Is the pipeline too slow? In my opinion, yes. There are many reasons for this. One of which is, I believe, that when it comes to PD we are too risk adverse.

The danger of emerging side effects, possibly many years in the future, has got to be weighed against the advantages a therapy gives.

For instance, how would we judge a therapy that removed all Parkinson's symptoms and had no immediate side effects, but unknown to anyone when introduced killed you after 20 years?

Until the 20 years were up it would be thought a wonder drug: no symptoms, no side-effects and no fatalities. Any PwP who delayed more than a year or two would be thought to be acting irrationally.

And, even once the terrible long term consequences of the therapy became known, how many PwP would choose never to take it?

Now suppose the terrible consequence happened not after 20 years, but after 1 year or 2 years, or whatever. What period would it need to be before you started the therapy?

John