Last March the Parkinson Pipeline Project presented a poster at the 2009 American Society for Experimental Neurotherapeutics (ASENT) Conference that raised similar questions about the impact of the placebo effect on growing numbwr of failed Phase II trials and the need to re-examine the use of sham surgery in PD clinical trials.
The text of the poster is at http://pdpipeline.org/advocacy/2009%20poster.htm

We agree with Andy Grove's statement on PD OnlineResearch. Writing about infusion trial designh that “, we should avoid institutionalizing the practice of drilling sham holes just because it has been the practice in the past. Such a reexamination would also allow us to focus early on the question, which of the competing infused substances is most effective – an issue we have to deal with urgently, “.
http://www.pdonlineresearch.org/resp...n-trial-design

We share Mr. Grove’s sense of urgency == “failed” trials may mean that potentially effective treatments are sitting on the shelf.
as more PWP are being asked to undergo the risks of possuble sham surgeries in gene therapy trials, it is crucial that we fully understand the placebo effecct in PD researcch and make necessary changes in trial design. Past trial “failures” should be reanalyzed and questions be answered, and perhaps more effective and ethical cllinical trial designs will be discovered.