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.