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

81–90 of 196 posts

Re: Significant breakthrough in search for Parkinson's biomarker

#81

Post by insanitybit »

nequo wrote: post #75
pyryt wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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

As opposed to? Unless you're actually going to read individual papers, vet the authors, have the baseline statistical knowledge to understand the results, etc, you're always going to be susceptible to potential misinformation. This HN topic is a good example of the difficulty of verifying information.

Who's to say that ChatGPT doesn't provide a better job of filtering it out?

Re: Significant breakthrough in search for Parkinson's biomarker

#82

Post by FollowingTheDao »

giantg2 wrote: post #54
FollowingTheDao wrote: post #29

This is everything and nothing all at once. Synucleinopathies are found in many neurological diseases. They even find it in Long COVID. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9108014/ This is a marker for many diseases. They still have not found the trigger for Synucleinopathies, which I believe is a nutrient deficiency causing oxidative stress and zinc is at the top of my list. https://academic.oup.com/hmg/art…

If the loss of smell is so brief, why would it cause this later?

It might not.

If the build up of alpha-synuclein is rapid during COVID that might only cause a temporary issue if the person can still break it down. These people might not go on to get Parkinson's.

Matrix metalloproteinases break down alpha-synuclein.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21330369/

And it's cofactor, the metal that increases MMP3 activity is zinc (and calcium).

https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb/P08254/entry

This is why I keep screaming that zinc is probably a central deficiency to both of these disorders in some people.

Re: Significant breakthrough in search for Parkinson's biomarker

#83

Post by nequo »

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?

When you run out of HN, do you hit up ChatGPT?

Re: Significant breakthrough in search for Parkinson's biomarker

#84

Post by tgv »

canadiantim wrote: post #56
c_hagau wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Published in the "Journal of Integrative and Complementary Medicine", "The leading peer-reviewed journal providing scientific research for the evaluation and integration of complementary medicine into mainstream medical practice." "Integrative and Complementary Medicine" is a fancy way of saying quackery. Also, the video you linked to is on a channel run by a person describing himself as "a certified functional medic…

My pet peeve is people dismissing potentially very valuable scientific results because they’re afraid of quackery… Yes we should be cautious but no we should not dismiss. In fact I consider myself very fortunate for stumbling on this information as it may be very helpful for someone I love and I want to explore every possible way that can help.

Do explore it, but check other (reputable) sources for the effect on Parkinson and for counter-indications (although there don't seem to be obvious ones).

The journal, however, is bad. Looking for articles, the first I found claims that sounds of nature have a positive effect on gambling addicts, something unwarranted by the actual experimental conditions. The peer review and editorial process seem to be lacking.

Re: Significant breakthrough in search for Parkinson's biomarker

#85

Post by NobleLie »

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.

Imagine symptoms improving being in the placebo group?

What are the statistics on that?

Re: Significant breakthrough in search for Parkinson's biomarker

#86

Post by nequo »

insanitybit wrote: post #81
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?

As opposed to? Unless you're actually going to read individual papers, vet the authors, have the baseline statistical knowledge to understand the results, etc, you're always going to be susceptible to potential misinformation. This HN topic is a good example of the difficulty of verifying information. Who's to say that ChatGPT doesn't provide a better job of filtering it out?

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.

Re: Significant breakthrough in search for Parkinson's biomarker

#87

Post by mwbajor »

c_hagau wrote: post #36
lambdaba wrote: post #6

I just found out about Thiamine (vitamin B1) megadose therapy for Parkinson's: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3762356/ Another study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26505466/ > Conclusions: Administration of parenteral high-dose thiamine was effective in reversing PD motor and nonmotor symptoms. The clinical improvement was stable over time in all the patients. From our clinical evidence, we hypothesiz…

Published in the "Journal of Integrative and Complementary Medicine", "The leading peer-reviewed journal providing scientific research for the evaluation and integration of complementary medicine into mainstream medical practice." "Integrative and Complementary Medicine" is a fancy way of saying quackery. Also, the video you linked to is on a channel run by a person describing himself as "a certified functional medic…

You know what you're right. But not far behind these quacks are neurologists.

If you've ever had someone in your family that might have had Alzheimers or Parkinsons you'll know what I mean.

Re: Significant breakthrough in search for Parkinson's biomarker

#88

Post by sixQuarks »

defrost wrote: post #69
sixQuarks wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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/

Re: Significant breakthrough in search for Parkinson's biomarker

#89

Post by graeme »

shadowtree wrote: post #25

Interesting that big flu outbreaks cause a long term spike in Parkinson's - how much more will be traced back to the impact of viruses? Saw that come up as a worry around Covid, seems the loss of smell/taste is a commonality with Parkison. We will not know for a decade or two though, but these biomarkers might help accelerate measuring the impact.

It’s very plausible in 10-20 years or so. Studies found a massive increase in acting out of dreams amongst those who had Covid.

This acting out of dreams is a very strong precursor to Parkinson’s. According to this, 80% of people with it get Parkinson’s within 20 years.

https://www.salon.com/2023/04/24/long-parkinsons/

Re: Significant breakthrough in search for Parkinson's biomarker

#90

Post by kanzure »

nequo wrote: post #86
insanitybit wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As opposed to? Unless you're actually going to read individual papers, vet the authors, have the baseline statistical knowledge to understand the results, etc, you're always going to be susceptible to potential misinformation. This HN topic is a good example of the difficulty of verifying information. Who's to say that ChatGPT doesn't provide a better job of filtering it out?

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.

> I would start with Google Scholar

You actually should vet everything you read through Google Scholar too. There is a pervasive belief of consensus in academic science and unfortunately individually verifying information is the only thing we know that actually works- not political consensus.

Post reply on HN