OK I have rescue my fellow researchers now!! Researchers are not that bad~ most of us get it when you read a paper or when the data is presented. As a patient, I am allowed to speculate and say it out in public any theory I like, its considered ok and encouraged. But as a scientist, I do speculate, dream of out of the box solutions, high profile publications within my lab. But in a publication, my theory has to be strong, be able to stand further testing and most importantly should be based on my own data.
ans mesh wth others work
PubMed has a lot of reports but the quality of the reports is not the same and sometimes, the abstract doesnt even accurately reflect the data presented. Thats the reason, most researchers tend to be cautious which might seem unimaginative or they are not thinking about it.

Even Watson and Crick who discovered the structure of DNA, had just one line at the end of their paper about the potential and impact of their discovery r and it starts "it has not escaped our attention that........
A simple statement about a discovery that formed the basis of modern biology.

thanks, I change my hat now !!!

QUOTE=reverett123;442335]They just don't get it. They are fixated on "one cause-one disease-one cure" thinking and don't entertain the possibility of something far more complex like "exposure to A sets initial conditions, nothing happens unless B is encountered in which case system is primed, if two or more of C through M impact the system simultaneously then a cascade is triggered with the ultimate disease being determined by the particular combination that initiate the process"

Something along those lines is needed to account for the fact that PD is sporadic yet common but very individualized. Tweak a variable or two and you've got a different condition but it is still messing with your brain and it is still degenerative and it still strikes after mid-life etc.[/QUOTE]