Ann,

I so appreciate what you are saying but honestly I don't think it is lack of funding that holds back novel treatments or better treatments. It is t he FDA and a system that does not reward innovation. I would argue that even something as crude as the Duodopa pump system, while not as seductive as a viral vector treatment, is an advance that is light years beyond what we have now. It has been used successfully in other countries for over ten years, yet still the FDA subjects it to a ridiculous standard of some sort. Whatever happened to fastracking or the notion that while the powers that be sit back to watch Solvay jump through rather ridiculous hoops for approval here. Meanwhile, people here continue to suffer.

I think that finding more scientific ways to diagnose, establish baseline disease staging or severity, and a way to monitor progression in a very non-invasive way is key to seeing that novel new treatments make it our way. Imagine how frustrating it must be to develop a new drug then realize that there is no real way to know the efficacy of that drug on slowing disease progression when you have nothing more than a subjective paper and pencil rating scale to go on; think of how inspiring that must sound to potential investors. If we cannot even be sure that all trial participants even have PD in the first place, how can we ever get reliable, valid results in research? I am pretty certain that the lack of scientific measure hurts us in ways we don't even yet know.

And TG, yes, the Placebo Effect! I hadn't thought of that but this is another problem we face in the development of new treatments. The Placebo effect so prevalent in PD also must have an impact on funding trials for newer treatments, and I don't think it is a positive one.

Laura