How does the statement optimal competitive inhibition balance mean nothing? Competitive inhibition is defined as a form of enzyme inhibition where binding of the inhibitor to the active site on the enzyme prevents binding of the substrate and vice versa. Given that both 5-htp and L-dopa compete for the AADC enzyme(along with histidine and phenylalanine) they are thusly involved in competitive inhibition with each other.

Sources
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?...n+regions+rats

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3157489/

Full bibliography - http://neurosupport.com/764-2/

I also want to begin to see independent studies on their work, but right now there are none. I do not believe that simply because there are none warrants disbelief in all of their work thus far though. We should be skeptical but not dismissive.

Also what they are doing in the treatment of parkinsons is not that different from the conventional treatment of it. They are still using L-dopa, the only difference is they are not using carbidopa, but rather using 5-htp to control side effects of L-dopa. They also use Tyrosine to control fluctuations in synaptic concentrations of dopamine/serotonin by way of melanin steal. Source - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4266417/. As well as L-Cysteine because L-dopa has been show to deplete sulfur amino acids. Along with other co-factors.

In regards to engsecs situation, i mean it really is up to him/her to decide what to do. I think the fact that his/her father has been unable to get out of bed for the last 2 years which was not assisted by conventional treatment, signifies there is no further benefit to be had from that. The father is already beginning to see improvement, in a situation where there is no other treatment to be done that can offer benefit to someone in such a severe condition. So to me, I dont see a reason for objection towards it. What other option does he have? Why not at least try especially when there is evidence to support the validity of it?