Good morning. I have jumped on the mucuna bandwagon, and don't want to say too much about my experience yet, until at least a few days go by, but so far....

My question is this: from my recent research, am I to understand that this is a substance that has been in use for this condition for 4,000 years-plus, has been clearly shown by clinical studies with standard rigorous parameters in at least India and the UK to be not only clearly at least as effective as Sinemet, but possibly two or three times as effective, with fewer side effects, and possible long-term benefits unattainable with other substances...

and further that it is a substance approved by the FDA but just 'not available in pharmacies' (but it is readily available even at my corner Vitamin Shoppe for about $30 for two or more months supply)...

meaning that my doctor will not lose his license in suggesting it, but that the only reason that I haven't heard anything about it from the medical establishment (and they say they havent heard of it when asked) is that they are not being paid by a pharmaceutical company to tell us about it?

People, am I getting this right? Is there some piece of this that I am missing?

If I am right, then I am stunned beyond belief. It means that our doctors are not really healers, are not really interested in what could help us, and further that the old chestnut we always hear "Well, if it worked, we would all hear about it) is really crapola....AND consequently it also means there are many possibilities out there, and the information we've been getting at the doctor's office has been woefully and almost willfully incomplete at best, and deliberately biased at worst, and basically to me does a lot to undermine the credibility of the body of medical knowledge that we rely on.

If some think this is too extreme a point of view, I would love to hear your comments, because I woke up in shock this morning thinking about all this.