For sure; one thing we can all agree on is that PD has put us in the same 
boat, and we're all fighting, in varying degrees, the same enemy.

I was diagnosed in 2005..  I knew some time before, that something was going 
on.  I could tell I was'nt as sharp (flying and racing). I probably could 
have been experiencing the onset a year or more before I went in for a 
check-up.

I can't imagine the level of your suffering.  I have no frame of reference. 
I went progressively down hill the first 5 years (I won't repeat what I've 
said before) but have been doing much better the last couple years.

Dave


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rayilyn Brown" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: NO FAITH VERSUS SCIENCE DILEMMA


> Dave
>
> I'm glad you've found our exchanges stimulating and therapeutic as  I 
> have. Thanks for putting yourself out there.  I think I said before I 
> can't  do much so it keeps the brain  cells firing.
>
> How  long have you had  PD?  My first five years were easy, but by 7 was 
> ready for  DBS.   This is my 16th.
>
> The  last thing I would want to do is  make anyone's  life more difficult. 
> I think we all want to help each other!
>
> Ray
>
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: DAVID MCMURRAY
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 8:54 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: NO FAITH VERSUS SCIENCE DILEMMA
>
> Ray, I  appreciate your response, but  no apology necessary.  Our
> discussions have been theraputic and stimulating to me.  And I respect and
> actually have been quite amazed at  the work you have to be putting in to
> feed the info you do to all the members.
>
> My battle with PD is obviously insignificant to what you have to deal 
> with.
> I am one of the more fortunate ones; the progression has been almost
> non-existant over the last couple years, for which I am most grateful.
>
> You're doing an exceptional job, and I'm sure the rest of the members feel
> the same way.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Rayilyn Brown" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 11:41 PM
> Subject: Re: NO FAITH VERSUS SCIENCE DILEMMA
>
>
>> Dave
>>
>> I'm hard to offend.   I  know I sometimes give my opinion so I apologize. 
>> However, my aim has been to provide information rather than think I could 
>> change anybody else's opinion.  I don't think I said "faith has no place 
>> in science", but are different ways of " knowing" our world.
>>
>> I don't think we were debating anything, but talking past each other.
>>
>> No harm done.
>>
>> Ray
>>
>> ----Original Message----- 
>> From: DAVID MCMURRAY
>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 1:02 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: NO FAITH VERSUS SCIENCE DILEMMA
>>
>> Rick  and Ray;
>> I agreed to that a long time ago, but my posts have been a direct 
>> response
>> to issues brought up by both of you.  If you don't want me to respond to
>> "faith has no place in science", don't post it.  I was invited to debate 
>> the
>> "when does life begin" subject....
>>
>> If I have offended anyone, I apologize, I thought we were having an 
>> honest,
>> objective debate on issues important to all of us.
>>
>> I do, unless I get kicked off, intend to respond if these and similar
>> statements are posted to the membership.
>>
>> Regards;
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Rick McGirr" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 11:39 AM
>> Subject: Re: NO FAITH VERSUS SCIENCE DILEMMA
>>
>>
>>> Ray, I think you meant to address this to Dave. I agree with you.
>>>
>>> Dave, I think the conversation threatens to veer wide from the purpose 
>>> of
>>> this listserv. If we cannot help the cause, which is fighting PD, then 
>>> we
>>> should go somewhere else to 'talk' about other issues such as personally
>>> held beliefs or misconceptions, or the benefits and limits of science or
>>> religion.
>>>
>>> I stand ready to discuss a range of subjects, anything you like, 
>>> anywhere
>>> you like, public or private. But we've heard from a great many here who
>>> would love to avoid the arguments that often erupt. Unfortunately, 
>>> science
>>> and religion do seem to intersect over PD and medical research, and that
>>> causes sparks. Many people around the world use this list as a forum for
>>> giving and getting support and advice on the ups and downs of living 
>>> with
>>> PD. I respect that, and I think it's a very important use for this
>>> listserv. I think I'm pretty much done with commenting on religion 
