Phil,

My guess is that her protocol, including the antioxidants, doesn't "cure" pd
directly, per se, but it enables the body, via its own mechanisms, to heal
itself.  Ultimately, Maureen, Deepak Chopra, and other practicioners, have
all said too, that when you get down to it, not only can your body heal
itself alot of times without conventional drugs, etc., but it can also do it
without alot of alternative treatments, like herbs, etc.

Typically, a person grows from a child into an adult, physically, without
any help.  Similarly, your body will heal a cut usually, without any
conscious intervention from you.  This principle also applies to more
serious diseases as well.  One of the problems tho' is that we live in an
evermore toxic world, so it becomes harder and harder for your body to do
this independently and repeatedly, especially  if one has some sort of
genetic predisposition toward an illness.  Predisposition, however, does not
equate to predetermination.  It just means that you need to supply your
body's natural healing mechanisms with a little extra help (via nutrition
and supplementation).  And since your body is constantly in the process of
shedding old, dead cells and replacing them with new, (hopefully) healthy
ones, that's the point where this sort of protocol can affect things.  I
don't think it attacks the pd directly, but as your body is generating new
cells, it helps to protect them as they're being created and throughout
their life cycle as well.

Obviously, this sort of approach won't change the pd overnight, but you
should start to just generally better rather quickly.  According to Maureen,
that should happen within 90 days.  At that time, you should begin to have
more energy, etc., altho' I would guess that an actual reversal would take a
few years.  It didn't happen overnight, and your cells aren't replaced that
quickly either.  I don't have any specifics about the cases of reversal that
she refers to, but sometimes due to Dr./patient confidentiality rules, that
sort of thing can't always be divulged.  I'll see tho', if I can't find out
more info, by sending her an email.

This point regarding confidentiality also applies to the recent demands of
listservers for specific patient info, etc., relating to the "snake-oil"
accusations regarding natural dopamine.  I don't think the same demands
would have even been contemplated, let alone so adamantly pressed for, had
the treatment being discussed was something more conventional.   Frankly, I
think some of the demands were out of line, and I've never seen that sort of
disrespect aimed toward any of our other members who are of the conventional
medical establishment.  None of their treatments represents a cure for pd,
and they all certainly stand to profit, whether financially, or via enhanced
status and respect in their fields.

Don't get me wrong.  In saying this, I'm not implying that self-interest is
always necessarily a bad thing, or is it always an unethical reason for
one's motivation.  Personally, I hope to one day combine my interests in the
environment, animal rights, health issues, etc., along with making a living
for myself.  I think often people make the greatest contributions to their
communities and to society, when they are able to marry those things which
interest and motivate them both (self-interest and altruistic desires are
both included here), with the more mundane grind of making a living (which
is primarily self-motivated).  Who's to judge this last item as necessarily
bad either?  Maybe some of these people involved in these snake-oil
activities also have other plans for whatever profits they may make, and
will later use them to make a positive difference, not just for themselves.
If so, then I'm definitely all for self-interest if it also contributes to
the greater good.

Whatever business I end up pursuing myself after retirement from my
permanent job, I hope to make LOTS of money.  I have no intention of
groveling before social security judges if I can help it.  I want to be
financially independent also, so that I can devote my time and money to
those causes which interest me.  Thus, my summary opinion on this little
digression here is that all of us are innocent until proven guilty, when it
comes to one's self-interest outweighing and even negating their professed
desire to help others.  I also feel that ALL practicioners, purveyors of
products (drugs, surgical treatments, herbs, alleged snake-oils), and
general list members, deserve the same level of respect, or disrespect, as
the case may be.

Just one last comment on this subject, before I briefly return to my initial
one and wrap this up for now (I expect to stir the pot with this one!).  In
my opinion, many drugs that are widely accepted and used, should also be
given the designation of snake-oil, as it seems to be defined here.  None of
them used for pd, and often also for other diseases, represents a cure.
Some have side effects, which can be fatal at times.  They nearly were for
an uncle of mine who had a rare reaction to a standard drug given right
after heart attacks occur, and has never been the same since.  I believe
they also played a role in triggering my pd.  I've read before, that death
due to fatal drug reactions and interactions, ranks among the top 10, if not
among the top 5, leading causes of adult deaths in this country.  It ranks
right up there near cancer and heart attacks.  Finally, alot of groups stand
to profit from the research & development, manufacturing, distribution, and
use of these substances.  This doesn't even include the companies who sell
(and have even stolen people's pets, according to animal rights groups)
animals for research, and the labs, hospitals, and universities, who all
profit based on this research.  Ad infinitum.  My intent here is not to be
negative or cynical, but rather to make a point by holding the medical
establishment up to the same level of scrutiny that is normally only
reserved for areas which fall outside its traditional domain.

