...is that Gould's work shows not simply a causal relationship. The exciting part is that she has found that stress also blocks the body's repair capabilities and that once the stress is removed those repair systems are still operable. How far this might go remains to be seen, but ten years ago it was impossible for the brain to do any repair, at least according to the dogma of the day. Gould was the one who showed otherwise. Heck, she's not even a neurologist.

Gould writes about stress and she writes about Parkinson's Disease, but there is no evidence at all contained in what she has written that demonstrates that stress causes Parkinson's Disease :

http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/02...p?page=all&p=y

Virtually all cells can reproduce in adults. Only four of them can't. One of them is the dopaminergic neurons, the cells involved in Parkinson's Disease. So "neurogenesis" (cell reproduction) is completely irrelevant to Parkinson's Disease because the cells involved in Parkinson's Disease never reproduce.

Nearly all types of "Brain cells" can reproduce, but the dopaminergic neurons isn't one of them. Because dopaminergic neurons are brain cells she has wrongly assumed that all brain cells reproduce, not realising that dopaminergic neurons don't.

whether to believe in highly stressed gypsies or devil may care gypsies.

Bob Dylan was quoted earlier. Another one of his might be apropo. I don't have the lyrics handy but I believe the title to be "You've Got to Serve Somebody." It's about making choices.

When a medical theory does not have a sound scientific basis, has no evidence in support of it, and is inconsistent with all known facts, there is nothing to choose from.

Mr. Daffy Duck,

You have very selective hearing. Rick has repeatedly explained that the dopamine producing neurons ane not the cause. It is only a part of the process. You have a very simplistic understanding of the human brain. The first question is why did the dopamine producing neurons become destroyed in the first place. Your theory argues starting at the point after the neurons have been destroyed amd insist that they cannot be reproduced.

Rick addresses what destroyed the neurons. He traces backword and has found that cortisol destroys neurol proteins that are overproduced causing protein tangles in the brain that block the paths that lead to blockage of the tunnels that deliver the dopamine to the various muscle groups throughout the body. Rick has found your theory to be false and backs it up from professional, well known journals.

I have two mutations in my Parkin2 gene. I have an MRI that shows the protein tangles causing organic personality syndrome. The dopamine cannot be uptaken by the striatum, the dopamine neurons get the message that it is producing too much dopamine and begins self destruction of the neurons. That I have proof of in the form of an Fdopa PET scan.

The chemical analysis you have made of Parkinson's disease may be irrefutable, many scientist have agreed with you for years. But replacing the dopamine with a synthetic form has not improved the Parkinson's patient quality of life long term. There is a reason why and new theories must be researched. Rick, by following the point of the dead dopanine backwords to find where the process starts to go wrong is more systematic than trying to replace or compensate for the loss of dopamine. It has been 40 years and billions of dollars of research money attempting to prove your theory. You said you found the answer and offered it to people on this site by giving your private e-mail address. I took you up on your offer on condition that it be an open patent. Either you won't risk the disproving of your theory, of you are looking to make millions by patenting it. I question your motives based on these facts.

Rick has listed his scientific sources at your request. You choose to ignore his attempt to defend, fairly, his theory by answering your demands for his sources, rather than attempting to disprove his sources. You post a link that doesn't work to prove your theory. The name of your source, "Seed Magazine" does not sound like a human biological journal, so I see no bearing on this discussion.

Sincerely,
Vicky

The suggestion that the dopaminergic neurons is not the primary fault in Parkinson's Disease is the primary fault in the theory. There are a number of causes of Parkinson's Disease and a number of ways it can manifest itself, but insufficient dopaminergic activity is common to all of them.

I certainly don't have, as you have claimed, a simplistic knowledge of the brain. Over a period of more than ten years I wrote up twenty volumes of human biochemistry. This included the structure, reproduction and function of every single cell type in the nervous system, all of which I have detailed in what I have written.

You claim that I have argued that the starting point is after the neurons have been destroyed amd insist that they cannot be reproduced. This is plainly false. I have never suggested this. The cells involved in Parkinson's Disease do not reproduce in adults. However, despite it being widely assumed, there is no published research at all demonstrating that there is massive cell loss in Parkinson's Disease. f-Dopa pet scans don't show loss of cells. They demonstrate a reduction in cell activity.

I have never suggested using a synthetic form of dopamine as you have claimed.