>>> and/or
>>> science here. I'm inviting any others who might want to continue the
>>> conversation to suggest a forum for us to meet, thereby saving this 
>>> place
>>> for those who need it.
>>>
>>> Let me suggest Gather.com, where I have been occasionally posting
>>> different things since 2006. It's designed more for writers, rather than
>>> the quick and easy format of facebook. There are many viewpoints
>>> represented there, and thousands of members. It's not the fastest site,
>>> but its content is rich and varied.
>>>
>>> Rick McGirr
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rayilyn Brown
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 1:30 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: NO FAITH VERSUS SCIENCE DILEMMA
>>>
>>> Rick
>>>
>>> Poverty, starvation, and horrible diseases like Parkinson's threaten 
>>> human
>>> dignity, not science.  There is  nothing noble about Alzheimer's, ALS or
>>> Huntington's.   I do  not wish to return to the lives of our ancestors
>>> living in cold caves, eating raw  meat and dying at 18.
>>>
>>> And another thing, it is not faith versus science.  They are two 
>>> different
>>> ways of "knowing" about our existence; one requires evidence and is
>>> self-correcting, the other allows you to believe anything you want.  It 
>>> is
>>> not a matter of picking one over the other,  but of knowing the 
>>> difference
>>> between the two.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- 
>>> From: DAVID MCMURRAY
>>> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 4:58 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: MJFOX ON SANTORUM/FAITH VERSUS SCIENCE
>>>
>>> Ray, there are many voices in the scientic community on both sides of 
>>> the
>>> issue, but, unfortuneatly, the loudest seem to come from athiests that 
>>> are
>>> on a mision to prove there is no God..  An example of  this is one you 
>>> may
>>> know, James Randi, who was kicked out of a Sunday School class and has
>>> dedicated his life, as an atheist, "tried and true".  He agrees with 
>>> guys
>>> like biologist Richard Dawkins, (this info is gleaned from Big Think
>>> Editors) who has stated that scientists never need faith.  But then goes
>>> on
>>> to say that his "faith is based on the scientific method.  (a religion)?
>>>
>>> David Gelernter, a professor of computer science at Yale University has
>>> expressed concern that technology will eventually threaten human dignity
>>> and
>>> integrity, making the "wisdom" and "moral seriousness" found in religion
>>> even more important to future generations".  He says without the moral
>>> absolutes found in religion, technology's increasinrg intrusion into 
>>> human
>>> life via cloning and genetic engineering may present a "tremendously
>>> dangerous, moral conflict of interest" to mankind.
>>>
>>> For me, it takes more faith to believe that the universe just 
>>> haphazardly
>>> came together in perfect orderly fashion, (the result of a Big Bang), 
>>> than
>>> to believe in a Creator.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "Rayilyn Brown" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 8:36 PM
>>> Subject: Re: MJFOX ON SANTORUM
>>>
>>>
>>>> Rick
>>>>
>>>> I like your observation that life is a continuum.  We were all star 
>>>> dust
>>>> once.
>>>>
>>>> IVF  sure changed the abortion argument didn't it?  I mean who knew 
>>>> about
>>>> zygotes among the non-scientific population?
>>>>
>>>> People who  oppose science and base their opinions on faith should not 
>>>> be
>>>> making research decisions in a secular society IMO.
>>>>
>>>> What I am most  concerned about is this hostility to science.   Faith
>>>> didn't give us knowledge of DNA  or IVF.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message----- 
>>>> From: Rick McGirr
>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 12:45 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: MJFOX ON SANTORUM
>>>>
>>>> After listening to MJ Fox's diplomatic approach, I clicked on the short
>>>> with Ron Paul and heard his pandering. I have also heard Santorum's
>>>> absolute statements, and Gingrich's hypocritical traditionalism, 
>>>> Romney's
>>>> posturing, and President Obama's strong support for a woman's right to
>>>> choose. I can characterize much of what I hear as political
>>>> "peacock-ing",
>>>> if you'll allow me.
>>>>
>>>> The discussion about when a person's life begins is an interesting one. 
>>>> I
>>>> expect that the more convinced one is about when personhood begins, the