More on this topic in the next posting to follow this one.  I will try to
answer Phil's other comment to another recent post of mine, and hopefully do
so with less digression.

Before I end this, I want to apologize, at least on behalf of myself, and
hopefully also on behalf of other list members, to Teresa, for what was, in
my opinion, a premature and unfair attack on both your and the English
doctor's (I forget his name right now) credentials and motives.  To claim it
to be a cure would be misleading, but natural dopamine is no snake-oil, and
it has been or still is being researched as a plausible alternative to
L-dopa.  (in mynext post I'll mention some discussion in Maureen Salaman's
book I just got on this very subject).  I feel priveleged to have available
to me, via this list, access to a variety of information and resources, some
of which I use, some I don't, but nevertheless, I believe all of them should
be given equal respect, unless there is an obvious or critical reason for
doing otherwise.  At such time, confrontation might be warranted, but it
should not be reserved only for those whose opinions and professions place
them outside the box.  Personal integrity is not a requirement only to be
waved in the faces of some and not others.

Teresa,  I hope that you will not feel so unwelcome as a result of all of
this, to withdraw from this discussion list.  Your inputs are as valid as
any other, and may I say, in my own opinion, sorely needed.  I think it
important for all views, and all possible ways of dealing with this disease,
be given equal voice.  We're all adults and can choose for ourselves.  I was
reading something today, that those who claim to be concerned about people
flocking to hucksters in their desperation for healing and thus being easy
victims for deception, actually need not worry.  The average person who
seeks alternative care is in fact typically above average in education,
income, etc.  For one thing, the poor can't afford alot of this type of
care, at least until insurance (should they even have any) starts picking up
the tab.  Also, those who are more educated generally have more access to
and will search out any available info.  They will not necessarily take a
MD's word as gospel.

In saying all of this, however, I am neither condemning necessarily, Janet's
motivations for wanting to ensure the integrity and motives behind any
claims made by others.  I just believe it should be applied equally all
around, or not at all.

From my perspective, given my feelings regarding animal rights, a desire to
heal myself naturally, and other factors, I might, for example, feel
justified in condemning those involved in pursuing research and treatment
for their pd via means such as the pig fetal tissue transplants.  I could
perhaps, dismiss this whole area of pursuit as invalid, based on my own
personal biases.  I admit it holds no appeal for me, and until such time as
pd may make me desperate for relief of any kind, I have absolutely no intent
of ever pursuing it as an option.  PD could always change that for me a few
years down the road.

Perhaps, from my recent posting of a couple poems written previously by
myself on this general topic, someone like Jim Finn might feel as if I were
attacking his decision to explore this for himself.  Just for the record,
Jim, I did not mean to in any way belittle nor offend you for having chosen
this route for yourself.  Like I said before, I respect your courage and
hope that it will work well for you.  In my posting, I tried to make it
clear that I in no way judged him, nor anyone else involved with this area
of research.  Like my poem, I Am Torn, was trying to explain, my issue with
some of this research comes not simply from the killing of animals, but the
attitude that it is our right to do so, based on the assumption that human
life outweighs all others in importance.  I do strongly disagree with that
premise, however, I also happen to disagree with some animal rights
activists who say, try to force their own morality onto their pet (i.e., by
forcing their cat or dog to be vegan).  That is wrong in my opinion, cuz it
also violates the natural order of things and forces an animal to go against
its nature.

I do know absolutely and unequivocably, that if I were ever faced literally
with the decision to sacrifice my pet dog, so that I would survive, I would
NEVER even consider it even for a second.  That is because of my personal
relationship with her.  For the same reasons, I could never consider killing
her for food, even faced with starvation.  However, generally God/nature
originally set up life on earth such that all life is dependent on all other
life for survival.  Even eating a salad for lunch involves the sacrifice of
one form of life for another.  But that's the whole key here, that many
humans tend to either forget or to ignore.  All life is interdependent, in
every way, and that also includes Man.  As such, I believe it to be a
natural part of survival to kill other animals for food, etc.  If we're
gonna kill them, then we should also make use of everything we can, whether
it be their flesh for food, their hide for shoes, or their organs to replace
our own defective/damaged ones.  In doing this tho', we are no better or
worse than other animals who also kill to survive.

