 |
 |
I agree, Kathleen -----Original Message----- From: Kathleen Cochran Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 6:03 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: blood test for PD invented In every article I've ever seen about biomarkers, there's text like this (from the article Ray posted): "So if you knew earlier that this was happening you might be able to do something about it, particularly in the future when maybe better treatments might become available." Seems to me the helpfulness of biomarkers is pretty seriously limited by the absence of treatments that will slow or reverse disease progression. Under present conditions, biomarkers might be seen as stealing a few years of blissful ignorance, when you don't yet know you have this disease. Or insurance companies might find a better way to deny coverage, or potential employers might choose not to hire someone known to be headed for PD. If someone can make a case for the value to patients of biomarkers without better treatment, I would love to hear it. Kathleen On 20 April 2016 at 22:00, Rayilyn Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2016/s4446582.htm > > Ray > Rayilyn Brown > Past Director AZNPF > Arizona Chapter National Parkinson Foundation > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto: > [log in to unmask] > In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn