YumaBev video: not our father's Parkinson's

http://youtu.be/bORl_ZOQTug

WOW,
i guess i was "lucky", at 47, saw an ortho thinking i had a pinched nerve, he referred me to a neuro. but if he hadn't referred me not sure how long it would have taken to get a diagnosis.

i will say i had 2 frozen shoulders and no right arm swing when running 2-3 years before diagnosis which my GP never connected to pd even though we played soccer together occasionally.

In 2006 this bomb came crashing through the roof; then the topic seemed to disappear until Bev made her remarkable video posted above.

The Lancet Neurology Vol. 5 Issue 1 – Jan. 2006

Quote: The correct diagnosis of Parkinson's disease is important for prognostic and therapeutic reasons and is essential for clinical research.

Investigations of the diagnostic accuracy for the disease and other forms of parkinsonism in community-based samples of patients taking antiparkinsonian medication confirmed a diagnosis of parkinsonism in only 74% of patients and clinically probable Parkinson's disease in 53% of patients.

Clinicopathological studies based on brain bank material from the UK and Canada have shown that clinicians diagnose the disease incorrectly in about 25% of patients.

In these studies, the most common reasons for misdiagnosis were presence of essential tremor, vascular parkinsonism, and atypical parkinsonian syndromes. Infrequent diagnostic errors included Alzheimer's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, and drug-induced parkinsonism. Increasing knowledge of the heterogeneous clinical presentation of the various parkinsonisms has resulted in improved diagnostic accuracy of the various parkinsonian syndromes in specialised movement-disorder units. Also genetic testing and various other ancillary tests, such as olfactory testing, MRI, and dopamine-transporter single-photon-emission computed-tomography imaging, help with clinical diagnostic decisions. Quote.

To read this article in full you will need to make a payment ($31.50)

Well, kind ladies and kind gentlemen in the science labs, maybe we would pay $31.50 for the study done seven years ago with our taxpayers money and our walkathons and bake sales and donations if any of the scientists had done an update. Is it still the same farce now? That would be worth another $31.50, I would think, to have an

And did anyone follow up? For example, what happened over the past seven years to the 25% who were swallowing PD pills but did not have PD? Just wondering, you know. Were they told? Did they stop taking the drugs? Was there a huge emergency effort made to find all those who had been misdiagnosed? Who knows? Does anyone in the science labs have $31.50 worth of info to inform those who actually have the disease that they may actually not have Parkinson's (Trade Mark, Copyright)? If 25% do not have PD, then what do they have? Reactions to the drugs they are taking for a disease they do not have?

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...285-4/abstract