"....
Jan. 7, 2009

Recent animal studies have shown that clioquinol – an 80-year old drug once used to treat diarrhea and other gastrointestinal disorders – can reverse the progression of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Huntington’s diseases. Scientists, however, had a variety of theories to attempt to explain how a single compound could have such similar effects on three unrelated neurodegenerative disorders.

http://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/news/item/?item_id=103574

hey -
thank you dear rev,
http://www.answers.com/Clioquinol?af...ookup&nafid=27
it also says it is neurotoxic?

"Scientists, however, had a variety of theories to attempt to explain how a single compound could have such similar effects on three unrelated neurodegenerative disorders."

Because, maybe, just maybe, they are related? That maybe, just maybe, this might be an interesting path for more research and further scientific inquiry? I'm surprised that scientists are so unimaginative.

They just don't get it. They are fixated on "one cause-one disease-one cure" thinking and don't entertain the possibility of something far more complex like "exposure to A sets initial conditions, nothing happens unless B is encountered in which case system is primed, if two or more of C through M impact the system simultaneously then a cascade is triggered with the ultimate disease being determined by the particular combination that initiate the process"

Something along those lines is needed to account for the fact that PD is sporadic yet common but very individualized. Tweak a variable or two and you've got a different condition but it is still messing with your brain and it is still degenerative and it still strikes after mid-life etc.

OK I have rescue my fellow researchers now!! Researchers are not that bad~ most of us get it when you read a paper or when the data is presented. As a patient, I am allowed to speculate and say it out in public any theory I like, its considered ok and encouraged. But as a scientist, I do speculate, dream of out of the box solutions, high profile publications within my lab. But in a publication, my theory has to be strong, be able to stand further testing and most importantly should be based on my own data.
ans mesh wth others work
PubMed has a lot of reports but the quality of the reports is not the same and sometimes, the abstract doesnt even accurately reflect the data presented. Thats the reason, most researchers tend to be cautious which might seem unimaginative or they are not thinking about it.

Even Watson and Crick who discovered the structure of DNA, had just one line at the end of their paper about the potential and impact of their discovery r and it starts "it has not escaped our attention that........
A simple statement about a discovery that formed the basis of modern biology.

thanks, I change my hat now !!!

QUOTE=reverett123;442335]They just don't get it. They are fixated on "one cause-one disease-one cure" thinking and don't entertain the possibility of something far more complex like "exposure to A sets initial conditions, nothing happens unless B is encountered in which case system is primed, if two or more of C through M impact the system simultaneously then a cascade is triggered with the ultimate disease being determined by the particular combination that initiate the process"

Something along those lines is needed to account for the fact that PD is sporadic yet common but very individualized. Tweak a variable or two and you've got a different condition but it is still messing with your brain and it is still degenerative and it still strikes after mid-life etc.[/QUOTE]

Thanks - we need to hear from both of you.

paula

...I apologize to the guy at the bench. [I had my own lab once. Of course, I was twelve years old and it was in my grandmother's shed but with a little sulfur one can turn out some neat stink bombs ]

I see the problem as institutional. There is a pyramid type power structure that demands conformity and preserves itself as well. The result is slow, methodical, and generally correct. Punctuated by moments when some little guy with bad hair and working at the local patent office clears his throat and the pyramid collapses in the proverbial "revolution".

Unfortunately, for us speed is high priority and the current system is not built for speed.

Bad hair? Now, really. Some of the best ARE reading us, you know. Not that I'm telling anyone what to post or judging anyone. Just a thought, my own thought.

J.

I will stifle myself for awhile

Attached Thumbnails

 

I have just read and re-read through this thread and must admit, much to my embarrassment, most of the comentary is way over my head. On the other hand I think I am reading there may be some school of thought out there that PD and et.al neuro diseases may be connected....somehow....true? With no research background at all, this subject has run through my mind more times than I can remember in the last 5 years since my first PD symptom showed its ugly twitch! The reason I have wondered about this is the fact that my maternal great-grandfather had PD; mother's brother just passed away at 84 of complications of PD; my maternal grandmother had Alzheimers; her sister, my great aunt had Alzheimers; great aunt's son had Alzheimers, my uncle...mother's other brother currently has Alzheimers; my mother is in the advanced stages of Alzheimers NOW; and then there is yours truly.......PD at 60! This mess is all on my mother's side of the family.......who by the way are from Western Europe. And I understand there are three more females ( cousins) in Germany two of whom have Alzheimers and one with PD. As I said, I have no research background, but I cannot help but wonder about some sort of connection with these two neuro problems in my mother's family.

Caya