and have one quick comment or question for something GregW said in the MJFF disappointment thread, i.e., that CERE 120 had failed to meet its endpoint.

The press release I read from Ceregene didn't say the trial failed to meet endpoints, it said:

"The trial did not demonstrate an appreciable difference between patients treated with CERE-120 versus those in the control group."

it also said:

"Both groups showed an approximate 7 point improvement in the protocol-defined primary endpoint (Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale- motor off score at 12 months), relative to a mean at baseline of approximately 39 points. "

That's an 18% improvement, on average.

The rotigotine transdermal patch trial published in 2007 had as its primary end point:

"minimum of 20% decrease in the combined Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part II and Part III scores."

So a 20% improvement is not unheard of as an endpoint.

So, the fact that the CERE-120 group and the placebo group improved by the same amount in and of itself, in my opinion, does not necessarily indicate that CERE 120 is not effective. – degree of improvement should also be considered - what if both groups had improved by 50%?

At what point do we consider the possibility that the placebo effect might be as effective as the actual treatment as opposed to the view that the actual treatment is no better than the placebo effect? The former acknowledges both as potentially beneficial, while the latter dismisses both as useless.