would you provide the links to the studies showing coq10 was neuroprotective in human cell lines?

i'd be interested in whether cells came from pd'ers or the research was pretreating normal neurons with coq10 before adding a chemical which causes cell damage and seeing if the damage was less. if the latter was the case then i wouldn't call that simulating real pd progression but just screening possible protective compounds. can't call that proving neuroprotection.

i think the normal progression is pretreatment in cells - rat, mice, or human, then exposing the cells to a toxin, then mice/rats, then humans.

as far as sample size in statistics, results always take this into account. statisticians always include in their reports sample size and the affect that had on the outcome of the results. but scientists alway make note of outliers in a clinical trial, those that had above average affects, either negative or positive. if a few patients had amazing results it isn't ignored.

placebo affect is so strong in pd'ers that biomarkers would be nice to have, maybe the newer mri studies measuring dopamine neurons activity would help. you can get a baseline and measure the decline over time.

http://www.sciencecodex.com/patientd...rkinsons-94469

Next, the researchers attempted to rescue the toxin-exposed cells with various drug treatments that have shown promise in animal models of Parkinson's, including the antioxidant coenzyme Q10 and the immunosuppressant rapamycin. All patient-derived neurons – whether they carried LRRK2 or PINK1 mutations – had beneficial responses to coenzyme Q10. However, the patient-derived neurons differed in their response to rapamycin; the drug helped prevent damage to neurons with LRRK2 mutations, but it did not protect the neurons with PINK1 mutations.

The latter wasn't the case, I think. Though for me this is not clear after reading the article.

You forgot nonhuman primates. Besides that, your sequence has always been likte that. But now they managed to convert skin cells of patients with PD into human neurons. So from now on drug research will be different.

Indeed. And because there are so many things they don't know, clinical trials on neuroprotectiveness are a bit useless unless the neuroprotectiveness is really huge. If the uncertainty on your variables is really big, then it is almost impossible to prove anything statistical if you take everything into account. In this specific case ... you have this PD score for patients. If you have to proof something is 20 % neuroprotecive ... suppose your PD score is 20. 20 % of 20 is 4. This means that if you would take something neuroprotective you should have been more or less on 16 instead of 20. But this is all open to interpretation. A patient with score 16, could be rated 18 or 22 by another doctor. And someone with a score of 20 could be rated 16 by another doctor. And then, it also depends on the patient itself. Maybe he goes to a doctor on a day in which his symptoms are less than the day before.

So if you want to prove statistically that something is neuroprotective, then the neuroprotectiveness has to be maybe 50-70 % before you can statistically claim that it is neuroprotective. And the placebo effect only adds to it.

That would drastically improve the results of the clinical trials.

not to beat a dead horse, but if a company wants to sponser a neuroprotection study using a fda approved drug even without biomarkers, good for them. these aren't terribly expensive studies and even if you don't believe it,statistical analysis will filter out normal variability in patients and clinicians. statisticians aren't going into these studies blind, they know about the variability involved in pd research and "back in" to how many patients will be needed to show a sig. difference.

in the case of coq10, the last study was terminated
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/c...ial-Update.htm

so either it was ineffective, didn't reach the area of the brain where needed and/or the study design needed to be changed.

you might be interested in these podcasts. some discussion by researchers in neuroprotection.
http://www.theparkinsonsgroup.com/
http://www.theparkinsonsgroup.com/pastwebcasts.asp
imho, nothing wrong discussing these issues in this message board but bottom line were're not experts, at least i don't claim to be. i'm done.

Not saying they shouldn't have done it.

If 2 doctors can give a score that is 30 % different, than you really have to explain me how they can statistically proof that a certain med is 10 or 20 % neuroprotective, taking all variability into account. As to me, this looks impossible unless the med is maybe 50 % neuroprotective.

I know. But ... it doesn't mean it is not neuroprotective. There is a difference I saying that we couldn't prove it is neuroprotective; or saying that it isn't neuroprotective.

Could all be. OR it could also be that they lack biomarkers.

Thanks. I am very interested in listening them.

just based on a layman's opinion, i would say that if one was looking for an inexpensive easy to administer neuroprotective treatment, coq10 has failed. just my opinion.

we could go on forever trading opinions here, i'm stopping.

Ey Soccertese ... don't get angry or anything. Discussing is OK. I like to discuss. Don't see my posts as an attack on your opinion. It is not. I am just trying to give a different view on it. My view is not that CoQ10 is neuroprotective. My view is that as long as there are no biomarkers available, neuroprotective trials should be considered with lots of care. Let's stop the discussion about the CoQ10. But let's not stop to agree or disagree about other things in the future. Cheers !