Parkinsons affects motor control, not mental functioning. The point still stands -- if I got a diagnosis I would be less likely to embark on learning to play the piano, and I'd start educating myself on the disease.

EDIT: I'll correct myself. It primarily affects motor control, but late in the disease it can affect cognition.

Perhaps counterintuitively, doing something like learning to play the piano could potentially slow the progression of fine motor skill impairment. Same with things like Tai Chi, dancing, exercise in general...

And yes I'm well aware this applies inductively to all of life, it's just somehow better if you don't know the value of N.

I tried that and found it absolutely depressing and futile. Quick experiences never did anything for me or my family. But just doing what I like/want to do only (which not everyone can; some people seem to like/want things that cost a lot of money) is what I should've done for the past 40, not only the past 20 years is what I mean. Maybe dying next year is stressful for most, so make it 5 years; is that better? Or 7 as the article says?

But euthanasia as a non traumatic form of death unlike suicide, is still prohibitively expensive.

Crowdfunding steals your privacy.

Science steals your privacy, and can keep you alive for longer.

So are you not over rating life somewhat?

But hopefully if you could get a Parkinson's diagnosis seven years prior to symptoms, you'd be able to save some money to keep from becoming a burden on your family later on.

There are some candidates advertised as promising but I'm not sure how much stock I have in this. This isn't my area of expertise but disease modifying therapies for neurodegenerative diseases have been touted as being "around the corner" since I was a first year medical student.

Parkinson's is funny in that sometimes what initially presents as Parkinsonian symptoms could develop into something like MSA over a span of 5 or more years. If this person were in a clinical trial for pure Parkinson's, it would sort of mess things up...

I expect people will look into why eye scans work and how to make them work better.

I also expect them to use this to catch potential Parkinson's patients early and see if they can find out more about early stages of the disease. Maybe they'll find something that works even earlier than eye scans.

Am I right?!

Just kidding I know people hate this sort of comment. "Ah, so cynical. Sometimes companies do good stuff!"

Not really though. I mean sure, one here or there. But on average? Nah. Particularly when VC's are involved!

Woo!! The world is burning!!

edit: This is going to get buried in the negative with downvotes, but to the person that upvoted this just now - I suspect you're a pretty rad person. That is all.

Obviously. Otherwise they wouldn't get paid for very long.

Not seeing much customer hemorrhaging in that graph.

No idea if that's what is happening with this company or not, I haven't chased any further than a revenue graph (and even that isn't from a source I trust much).

It’s not just movement. Retinal tissue develops from the same embryonic tissue as the brain. They probably looked at structure, vasculature.

The best anecdote in this space- nobody with congenital blindness has developed schizophrenia.

What’s the rationale for why this might happen?

But to me, very low incidence rate for both seems like a sufficient rationale. Given that there's both viral and genetic causes for congenital blindness, it just doesn't make sense to imply the protection is genetic: even if true, there would still be cases of schizophrenia among the people that were blinded by a viral infection in-utero.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/z9Syf3pGffpvHwfr4/i-m-mildly...

That is a much more risky idea in the first place, and your link provides quite a few such anecdotes.