First of all here, I would like to apologize to anyone who may have
interpreted my recent posting and comments about tasmar and snake-oil as
being meant to continue the flame war, for that was not my intent at all.  I
thought about it later and figured that it probably wasn't going to go
across that well considering all the recent hoopla, but it was too late
then.

Just for the record, my comment wasn't really aimed at Janet or at anyone in
particular, but during this whole recent episode, a couple people people had
responded to my comments regarding not needing protection from snake-oil,
etc.  In all of my earlier comments on this whole thing, I was looking at it
from two different perspectives, one was the profit question, and the other
was the designation of "snake-oil".  Altho' people seemed to be
automatically relating the two, I see them as distinct issues,even tho'
somewhat related.  I think that a product may/may not be labelled as being
snake-oil unrelated to hidden profit motives, i.e., one may fully disclose
their profit intentions, and the product could still be snake-oil, in that
it is either useless or even harmful.  Conversely, the person's product
could actually be very beneficial even tho' they've chosen to hide their
profit motives.  I mentioned it a couple times, in fact, in some of my
previous comments, that I disagreed with the way that it seemed that
everyone was labelling something snake-oil based on the profit issue.  In my
view, the definition of snake-oil depends not on that, but on the product's
ability to meet any claims of it, along with the safety of using it.  So, I
guess when I made this most recent posting, I wasn't referring to
profitability and recent controversy, but rather to my definition, which
seems to differ as usual.

But too, like I said, I thought about it later and kinda wished I hadn't
sent it, cuz knowing I have a different definition, many people would think
I was referring to profits and thus further bashing Janet, or whatever,
altho' that wasn't my intent.

I was also thinking this morning about something that occured to me.  I had
some other thoughts re: Tasmar, snake-oil, etc.  Again, people were saying
that they wanted to have all bogus products identified, etc., but I got to
thinking that PD, unlike cancer or something similar, doesn't present quite
the same issues in regards to snake-oil, as do some of these other diseases.
By that I mean, say for cancer, with it being more of a life or death
situation, the question of possible harm in snake-oil treatments, may lie
not only in their potential danger, but their potential uselessness could
also perhaps prove fatal.  I think the best, course for something like
cancer is to combine standard treatment with alternative ones, as they will
help to support your immune system and also the effectiveness of the other
treatments.

For Pd, however, it's a different situation, and not nearly so
life-or-death, at least not early on.  PD drugs and surgeries, unlike those
for cancer, for the most part, treat the symptoms only, and not the source
or the ultimate outcome.  So as far as snake-oil, or any other treatment is
concerned,  as long as it is safe, It's not like quitting all standard
treatments and pursuing these others, would probably affect one's ultimate
outcome either way, cuz as they continue to tell us, there is no cure.  So,
I kinda feel, again, that alot of this hoopla over snake-oil versus accepted
treatments, is useless in regards to pd.  As long as the product is safe,
what's the big deal (based on my definition of snake oil above, totally
unrelated to the profit issue).  If one can control their symptoms by this
other means, it's not like then that if they abandon standard treatments,
that it will definitely have an adverse effect on the final outcome.  We all
supposedly know that one real well.  So, I just find it funny in general,
that people are so wound up about snake-oil.  Generally, given it's safe,
then worst-case, ya lose some money.  At least it's not like cancer, where
if it fails to work at all, you could be dead fairly soon.  In our case, you
just wouldn't function very well.  And if it did relieve one's symptoms as
claimed, then it should be conferred equal status with conventional
treatments, as that's all they do also for the most part.

So again,I'm not trying to fan the same flames again, but wanted to mention
a few other things that occurred to me, and see what everyone else thought.

By the way, Joao, I agree with your general summary of how knowledge and
science, etc., is advanced.  One thing tho', which I've said before, that as
I believe in and myself enjoy constantly learning new ideas, etc., were I an
M.D., rather than an engineer, not only would I be very interested in
learning all that I could about all forms of medicine, not just western, I
would consider it my duty to have the knowldge available so that I could
best help my patients, irregardless of whether that help came from
allternative or conventional sources.  As they say, "WW - Whatever Works."

Thanks.

Wendy