Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Significant breakthrough in search for Parkinson's biomarker

michaeljfox.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 196 posts

Re: Significant breakthrough in search for Parkinson's biomarker

#101

Post by Cthulhu_ »

oefnak wrote: post #30
cycomanic wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.michaeljfox.org/news/thiamine-vitamin-b1-and-par... The Michael J Fox foundation is more muted and says evidence is still missing. There have only been 2 trials and both were missing a placebo control group.

Imagine having Parkinsons and being in the placebo control group.

You're thinking that even a gamble on untested / unverified treatment might improve their lives; it might, but it might also do nothing, make it work, or worst case kill them.

But I get it. My partner has an untreatable condition (like EDS, but without the genetic markers); they'd jump on any kind of hope, even experimental at this point.

Re: Significant breakthrough in search for Parkinson's biomarker

#102

Post by [deleted] »

kfrzcode wrote: post #92
nequo wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I would start with Google Scholar, or at least Wikipedia because it tries to provide sources for each statement that it makes. > Who’s to say that ChatGPT doesn’t provide a better job of filtering it out? No one because no one knows what sources ChatGPT is blending together in its sentences.

[flagged]

[deleted]

Re: Significant breakthrough in search for Parkinson's biomarker

#103

Post by Cthulhu_ »

meepmorp wrote: post #70
sixQuarks wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The fact that the only part of everything they said you have any response for is the term they used to describe the medication, and then used it to dismiss anything else - that doesn't make you seem especially free of irrational thinking yourself.

Red herring fallacy, as a response to tone policing or dictionary or whatnot.

Re: Significant breakthrough in search for Parkinson's biomarker

#104

Post by parkersweb »

neals wrote: post #2

As I am now casually interested in the subject, what's a good resource to find out why this disease is hard to detect and cure and various other interesting facts?

I’d recommend Rory Cellan Jones on Substack [1]. He was the technology correspondent for the BBC until a few years ago - and is now retired partly because of the onset of Parkinson’s.

As a result he’s devoted much of his retirement to reporting on innovation in treating and managing Parkinson’s.

[1] https://rorycellanjones.substack.com

Re: Significant breakthrough in search for Parkinson's biomarker

#105

Post by garyrob »

ethbr0 wrote: post #80
nequo wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why feed yourself with potential misinformation that you don’t know the true source of and you might never double check?

> Why feed yourself with potential misinformation that you don’t know the true source of and you might never double check? Because I enjoy reading HN?

Oh, that was just too easy... :)

Re: Significant breakthrough in search for Parkinson's biomarker

#106

Post by nequo »

kfrzcode wrote: post #92
nequo wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I would start with Google Scholar, or at least Wikipedia because it tries to provide sources for each statement that it makes. > Who’s to say that ChatGPT doesn’t provide a better job of filtering it out? No one because no one knows what sources ChatGPT is blending together in its sentences.

[flagged]

I am not trolling. I don’t recommend engaging in a good-faith dialogue with someone by prefacing it with your belief that they are trolling.

If you're basing your trust in ChatGPT on the claim that it is trained on Wikipedia, you might as well read Wikipedia instead because then you also see the sources for each claim, or the fact that certain claims are unsourced. ChatGPT will not let you know if a certain claim is more controversial, nor give you further sources to read if you want to know the background of a claim.

Re: Significant breakthrough in search for Parkinson's biomarker

#107

Post by photochemsyn »

neals wrote: post #2

As I am now casually interested in the subject, what's a good resource to find out why this disease is hard to detect and cure and various other interesting facts?

One neglected issue in the article and the comments is that Parkinson's is associated with exposure to various neurotoxic substances including organophosphorous pesticides:

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/42/5/1476/623189

> "In a population-based case-control study, we assessed frequency of household pesticide use for 357 cases and 807 controls... Frequent use of any household pesticide increased the odds of PD by 47% [odds ratio (OR) = 1.47, (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13, 1.92)]; frequent use of products containing OPs increased the odds of PD more strongly by 71% [OR = 1.71, (95% CI: 1.21, 2.41)] and frequent organothiophosphate use almost doubled the odds of PD."

This is further supported by previous discoveries of Parkinson's brought on by exposure to an opiate analog MPTP, as well as several other pesticides:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5345642/

> "The identification of MPTP, a relatively simple compound which causes selective degeneration of the substantia nigra after systemic administration, has had an a significant impact on the understanding and treatment of Parkinson’s disease (PD) over the last 30 years."

It's rather curious that this foundation neglects to discuss any of this, but it is funded by entities affiliated with pharmaceutical manufacturers so perhaps it's not something they want to bring attention to? It does fit with a general pattern of attempting to blame diseases affiliated with environmental exposures on genetics, however.

Re: Significant breakthrough in search for Parkinson's biomarker

#108

Post by Cthulhu_ »

sixQuarks wrote: post #88
defrost wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point, it's also effective against a wider range of parasites, head lice, eyelash mites, and skin conditions. In the case of COVID in populations sans those conditions .. not so much.

In addition to head lice and eyelash mites, it might also be useful to point out it is the only drug to win a Nobel Prize for treatment of infectious diseases. Used by BILLIONS of people. May I remind you that you referred to this drug as a horse dewormer before you were called out. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34466270/

Appeal to authority & false equivalence (apples & oranges); just because it's won a nobel prize doesn't mean it's a miracle cure against the 'rona.

I'm already dubious of the article you linked because the title uses appeal to authority (nobel prize winning) and emotional language (new global scourge).

I won't disagree that ivermectin improves life expectancy in some of those studies, but it doesn't seem to be effective in environments with less parasites.

Note also that it focuses on fatalities, not getting the disease, curing it faster than its natural course, or preventing it.

For a great meta-meta research, see https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t...

Re: Significant breakthrough in search for Parkinson's biomarker

#109

Post by sph »

pyryt wrote: post #44
neals wrote: post #2

As I am now casually interested in the subject, what's a good resource to find out why this disease is hard to detect and cure and various other interesting facts?

[flagged]

Can we have a line on the HN guidelines saying "telling people you asked about on ChatGPT doesn't make for interesting discussion. Please refrain from doing so."

Especially in this case where you don't even tell what did you find out, only that you did ask ChatGPT. Good for you.

Re: Significant breakthrough in search for Parkinson's biomarker

#110

Post by mtlmtlmtlmtl »

PaulKeeble wrote: post #16
c3534l wrote: post #12

My grandmother had Parkinson's and it was awful. How long until I can go to the doctor, get some blood drawn, and see if I'll develop it one day?

You could do a genetic test, Parkinsons has well associated genetic markers and consumer level companies can do testing of this (and others). 23 and me have a bit on it. https://www.23andme.com/topics/health-predispositions/parkin...

Although if 23andme say you don't have the genes, you might still have them. Also they'll probably sell your data.
Post reply on HN