http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/19357078#19357078
not ,much detail but interesting
mislead by date - this is an old story
very interesting,what you reckon how many yrs till its right & available 20 yrs !
its taken 4 years so far!!!
maybe hope then,never asked if i would still be able to have as i have had dbs.hope so they would just take wires out right !
if ever there is a 'cure' there will be one hell of a queue, depending on its nature.
better start queuing now then !
if there is ,there will be ,nagative vibes man 
I wonder if we wil recognize a cure if it does arrive?? It took 15 years for stomach ulcer cure to be recognized?
As far as I know, the link between stomach ulcers and the bacteria helicobacter pylori was known about many years before it became public. There are many rumours that drug companies paid huge sums to bury it so that they could continue to make vast profits from the antacids that sufferers had to take daily to mask the symptoms.it was not in their interest to let a few weeks on antibiotics cure the ulcers.
Am I alone in fearing that the all-powerful drug companies will exert such pressure on the providers of a cure for Parkinson's or treatment or any patent-free medication which proves helpful?
I have in mind the studies which show existing cheap drugs for diabetes and lead-lowering drugs which never seem to be pursued after initial good trial results.
I know I am a cynic but I have good reason to be after the response of GSK to the terrible damage their Requip did to thousands of patients.....refusal to compensate for the devastation despite £7.6 billion profit last year.
At least we have each other on this forum.
A happy and healthy new year to everyone.
GG
x
i am sorry to say that cynicism is an entirely appropriate response to big pharm.
however i doubt there is enough profit margin in most pd meds to warrant drastic action on their part - but who knows????
The fault lies not with big pharma which has to make substantial profits to exist and also only really back profitable winners. To smother good discoveries however is criminal and needs some sort of government involvement. The efforts re codex alimentaris seem to me also to be an attempt to smother complementary answers.
http://owndoc.com/lyme/multiple-sclerosis-is-lyme-disease-anatomy-of-a-cover-up/
There re is a great deal of info on the web about Big Pharma and it's role in stifling research which could prevent the sale of medication for many years to patients.
This is a sample , which is about MS but contains all the detail of the helicobacter scandal and makes it clear that Parkinson's research will follow the same profit driven path.
I admire tremendously the brave folk who try to get the information out there against the will of the immensely powerful ,rich and greedy drug companies who have their own interests at heart.
I think the very issue highlighted re requip is the reason big pharmas are reluctant to take on many options. A company has to assess the risk to making a profit v losing huge money. They are not in business to help us or lose money. It is the huge issue that an answer to our problem is to such a large extent dependent on the big pharmas who have no real interest in us as a class unless there is serious money to be made. Our answer must lie primarily with the little guys who are speculative innovators. This means that there is more risk that some things will not work or that they do have unwanted side effects but if we expect better answers we have to ourselves take some more of the risk. This is why I think the bronowski.org initiative needs to be supported as well as pdrecovery.org . They well may not work but it is our best chance of finding that elusive cure?
its interesting that the most recent stem cell activity is researchers and physicians directly funded by the (rich) patients. but imho, i dont think the 'cure' will be pharmacological - but based on one-off alterations of genes and/or introduction of stem cells or similar. so no big bucks from repeat prescriptions.
http://www.nature.com/drugdisc/news/articles/429589a.html
i have become extremely upset after pursuing the cover-up theories on the Internet.see example above.
Many scholarly articles explain how drug companies falsify the outcome of research studies
by excluding results which don't support their claims.
iIwonder how this chap went on suing GSK for misrepresenting their Seroxat data?
how on earth do we get research funded which may find a cure and cut off the money supply to those who benefit from our disabled lives?
GG