prevailing wind direction and PD. In itself this is not causal. However, one possible causal mechanism follows from the wind affecting surface ozone levels [1]. Especially in summer, these seem to be distributed in a similar way to PD. In turn, ozone levels affect nitric oxide levels in the body [2]. NO may be implicated in Parkinson's both directly [3] and indirectly, by increasing the permeability of the BBB [4].

Proper statistical analysis is required.

[1] http://acdb-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_s...ce/gif/cl2.gif [Shows tropospheric ozone levels, not ground levels.]
[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17662977
[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16005074
[4] http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs...08601300185223

John

Inuit in northern Canada have a high rate of PD. And a low rate of heart disease, even those who traditionally lived on meat and fat and fish, with no fibre, no grain, no vegetables and no fruit.

All of this is madness. They bring out these maps showing that one place has 12 times more PD than another place, but the research money goes to finding a new flavour of agonists or new packaging for sinemet. I repeat again: I am waiting for the cherry-flavored sinemet in bubble-gum format, with those coupons you can collect to get free gifts and neat stuff.

Is there an epidemiologist in the house? A medical detective to unravel the mystery? Like Dr. Irving Selikof, who was a simple GP in a small town when he tracked down the reason so many of his patients had forms of cancer such as mesothelioma. He tracked it down: asbestos. He went on to become a top researcher at Mt. Sinai hospital in New York. But when he made the discovery, that resulted in asbestos being outlawed around the world, he was a simple family doctor in Patterson, New Jersey. He paid attention to his patients and, single handed, found the link with asbestos, and then used maps such as these to hunt down every source of asbestos blowing in the wind.
Epidemiologists have a different set of skills; they hunt down links; it's not the same gang as the pill designers. Those maps go way beyond co-incidence. Is there any medical curiosity left out there at all? Are there any epi - experts taking this on?

I too would like to see more epidemiological efforts.

Let's accelerate existing efforts: using the web, Excel and our own unique experiences we can become epidemiologists. We probably won't be the best, but we can become good enough to make a difference.

John

John,

Liking the idea of this...we have broached doing our own studies right here in this forum.

I am a librarian and like everyone else do not want to waste away while the powers that be do nothing. Count me in.

Laura

i believe the PET scan is the only way to tell for sure of this illness,
and the meds arent a cure....
the MRI is good for ruling out tumors etc...
so we need the PET scan to know for positive...

Here are links to two maps of the US which show county by county values for:

Air quality
http://www.creativemethods.com/airqu...ted_states.htm

Incidence of Parkinson's
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...395/figure/F2/

What conclusions do you draw?

John

Quote:

Originally Posted by lou_lou the MRI is good for ruling out tumors etc...so we need the PET scan to know for positive...

Scans aren't always accurate.

DA Tscan studies are supposed to be no better than doc's exam now...85% accurate.

http://www.pdf.org/en/science_news/r.../pr_1336051883

Comparing PET and DA Tscan:

http://www.parkinson.org/Patients/Pa...o-confirm-my-d

ST