thank you for the summary, linda. there are, as they say, two sides to every story, and amgen is withholding its side, it seems.

questions i would like to ask or see asked include:

1) how do the risks of levodopa compare to the amgen-alleged risks of gdnf, even if the worst of those allegations were true, in terms of frequency of occurrence, in terms of impact on quality of life?
2) how do the benefits of levodopa compare to even the most conservative estimation of the benefits of gdnf, both in terms of symptomatifc benefit and neuronal regeneration or protection?
3) why have studies for the last god knows how many years on whether or not levodopa is toxic to DAa neurons been deemed "inconclusive" ad nauseum while this study was deemed negative after 12 months with enough improvement in enough people to cause this much of a furor in a community that has been swallowing hope to no avail in the form of experimental drugs for the last 40 years?
4) how far short of their endpoint of 25% improvement did they fall?
5) i thought the study was halted due to antibodies and lesions in primates? how can a study that was not completed fail to achieve its endpoint? (must re-read your post)
6) historically, what level of symptomatic improvement has been the endpoint for other experimental drugs, in particular, the various iterations of levodopa, and how close have they come to achieving them?
7) what motivation would amgen have for manufacturing a reason to halt the study?

i don't expect answers for all of these - not from folks here, i mean.

boann