Soccertese,

I know that you realize that the criticisms you level at John't endeavors to collect data apply to most PD research in general, so with all due respect what is the issue. I do not think that we plan to publish the results in a peer reviewed scientific journal although this is what happens everyday with what passes as reliable and valid data in the research community.

As far as the scientific method goes...it seems to be resulting in scientists reaching a lot of similar or like conclusions but when is the last time a tested proven hypothesis made a difference in your life or anyone else who currently has PD. How many more articles do we really need to know that agonists can cause aberrant behavior? Do I need to hear one more time how my smell is supposed to be impaired?

The problem with the scientific method is that it is excruciatingly slow; has narrow foci, and largely over looks the patient. We hold answers but who is asking? Sergey Brin has made public the deficits in PD research and calls progress "glacial". I can't speak for John, but I support his endeavors because collecting this data is reason enough; there is no need to "prove" anything or hypothesize. That is being taken care of already.

This is about trying to generate data and analyze looking for patterns. Sergey Brin calls the results of what we are doing "noisy data" which most scientists hate, but it is the warm, fuzzy, lifestyle kind of data that show patterns and correlations. These things cannot be discovered in a test tube or in a lone study with 20 PwP. In essence, he started the 23andme PD cohort to collect random data; he has already shown that in breaking the rules you can reach the same conclusions as our elite scientists but in a fraction of the time (6 years for traditional approach and 8 months for Brin's algorithm). Given the differences, I'll sign on with the research misfits. At least there I can feel a little less helpless and frustrated. Maybe that is reason enough for most of us.

Laura