Hello, Kiwi33.

As you know, great advances in Medicine have always been made against the consensus of their time. Even with a very strong resistance. Not only when bloodletting was the most frequent treatment or Semmelweis asked his colleagues to wash their hands of autopsies before treating laboring women (I think it took him 40 years to accept this), but more recently with the same levodopa. The case of the famous neurologist Oliver Sacks from "Despertares" was paradigmatic until 1972 because of his opposition.

A thorough answer does not seem to me to be of interest to most patients and families. I think it would do them more harm than good. So I will limit myself to something much softer.

I am not too interested in the "impact factor" of medical journals or "peer review". I'm more interested in who's writing it and what it says. In fact, it seems to me that this way of looking at studies and their publication in prestigious journals is detrimental to the advancement of medicine, even though it was created to ensure greater rigor.

Shocking Report from Medical Insiders - NSNBC International

The claims were so harsh that I went to the sources to confirm them. And the quotes were correct.

Skeptical of medical science reports?
Skeptical of medical science reports?

Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet:
Horton R. Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?
http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journa...2960696-1.pdf.

Marcia Angell, two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine:
Angell M. Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption. The New York Review of Books magazine.
Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption | by Marcia Angell | The New York Review of Books

These two publishers (there are more), belong to journals with the highest "impact factor".

And on the other hand, we sick people and our families don't have time. And we are already losing patience. And we should lose it more, judging by the "call to action" of the prestigious neurologists Dorsey and Bloem.

This is a boggy subject that I would not like to dwell on any longer than necessary.

Recently I listened to a talk about PD at a scientific conference. The speaker has both medical qualifications and a PhD.

He made the point, backed up with a lot of technical detail in both cases, that PD is not "one disease" any more than cancer is "one disease".

He concluded that it is most unlikely that high doses of Vitamin C will be a "silver bullet" for treatment of all of the many forms of PD any more than there will ever be a "silver bullet" for treating all of the many forms of cancer.