I am thinking we agree on more than we disagree but things get lost in translation, not to mention that when I find myself dozing I may not be writing with as much clarity as I could be. I just wanted to clear up a few things.

The Brin quote on "noisy data" those are his words, not mine. (IMHO) John is actually doing what Brin is espousing albeit on a much smaller scale. There is a fantastic interview in Wired with Brin; I think you may like it. Brin's idea behind 23andme is that the hypothesis comes later. I think we are talking different research areas. With epidemiology I thought goal was to collect data and analyze, then look to prove possibilities. Obviously, molecular biology and drug trials are different. Regardless of type of study; bonafide research in PD is also hindered by low sample sizes and selection bias, so I don't know we can single out John on that.


I think Sergey Brin is one of our unsung heroes. He is the first to come forward and actually start putting the pieces together by looking at us, our environment, and linking to our genome. He is actually diving in and attempting to put together puzzle pieces while the rest of the non Nobel caliber researchers are earning their bread and butter by adding more pieces. Not criticizing but eventually someone has to stop and notice that one of the key missing puzzle pieces is the patient. Fruit flies and rats only tell you so much.

I think it insulting in light of this to call John's work "entertainment". BTW, he has updated the site and has a "philosophy" that btw just received a thumbs up from a well connected doctor who took the survey from my Facebook link. She knows that there is more to cracking the code than registering at MJFF Trial Finder. You may regard this as frivolous but collecting random bits of seemingly pointless facts may some day elucidate why in twins, one may develop PD while the sibling is spared; genetic studies haven't yet explained this. It may also eventually offer some explanation as to the incidence of married couples (conjugal parkinsonism) who both develop PD. Studies again mention chronic exposure to toxins but this we already know...more likely it may be something inside the home.

Given that researchers are still debating whether our "gold standard" drug is toxic, I don't see any harm in answering a survey or minding my p's and q's on a keyboard as harmful. I expect that people who visit here and link to the databank are intelligent and reasonable enough to ask their doctors before they add on herbal supplements, etc.