I had hoped to get back online last night to respond to some of your replies. My ISP went down so it didn’t happen.

I want to thank every one that has replied so far to this thread. If nothing else, I have sparked conversation on a subject that needs to be discussed. Don’t ever worry about offending me with your honest answers. I don’t get offended easily. Some of you said I wouldn’t like your opinion. It’s not whether I like your opinion or not. (There is an old saying about opinions being like…. They all stink) It’s about you telling it like it is. The way you see it. In a way I have been surprised at some of the replies. Some of you have been holding out on us. You folks have really put some thought in to your replies. Who told you I’d be posting this subject? Anyhow I appreciate you being so honest with your answers. Rosebud, I’m glad you know how your car starts now.

So maybe the direction of research isn’t a problem. I would still like to see someone look into it the way I described or something close to it. There is certainly room for it out there in research land. I feel there is something there that has been overlooked. Something fairly simple. From reading the information that Michael directed me to at the Lasker Foundation, I can see why Parkinson research skewed in the direction it did. Rick may be correct in that they are looking for a magic bullet. Peg, thank you for being on the front lines and setting me straight. It’s good to see the patient is finally a part of the solution.

GregD