We see two PwP, both of the same age and both diagnosed at the same time, but one doing well and the other doing poorly. And what we usually think is "we're all different". Although correct, this way of thinking may be covering up differences in the effectiveness of our treatment regimen (drugs, supplements, DBS, exercise etc.).

Let's try to pin down what I'm thinking of. Suppose we had access to the world's best doctors who, if necessary, we could see at a moment's notice; and, suppose that we could use, without financial limitations, any therapy that is available now; then, how would we be doing compared to how we are doing?

Suppose also that we had perfect measures of how we are actually doing, call this A, and how we would be doing if given the perfect treatment, B. Let's set the measures up so that a higher figure is good. And, let's make it clear that we're concerned with the individual, not the average. For instance, two people could have the same treatments but, because their underlying needs are different, they could have different B values.

Let's create a measure, Q, to represent the quality of our treatment, defined as A divided by B. Then if we had a Q score of 1, it would indicate that we had the best possible treatment, and a Q score of 0 would indicate that we were dead.

A Q score of 0.9 would indicate that we're doing almost as well as is possible with existing technology. With such a limited up-side, it would suggest that rather than hone our regimen, we should be interested in research.

A Q score of 0.5 would suggest that our treatment could be considerably improved: that we should probably be more interested in ways to improve the quality of our treatment, rather than research into new therapies.

I'd be grateful to hear from others about the quality of their treatment.

Although it's ill-defined, my very rough estimate of my Q score is 0.7.

John