Phil and everyone:

I've got a few more comments in response, and I'll attempt to keep it brief.

-------------------------
Regarding "snake oil":  I tend to prefer a treatment that is
thoroughly researched, because strictly performed scientific research
ought to flush out whether the treatment is effective and what the
downsides are.

There are lots of alternative products that remain to be researched,
some of which may prove beneficial, some harmful, some useless.
Scientists are I think very slow in getting around to studying them.
In the mean time, how am
-----------------

I agree with you totally.  According to the definition of snake-oil, then
ALL possible treatments (pallidotomies, tissue transplants, new drugs, etc.)
at one time or another, also fit into this category, prior to their
scientific validation.  Yet none of them ever received the sort of chilly
introduction as have many of the more fringe ideas.  People seem to accept
new ideas from the establishment, even prior to any validation, almost
without question.  They condemn those from other sources almost immediately,
often without bothering to check into them further.  They ASSUME
automatically that there has been no scientific studies done, when in fact
there may have been.

Acupuncture was initially treated as snake oil when first introduced to this
country.  Yet, in China it has been scientifically tested, not to mention
having long since been proven thru hundreds, if not thousands, of years of
clinical use (and may I say which was done on humans, rather than animals,
which are physiologically different.  Thus I would trust their results
more.).  We may not fully understand its mechanisms, but it does  work for
many ailments.  The same could also be said for many Chinese herbal
therapies, typically are used in conjunction with acupuncture.

Same goes for homeopathy to an extent.  It is widely accepted in Europe and
has been studied over there.  Just because little is know of it in this
country doesn't mean the info and the results don't exist elsewhere.

As for naturally derived dopamine, there was definitely at least one double
blind study being conducted, altho' no one seems to know the current status.
I think those who would label it snake oil should do a little research
themselves first, and check into this before condemning  it out of hand.

I prefer to look at all new ideas as possibilities for further exploration
and research, rather than labelling those as dead ends before I've
researched their status thoroughly first..  Every new idea has to start
somewhere.  Personally, if I were a researcher studying pd, and I were given
the choice of participating in one of the three following areas in their
early stages, I know without a doubt which one I would choose.  My choice
here would be made based as least as much on logic and reason, as it would
personal bias.  The three options are pallidotomy, pig fetal tissue
transplant, and naturally derived dopamine.  Given that all are equally
unproven at this stage, here would be my reasoning for each:

1)  Pallidotomy.  Destroys one part of the brain (note - irreversibly) to
control symptoms in another.  Surgery can be dangerous, expensive, and
sometimes diificult to do on a large scale as a standard treatment.  More
ethical and practical issues also come into play in order to do double blind
surgical studies (i.e., is it right to subject someone to the risks related
to surgery, and then do nothing (placebo)).  Will this procedure need to be
done on a recurring basis as the disease progresses?

2)  pig fetal cell transplants:  Similar to above, but must also consider
possible rejection of donor tissue, potentially dangerous porcine viruses,
ethical issues.  Also, patient will forever be on anti-rejection drugs in
addition to pd drugs.

3)  naturally derived dopamine:  Probably not harmful.  Would have to eat
alot of beans (and beano) unless a concentrated version could be made from
these natural sources.  Also, less reliable delivery via food, than if it
could be concentrated.  Practical?  Again depends on how ingested.
Expensive?  Probably not.  It'd help ya meet some other nutritional
requirements too. (save on buying meat for protein).  Ethical?  As long as
one doesn't mind killing a bean.

I think you guys get my point.  At first glance, I would say the first two
appear more risky, impractical, expensive, etc.  Neither do they cure it.
The third is relatively cheap, easy, risk-free, cruelty-free, etc.  It is
not irreversible like the first two pretty much are, so I would say it goes
first.  If one did not know apriori which were proposed by whom, I think
alot of listmembers would also admit to siding with the third option first.

Well, again I'll have to leave M. Salaman for another day.   I need some
sleep now!   She has some good backup info/arguments and bibliography, that
would help to support the fringe and refute the establishment.

Speaking of databases, etc., there is that alternative one that I posted
infoon recently.  Additionally, some of the universities, such as Bastyr,
which train naturopaths (who are rigorously in both conventional and
alternative treatments) and other healthcare professionals, may have some
resources for info.  I also know that there are a few peer-reviewed journals
that have appeared on alternative medicine in the last few years.  Don't
assume that because we don't know of this data, that it doesn't exist
anywhere.  Also, I prefer to use the term "complementary" medicine, cuz then
one isn't limited to either/or.  One can use the best of both conventional
and alternative together to suit their needs.  Ultimately, I believe that to
be the best route generally.

'Til tomorrow! (or Wednesday)

Wendy