Quote:
Originally Posted by indigogo
I know they have their own perspective, but Katie Hood responded to the doldrums article saying, "It's not true!"
Also, one item on the agenda for the MJFF Patient Advisory Council meeting next week is "expanding patient contributions to research solutions"
We continue to gain influence. I'll keep you posted on the meeting.
|
Carey, thanks for sharing Katie's perspective. While I don't have her level of expertise or connections to research, I am inclined to agree with her based on what I have researched.
There are many novel treatments being explored looking at other neurotransmitters and a vaccine in development! The bigger issue is why do so many of these potential treatments languish or stall out in the pipeline. It seems to me there are myriad options on the horizon, they just never seem to see the light of day.
Maybe the focus should be on why these non-dopaminergic alternatives never seem to get anywhere. Is it because investors see anything beyond the "gold standard" as too risky? We are impacted by people who have a lot of money but don't fully understand the disease enough to know what to wisely invest in. Neurologix, is short of funding for phase III trial monies for its GAD treatment. This speaks volumes, I think. The innovation is there, the risk taking of venture capital is not, so it would seem.
Just my take on it, I could be wrong....
Laura
Laura