soccertese

You write:

"i'll be blunt. this is not for amateurs. this is difficult work even for professional, degreed statisticians since you are looking for very subtle affects."

Do not underestimate the skills of PwP. You do not stop being a professional at the moment of your diagnosis with Parkinson's. You don't suddenly lose the skills built up over decades of education and work. You do not lose the ability to learn new material.

Do not underestimate what can be achieved by a group of motivated people working together.

On what evidence do you base the assertion:
"if a database was full of useful info that might lend itself to statistical analysis, it's been examined. if a database hasn't been examined, it's very likely it isn't useful."

I don't see armies of statisticians mining the data for the benefit of existing PwP. I don't see a bottomless pit of research funding going into the epidemiology of Parkinson's. If we want more research, we'll have to do it ourselves.

Finally, I don't see the job of a PwP as being just to go to the medics and take the drugs and, occassionaly, be experimented on in a trial. It's our health, our life. Make use of the medics, yes. Make use of the researchers, yes. But, it's too important just to leave everything to them.

I thank lindylanka for kicking-off the proceedings with a correlation between Parkinson's and Pernicious Anemia.

1 down. 41 to go!

John