Lets hope this gets national/international media coverage:

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Neurolog...sDisease/30487

It says barely one-third of people with Parkinson's survive 6 years. So two out of three die within 6 years. But it also said half were over 80 years old... but were they 80 when they were diagnosed, and therefore died on average by age 86? Or were they 80 when they died?
Gloomy statistics that I have never seen before.
Bring some placebos real quick; reality is not my favorite destination.
but 2 out 3 three die in six years? Really?

OMG - how depressing is that to read! Having just about (I thought) come to terms with my husband's diagnosis just over two years ago, to read something like this is so demoralising. I feel back to square one again - absolutely terrified of the future and depressed beyond words.

That was my reaction too, very depressing, but when I think about all the PWP I have been in touch with over the past 8 years... already 2 years past their "due date", I keep meeting people who have had it a lot longer than that. That's anecdotal and not scientific... but I wonder if that study is truly about a cross-section of People With Parkinson's.... or is it a selected group in one particular category. For example, I know of a hospice caring for cancer patients.... and the ones in that hospice all seem to die, so is it more dangerous to be in that hospice? Well no, it's a place people go to for care near the very end. So their statistics don't show a success rate!
And the age of the patients in this study... mostly over 80 years old.. does that mean 80 at the time of diagnosis? Compared to what? Does the average male reach the age of 80? Or 86?

Thanks for your response Bob, which has put things into better perspective for me.

I hope you realised that I wasn't saying your posting was depressing, but rather referring to the article in question.

I think it's very irresponsible to publish "statistics" like that - as you rightly say, is it really a genuine cross-section with PWP, or a selected group.

It certainly does none of us any good to read stuff like this, and frankly it goes against anything I've read or learnt from communications with quite a few PWP.

Try not to let it get you down.

All good wishes,

Still anecdotal:
In one test they put me in the category of Caucasian male, 60 plus, the drugs being taken, etc., and the statistics showed that, over the years, my cohort had the worst mortality.... we slowly gained access to the statistics... the key was my cohort was 60 years old and plus. Plus what? Plus 10 years, plus 30 years.... My cohort included people who were 80, 90, 100 years old. And you know what happened to them? They died. And every time somebody took a notion to die, what with being 85 and all, it wrecked the averages for me and the 60 year olds.

And then there was a columnist in a newspaper some years ago who went through all of the fund-raising publicity of non-profit organisations... the Heart Foundation said that 50% of people die of heart disease; Cancer Society said 30% die of cancer, and on down the list.... diabetes, Parkinson's, car accidents, falls, lung disease... and he added them up and it turns out that 150% of the people died...

If you go down to the bottom of the web page this article is on,
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Neurolog...sDisease/30487

there's a comment by a doctor that questions the biases in this study, similar to the questions Bob and Budgies have asked, about this being a representative sample either.

We need to collect and maintain better data about PWP to be able to answer questions like this. There's currrently a bill sitting in Congress that would set up a national database : National Neurological Disease Data Collection – H.R. 2595/S.425.
See the PAN website for more information on the bill and what we can all do about it.

http://www.parkinsonsaction.org/fede...al-pd-database
linda ( 16 years since dx)

How wonderful to see a post from someone who has had PD for 16 years, so thank you for that Linda.

This is a case of dumping the junk drawer on the table and calling the pile a lawn mower! We all at least suspect that there is more than one disorder at work. I wouldn't balk at half a dozen, The fellow who gets a tremor at the age of 30 and the guy who notices one at 75 have different diseases.