>>>> more resolute one will be about the issue of when abortion is 
>>>> allowable.
>>>> The view that the fetus' life need not be considered at all seems to 
>>>> have
>>>> taken a back seat to the idea that, at some stage along the way, a 
>>>> viable
>>>> human person emerges during the nine month process, and "person" means
>>>> "citizen" and "citizen" means "rights".
>>>>
>>>> For me, the terms need further clarification. "Life" to me is a
>>>> continuum.
>>>> If I fully represent my views here, it will be something different than
>>>> what others would state. The questions crop up like new plant growth
>>>> after
>>>> a forest fire. Trying to be a bit dainty here, there is a lot of "life"
>>>> that ends up in places other than where God intended for our 
>>>> propagation.
>>>> If a couple copulate unsuccessfully, are eggs and sperm cells "life",
>>>> even
>>>> when they don't combine? Is this an example of when "life" ends? How is
>>>> this life/death to be classified? Is there evidence of a moment at 
>>>> which
>>>> the breath of life is blown into a group of cells? Does this "breath"
>>>> cause a group of cells to be an individual? When is it appropriate to
>>>> bestow full citizen's rights to this group of cells? Is there a moment
>>>> which passes, after which we can draw the distinction between persons 
>>>> and
>>>> biological material? Further, do frozen, non-implanted embryos meet any
>>>> such definitions? These 'groups of cells' are not in a survivable
>>>> condition, once they are thawed. They still have to successfully be
>>>> implanted by the doctor, and attach to the uterine wall of the 
>>>> candidate
>>>> mother and develop the umbilical cord, etc, through the months during
>>>> gestation. Is there a mother/child relationship between the 
>>>> un-implanted
>>>> embryo while it survives in the womb? Is the woman actually a "mother",
>>>> before, during, and/or after such attempts are made, either in the
>>>> bedroom
>>>> or the laboratory? In the case of unsuccessful attempts, should the
>>>> doctor, or the copulating couple, be charged with negligence or worse?
>>>> This is not a ridiculous question, within the framework of current
>>>> discussions, that is, if "life begins at conception".
>>>>
>>>> Are these and a host of other questions not legally, socially,
>>>> religiously, personally, politically pertinent? Is this not as thorny a
>>>> range of subjects as you could encounter in any creekside raspberry
>>>> patch?
>>>>
>>>> My view is that even though males participate in the process of
>>>> procreation, women ought to be the majority of any body deciding on a
>>>> woman's right to ask for and receive abortion. If I were a woman, I
>>>> wouldn't want any gaggle of rich, white men to sit in judgment of my
>>>> sexuality and the sanctity of my actions. I also view the discussion of 
>>>> a
>>>> woman's right to abortion services as a distracting parallel discussion
>>>> on
>>>> the rights of the cells of embryos. My view is that there is no 
>>>> evidence
>>>> of personhood at the stage of combined sperm and egg, before 
>>>> implantation
>>>> in the uterus, including those embryos in the freezers of IVF clinics.
>>>> The
>>>> use of such embryos for medical research should be allowed and fully
>>>> supported.
>>>>
>>>> So many questions, and so many answers...
>>>>
>>>> Rick McGirr
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network
>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rayilyn Brown
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:51 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: MJFOX ON SANTORUM
>>>>
>>>> Fox has interesting take on Santorum’s ESCR beliefs:
>>>>
>>>> http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/14/michael-j-fox-on-rick-santorums-anti-stem-cell-research-beliefs-i-dont-want-to-suppress-ideas-i-dont-agree-with/?hpt=pm_mid
>>>>
>>>> Ray
>>>> Rayilyn Brown
>>>> Past Director AZNPF
>>>> Arizona Chapter National Parkinson Foundation
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to:
>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to:
>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to:
>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to:
>>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to:
>>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to:
>>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: 
>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: 
>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: 
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: 
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn