"Most worringly, as a previous thread about MS proves, many neuros and medicos are unable to see the flaws in current treatments based on faulty diagnosis. "

would you be more specific? parkinson's diagnosis involves identifying a specific set of symptoms, not doing laboratory analyses. they treat the symptoms, not the disease because they can't yet.
what flaws in current treatment? my conventional treatments reduce my symptoms, they may not be perfect but how are they flawed? please define flawed. i have tried iv glutathione, low dose naltrexone, chelation therapy, dozens of supplements and nothing has helped. i see a lot of promising treatments and research in the pipeline, a lot being done by non-pharma.

so i ask you, what specific pd research should be done that isn't being done, what treatments do you recommend that have independently been proven effective?? how should i treat my pd symptoms better than i currently am? and if if you do suggest something, please provide conclusive proof it works.

as anyone reading this board for awhile knows, most promising pd treatments have proven in larger trials to either not produce enough benefit and/or had too many side affects to not be approved by the FDA or couldn't be marketable. if i was a neuro i'd be skeptical of any new treatment that didn't have a peer reviewed clinical trial. heck, there is still a debate going on about the benefit of stents.