Parkinson's Disease Tulip


advertisement
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-11-2018, 09:33 PM #11
Marty Hinz, MD Marty Hinz, MD is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 11
5 yr Member
Marty Hinz, MD Marty Hinz, MD is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 11
5 yr Member
Confused

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tupelo3 View Post
Before everyone gets overly excited about carbidopa and risk of death, let's think this through rationally. Whether carbidopa contributes to an increase in PD death rate is beyond the scope of my knowledge. The science discussed in the review may all make sense. However, let's keep in mind who the lead author is and remember, we can always do plenty of fancy things with statistics to make unrelated outcomes appear to be something factual. Although a case is made for a relationship between the start of carbidopa use and the beginning of an increase in PD death rate, it may also be unrelated to a causal effect and related to some other common variable.

For example, we know two facts that have occurred over the same time period:
1} Average life expectance has increased significantly from 1970 to 2010, and we know that PD, more than anything, is a disease of aging. The rate of occurrence per thousand increases dramatically every year we age, as does the rate of death.

2) There is a much better understanding today of PD, and subsequently many more people getting diagnosed that may have been either undiagnosed back then or misdiagnosed.

3) The interaction of the two items above. Older people have more problems, get more illnesses, and die more often. Many times the death is related to several variables. In the '70s, I never remember someone dying from PD (what actually is that anyway). In fact, I probably never even heard of PD. The cause of a death would probably be listed as the problem that PD instigated. For instance, an 85 year old with PD falls, breaks a hip, gets pneumonia from being bed ridden, and eventually dies from congestive heart failure. What does the doctor put down on the death certificate as the cause?

Finally, percentage increases (as Hinz reports) are usually dramatically huge when starting from a low point, yet not always practically significant. Case in point some numbers from a CDC article that I have (sorry no link so you'll have to trust me). This is a table of deaths per 100,000 for PD over the 10 year time period 2002 - 2011.


Parkinson's disease death rates by age groups:

2011 * * * * * * 0.1 1.3 12.8 76.0 168.1 7.0
2010 * * * * * * 0.2 1.3 11.8 74.8 165.9 6.8
2009 * * * * * * 0.2 1.3 11.2 70.8 157.0 6.5
2008 * * * * * * 0.2 1.2 12.3 71.2 157.4 6.6
2007 * * * * * * 0.1 1.2 11.7 71.5 157.0 6.5
2006 * * * * * * 0.2 1.2 12.0 69.5 157.6 6.5
2005 * * * * * * 0.2 1.4 12.8 71.1 156.0 6.6
2004 * * * * * * 0.2 1.2 11.9 67.4 145.1 6.2
2003 * * * * * * 0.2 1.3 12.6 67.6 145.8 6.3
2002 * * * * * * 0.1 1.2 12.1 63.8 142.2 6.0

Sorry, but it's hard to post a table here. The first column after year is Ages 45-54, then 55-64, 65-74, and 85-94. The last column is the age adjusted average. As can be clearly seen in the first three age groups there is hardly any change in average death rate attributed to PD. The increase does become more apparent in the 75-84 and 85-94 year old groups. And, clearly the trend on age adjusted average is increasing. However, although the increase overall from 6/100,000 to 7/100,000 may be statistically significant, given the size of the population, is it really practical? Is it just possible that people who die with PD have multiple complications at the end and it's just easier for the assigning doctor to list PD as the cause?
The foundation of the paper is Center for Disease Control death data. You are picking apart CDC data. I would suggest that if you feel the CDC is flawed in its statistical reporting you write a paper outing the problems or give them a call. The death data in the paper you refer to was not compiled by the authors. In the mean time go back and read the paper carefully it is written by doctors with degrees in theoretic chemistry. There is no other explanation put forth as a hypothesis supporting the problems cited in the paper. Marty Hinz, MD
Marty Hinz, MD is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote

advertisement
Old 05-19-2018, 07:09 AM #12
jeffreyn jeffreyn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 352
5 yr Member
jeffreyn jeffreyn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 352
5 yr Member
Default

Someone else is skeptical about the Hinz et al. "carbidopa paper" ...

Carbidopa and B6... Is there something to worry about? | Parkinson's on the Move

(hat tip to dumpelkin at HU for the link)
jeffreyn is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
"Thanks for this!" says:
anagirl (05-19-2018), made it up (05-19-2018), soccertese (05-20-2018)
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Drug interactions of Coumadin, Comtan, Carbidopa And Levodopa, Carbidopa And Levodopa lou_lou Parkinson's Disease 0 06-23-2011 11:50 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin • Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise v2.7.1 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
 

NeuroTalk Forums

Helping support those with neurological and related conditions.

 

The material on this site is for informational purposes only,
and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment
provided by a qualified health care provider.


Always consult your doctor before trying anything you read here.