I searched Pubmed with the following in the search box:

Neuroprotecti* Parkinson's

This should capture any entry with the words neuroprotection and Parkinson's or the words neuroprotective and Parkinson's – I got 3771 hits.

Then I search the following:

Novel therapy Parkinson's

I got 1405 hits.

Then I searched the following:

"Novel therapy" Parkinson's

That will only capture things that have the words novel and therapy right next to each other, along with the word Parkinson's – I got 13 hits.

We must be doing something differently.

I agree with almost everything you said – our two points don't have to be mutually exclusive, I don't think – well, at least in my opinion they don't have to be.

I fear that gratitude for the presence of levodopa, while completely understandable, considering that there is little else, softens the urgency for an alternative.

And, in my opinion, randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials do exactly what they're supposed to do, and we need them to do that. Granted, I could always read more about this subject, but I've read a fair amount about it – about the placebo effect, I mean – and based on what I've read, I believe it is necessary to briefly separate the placebo effect from any actual therapeutic benefit just to confirm that there is actual therapeutic benefit – and it is briefly that this happens – the only time the placebo effect is separated from the actual therapeutic effect is during the trial or trials. In all other contexts they are firmly glued together and we get the benefit of both.

But everything you said about the system needing to be taken apart and reassembled, and it being profit driven not humanitarian driven and the need for accountability – I agree with 100%.