Parkinson's breakthrough could be on horizon, pre-clinical study shows

[Farooqji]

Purdue University researchers say they have pinpointed how the compound acrolein promotes the development of Parkinson's disease in the brain. The researchers believe administering "anti-acrolein scavengers," like the drug Hydralazine, might be a new "strategy to alleviate tissue damage and motor deficits associated with [Parkinson ].

abc3340.com/news/local/pre-...

[Xenos]

Nearer than the horizon, since hydralazine is already prescribed against high blood pressure.

[Hidden]

NAC "might" be an alternative in the mean time.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/673...

Art

[Dee1980]

I don't know much about this stuff but from the wiki 'The main metabolic pathway for acrolein is the alkylation of glutathione' suggests it depletes glutathione?

[alexask]

Meh. Breakthrough's are always on the horizon. Never really arriving (unless vitamin B1 is it).

[PixelPaul]

I have been diagnosed with PD disease for just a few months, and already I'm tired of reading articles with the words "might", "may" and "could" in the title as it relates to Parkinson's cures. With all due respect to those who have been at this longer than me, but I don't think a cure is coming in my lifetime. I would like nothing more than to be wrong about this, but this disease was first identified over 200 years ago and yet we don't even know what causes it, never mind how to fix it.

[Hikoi in reply to PixelPaul]

Yes it is always more reassuring when there are definite statements made, like I cured my Parkinsons and you can too or take xyz to be cured. That’s why people say such things even when untrue and people follow them even when there is no real evidence to support their claims.

Scientists are likely to be tentative in their language knowing that knowledge evolves. Theyalso know that their peers, other scientists, will question and debate with them. On the whole those touting a cure do not like being questioned or disagreed with.

As to waiting too long, well how long have we known about cancers but do we really know what causes them and how to fix them? Some we do and there have been significant advances in cancer knowledge and treatment in the last 30 years. But not all can be treated.

I think knowledge and treatment of neurological disorders are on the move now. Too late for you or me maybe. But that’s our challenge to get and keep PD on the agenda.

[JohnPepper]

Why are we being told that this MIGHT be a new "strategy to alleviate tissue damage and motor deficits associated with [Parkinson]".

Should it not be tested first before making that claim?