It has not taken forty years and billions of dollars to prove "my" theory, as you have claimed.

Firstly I am nowhere near old enough to have been researching Parkinson's Disease (or anything else) for forty years. Secondly I have never applied for or received any funding, let alone billions of dollars worth. Thirdly, I have not addressed anything on this Thread apart from the theory put forward concerning stress and Parkinson's Disease.

In correction of what you have claimed, I did not recently make an offer to you or other people on this site by giving my e-mail address. My offer was only to Rick as part of a challenge I made to him.

Rick has not listed scientific sources at my request as you have claimed. He has not provided any scientific evidence at all that proves his theory. Scientific fact plainly contradicts it. MY criticisms (apart from whether or not Gypsys are stressed !) have gone completely unanswered. He writes of "neurogenesis" when there is no "neurogenesis" in the dopaminergic neurons.

I have not quoted "Seed Magazine" in support of what I have written as you have claimed.

I have not attempted to prove "my" theory here. I have solely addressed, with scientific evdience, Rick's theory that stress causes Parkinson's Disease. If you carefully read what he has written, you will see that he gave up that claim in response to what I had written.

I have underestimated your scholarly value.

"I certainly don't have, as you have claimed, a simplistic knowledge of the brain. Over a period of more than ten years I wrote up twenty volumes of human biochemistry. This included the structure, reproduction and function of every single cell type in the nervous system, all of which I have detailed in what I have written. "

I would certainly like to read them. Mind sharing the publisher?

"Firstly I am nowhere near old enough to have been researching Parkinson's Disease (or anything else) for forty years. Secondly I have never applied for or received any funding, let alone billions of dollars worth."

Oh, a fellow freelancer! And a young one at that! I can understand my own obsession, being a PWP and all. What is your motivation and educational background? Biochemistry? Physics? I admit to being a freelancer there too, having studied pschology at an underfunded state university. You?

" There are a number of causes of Parkinson's Disease and a number of ways it can manifest itself, but insufficient dopaminergic activity is common to all of them. "

Ah, a point of agreement! But...

"So "neurogenesis" (cell reproduction) is completely irrelevant to Parkinson's Disease because the cells involved in Parkinson's Disease never reproduce."

...here is where I have trouble. I assume that such a hope-crushing statement is more than opinion. Medline indicates that the ball is very much in play:

"1: J Neurochem. 2007 Feb;100(3):587-95. Epub 2006 Nov 13.

Dopamine and adult neurogenesis.

Borta A, Hoglinger GU.

Experimental Neurology, Philipps University, Marburg, Germany.

Dopamine is an important neurotransmitter implicated in the regulation of mood,
motivation and movement. We have reviewed here recent data suggesting that
dopamine, in addition to being a neurotransmitter, also plays a role in the
regulation of endogenous neurogenesis in the adult mammalian brain. In addition,
we approach a highly controversial question: can the adult human brain use
neurogenesis to replace the dopaminergic neurones in the substantia nigra that
are lost in Parkinson's disease?

PMID: 17101030 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]"

I vote for hope. But, then, I have Parkinson's Disease and without hope I'm a goner. Like a lot of folks, I guess.

The study you referred to does nothing more than ask the question as to whether dopaminergic neurons can reproduce. It provides no evidence at all in support of dopaminergic neurons reproducing in adults. It's not a controversial question at all. There is no such evidence.

When I studied every cell type, I purposefully checked to see whether mitosis ("neurogenesis" in neurons) occurred in each type, and at what ages it occurred and ceased. All cell types reproduce in humans. However, four of them do not reproduce in adults. The well known one is teeth, which cease reproducing in adults and younger. The cells involved in Parkinson's Disease (the dopaminergic neurons) are another of those four cell types well known not to reproduce. This fact is the basis for the stem cell theorists.

Looks like your other questions are again solely aimed at trying to distract attention from the issue. You're not genuinely interested in the answers. If you knew them, you'd emphatically realise that you'd have to find different means of trying to distract attention from the scientific scrutiny of your theory.

Trying to figure out a single cause of PD?
I wonder if for some it may be caused one way, or a combined set of factors, and for another the cause/causes could be totally different.
Differing sets of life circumstances, stress, nutrition, hereditary factors and individual body chemical factors. The whole picture most likely rather than just one thing?

Some causes can be far more common than others. However, that there are a variety of causes is true for virtually all medical disorders.