I haven't posted anything new for a long time but this publication is so close to Dr. Dourmashkin's findings that I felt obligated to publish it in this forum. mdpi.com/2076-2607/10/3/599 . I found it interesting that they didn't include the work of Dr. D in the list of references. I wonder when the researchers are going to spend the money they collect from us on investigating alternative mechanisms of PD. I also found interesting that the search of AI engine on dr. D work resulted in the "party line" answer about SYN as a most likely cause of PD and my recent search of AI resulted in a more rounded reply as the more research needed although possible connection exists. Search was( pleconaril and vapendavir Parkinson disease )
More on my favorite topic: PD and viruses - Cure Parkinson's
More on my favorite topic: PD and viruses
"The name "picornavirus" has a dual etymology. Firstly, the name derives from picorna- which is an acronym for "poliovirus, insensitivity to ether, coxsackievirus, orphan virus, rhinovirus, and ribonucleic acid". Secondly, the name derives from pico-, which designates a very small unit of measurement (equivalent to 10−12), combined with rna to describe this group of very small RNA viruses.[8]"
A healthy body's handling of alpha synuclein is just barely hanging in there. Many different things can throw it off - over a dozen different mutations, and a variety of toxicants. So it would not be a big surprise to find that certain viruses can do the same.
As I said, it was an unexpected pleasure to see that an independent group of researchers basically repeated dr. D work with the same results - electron microscopy work. it was published in a reputable publication although one could have some questions with the small sample size. I question how many failures one has to have to change the reasoning behind the disease. I can illustrate by the simple example. Let's for conversation sake assume that dr. D is correct and the virus is an initial cause of PD. It opens new questions about alpha Sn, why they become misfolded, the role of many mutaitions, however one thing is clear if yo want to cure or better yet prevent the disease you should go after rhe virus. Indeed I see a lot of similarities between polio and PD. All one needs to do is to ask questions and the answer is not too far.
I do not dispute the idea that a virus might cause Parkinson's. It is also the case that the A53T mutation, which refers to an amino acid substitution at location 53 of the alpha synuclein protein, is known to cause Parkinson's in humans. When this mutation is engineered into the mouse genome, the result is mice that exhibit Parkinson's symptoms. So a virus is not required in order to cause Parkinson's.
Mice that exhibit P symptoms - you mean that the mouse is not moving its 4 legs like the wild type. Does it move better with Sinemet? I understand that this mutation is common in people with early onset PD . I certainly believe that some of the cases could be explained by the mutation . Here is food for thought: there were 4 other people in MJ Fox's filming group who came down with PD. Does it sound like an infectious disease or genetic defect?
Some people believe the MJ Fox cohort was due to toxic exposure. That is certainly a possibility.
The main idea I am trying to convey here is exactly this: I am tired of waiting for the experts to repeat the same logic that failed to produce any positive result for PP in spite of hundreds of successful outcomes in animal models. i lost the last hope when the alpha sn anti body failed to achieve positive result . I think that it is time for the new approach and there is strong evidence for the virus as a target
toxic exposure? Possible. Just as the virus. oh. i could check if the virus is still there in the mjf group. I am a fan of the standard approach, the virus or possibly multiple viruses fit very well the PD etiology.
The vast majority of such studies are worthless because the test animals are never allowed to develop Parkinson's in the first place. Typically a toxicant is applied that creates reactive oxygen species, that in turn creates a toxic cascade, that over a period of a couple of weeks turns into something like Parkinson's. However, instead of waiting for Parkinson's to develop, the test substance is typically applied prior to or simultaneous with the toxicant. At this point even a simple antioxidant may suffice. The study then reports "success" and labels the result with the code word "neuroprotective". This sounds impressive but in reality this result is worthless - if a person knew they were being exposed to a toxicant they would avoid the exposure. In any case, it is not a remedy for Parkinson's. Further detail here: healthunlocked.com/cure-par...
We do know the causes of Parkinson's and similar disorders (see attache diagram).
The challenge for western medicine and western medical science is that they can't handle the complexity of interactions of aetiologies, and there is no profit when people get well.
Bingo on your last sentence especially.
I like your last statement too. I doubt that there is hard scientific evidence to substantiate everything you have in this diagram
There is scientific evidence to support everything in the diagram.
Not always Western Medical Science or specifically Parkinson's science, but great epidemiological studies, studies in inflammation and neurodegenerative processes and many others.
Most are well buried, of course, as Western Medical "experts" and big pharma don't want us to have the power or knowledge to get well without their expensive processes.
Dr. Minchley – naturopath focused on PD – Sharon's take
Living with my PD & an Angry spouse.
Shaking before and After taking Sinimet 25/100
Dr. Stanley Fahn - Myths and Mistakes in PD Treatment
