I think all of this questioning and experimenting is important. I've put a lot of faith in Western research, especially that which is done by MJFF (because if anyone pushes the boundaries of the traditional, Western research paradigm, it's them). But it is becoming increasingly clear that we know nothing! Or next to nothing, or something but not everything ... whatever ....

For years we had been told that HDL cholesterol is "good." Turns out it is = when in the blood stream. But a report released last month indicates HDL is bad when deposited on artery walls. They just hadn't bothered to look there yet.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/201...iscovered.aspx

Which brings me to a more thoughtful, philosophical take on the question of finding answers in science or religion (or any other place that claims to have irrefutable laws), this piece in a recent New York Times on the "Dangers of Certainty," about the great PBS series in the 1970's called "The Ascent of Man." Although 40 years old, I think this truth remains: there are no certainties in science; that the more we know, the more we don't know.

It says, in part:

"He began the show with the words, “One aim of the physical sciences has been to give an actual picture of the material world. One achievement of physics in the 20th century has been to show that such an aim is unattainable.” For Dr. Bronowski, there was no absolute knowledge and anyone who claims it — whether a scientist, a politician or a religious believer — opens the door to tragedy. All scientific information is imperfect and we have to treat it with humility. Such, for him, was the human condition.

This is the condition for what we can know, but it is also, crucially, a moral lesson. It is the lesson of 20th-century painting from Cubism onwards, but also that of quantum physics. All we can do is to push deeper and deeper into better approximations of an ever-evasive reality. The goal of complete understanding seems to recede as we approach it."

I put this here because it confirms my own view of the situation, and that the point is to never stop searching - but come to some sort of understanding that we all are doing the best that we can.

I once a while tried vinpocetine for about six months and I can tell the difference in a couple of weeks. There are some studies, I remember, one of them was that NFL folks used it for treating concussion induced brain injuries with good results. I am going to add it back again...

If you do, consider signing up with Harry's experiment and see if the effect is esaily detected.

Hey Gerry.. I'm not sure how to contact you on this thing, but I wanted to know if the Hinz protocol worked for you? I'm thinking about going on it myself & would really appreciate any input.. **

If you do a search for Hinz protocol you will find quite a bit of discussion on it. I rely upon it completely and it does a great job. It abolishes all of my symptoms which are primarily axial such as gait and balance issues with a little tremor. Oddly, these are not supposed to respond to levodopa but mine do. My only complaints are the cost and inconvenience of taking the powders. It's advantage is that you can take enough levodopa (in the form of mucuna) to do the job and not get side effects. It is also said to halt or sometimes reverse progression but I can't verify it except to say I haven't progressed in the couple of years I have been on it. Good luck Peppahmint.