I'm kinda sitting in my tree up here in Canada and trying to follow this story as best I can. But there are a few things I'm not clear on. Did allthe patients in the GDNF trials (with the exception of the Amgen one that's inconclusive) benefit from GDNF? In other words, did it work for everyone who recieved it in the Bristol study, or just a percentage, and if so, does anyone know what the precentage is? I'm asking about the Bristol study because it seems to be the longest, the best run and was not double blind.

I am unclear on which Dr.'s think GDNF has value as a viable treatment and which Dr's are holding the Amgen line. I was under the impression some of the Dr's at Amgen were not happy with the way the corporation stepped in and stopped things. That there are Dr's among the Amgen research team who feel the trial was "Questionable" (picking my words carefully). Is that not correct?

How many Dr's/researchers (people who would be publishing or overseeing these projects) are estimated to be out there...10, 50, 100 whatever?

The courts have to uphold the letter of the law and Amgen clearly has that covered. Isn't the best chance for GDNF research to be kept alive from where it left off is if these Dr.s speak up (regardless of the ramifications to their careers) and support those they took an oath to serve? I don't envy any Dr. in that position if that's the case. Do I have it right?

Lastly, it's sure a sorry statement that it takes a death threat to get one human being to help another human being. Are we surprised?