There is one major difference here that really does separate us from other
animals, and that is our belief in our own self-importance and the
justification that gives us, however misguided, that we exist outside of and
above natural law.   It is worth noting that no other species operates under
this pretense, nor does every human culture.  And no other is thus as
potentially dangerous to all of creation, not just to themselves, as are we.
Plain and simple, we kill and make use of animals, in reality, not for the
reasons we like to tell ourselves (we were created outside of the rest of
all life and are thus superior and more deserving of the right to live a
full life in comparison with the rest of creation "beneath" us), but in
reality, due to the inescapable fact that we are but one strand (however
mentally advanced) in the web of life and are equally bound by its laws.
Hence, we kill animals, test on them, use them for purposes where we lack
the physical strength or needed sense (e.g., smell), eat them, substitute
their organs for our own, etc., for really only three reasons, survival,
interdependence, and in cases like animal testing, or say for like
seeing-eye dogs, because we can.  Rather than separating us, these reasons
instead bind us even more, and should serve to humble us.

A wolf kills a deer and eats it, just as the deer also kills a plant to eat
it.  Sure, there is a food chain, with some above and some below, in the
order of things.  Man, by virtue of being at the top of this chain (so far
as we know!), is in fact more dependent for his survival, than is any other
species, on the welfare and sacrifice off all the others.  This fact should
make us, as it did most native peoples, more aware than not of the
precariousness of the position we hold.  Instead of the arrogance displayed
particularly by western culture, humility would be much more appropriate.
This doesn't mean we never kill anything to eat it, take its organs for our
own, etc., but we should do it with full awareness that these very acts do
not place us in the exalted place we've created for ourselves, in our own
minds.  Every time we eat a meal, wear a pair of leather shoes, take a pill,
we should give thanks for the gift of life which was given for own own
survival.  Perhaps, in remembering to do this, and to do it with a sincere
heart, then and only then, might we perhaps let ourselves feel a little bit
of that former superiority.  Not, as before, because we believe ourselves to
be deserving of it, but because, as far as we know, we are the only species
blessed/cursed with the conscious knowledge of our own frailty.

Lastly, getting back to the definition of snake-oil, I could just as easily
label this pig fetal tissue idea under this same category, were I so
inclined..   I might question the motives of all involved, as there will
definitely be those who profit from this area, and its usefulness and safety
as a common form of treatment still remains to be seen.  Hmmm.  I'd say
we're getting awful close to the criteria recently used to bash natural
dopamine as treatment for pd - self-interest, profit, questionable
effectiveness and safety, not to mention practicality, cost vs benefit, etc.
One could even argue, in defense of naturally derived dopamine, that it is
"cruelty-free."   At least natural dopamine is derived, based on the
research I've seen thus far, from the killing of tiny little fava beans,
rather than tiny little pig fetuses.

Snake-oil is in the eyes of the beholder.

I have been a bit extreme and graphic here (not to mention long winded) for
a reason.  I want to shock, anger, be a bit ridiculous and controversial,
and whatever it takes, purposely to shake things up a bit here, and by doing
that, maybe shift some perceptions and assumptions a bit off the norm.
Normal is boring anyway.  We're all pretty familiar with that view of
reality.  Now, perhaps it's time to turn the critical eye back on ourselves,
with the same passion as we reserve for debunking miracle healings,
alternative treatments, etc.  We need to perhaps reexamine and better
understand the assumptions underlying our own motives and beliefs.  I'm not
trying to offend anyone personally, including those who feel compelled to
bash any new or unproven idea that falls outside the collectively agreed
upon norm (here I go, stirring again!).  I do, however, feel compelled to
say that I will not sit quietly by and watch only certain groups come under
this scrutiny, and not others.   Feel free to disagree or to agree, whatever
floats your boat.  If nothing else, I anticipate some commentary regarding
this massive post of mine and my hogging up space on the digest to myself.

So, I will shut up now, but will look forward to some lively debate.

Wendy Tebay

p.s. - I'm burnt out now.   I'm gonna wait now till tomorrow to answer that
other comment of Phil's.