This is one of those treatments where the BoNT comes from matters, or whether the toxin will spread. The wrong dealer/batch or the 'spread of the toxin' will cause permanent neurological issues. So, this is one clinical trial that can make one's current condition much worse. Is it worth pursuing any further?

Would be interesting to see how these results on Carpal Tunnel Syndrome compares to osteopathic manipulation treatment.

Proper nutrition AND exercise is the key; not one or the other. Docs use to believe if you exercised well [however they define well], you can eat anything. Now of course, that is nonsense. Both are critical, why docs should be pushing this, as gov-associated docs (like Surgeon General) will never have the courage to speak out about Fast Foods because lobbyists not scientists dictate healthcare/nutrition policies. It's sad, but it's why healthcare providers need to sound like a broken record and stress proper nutrition and exercise. Granted, nutritional studies are like politics, everyone has an opinion [or paid opinion]. The politics here is similar to the politics of global warming; but unlike the global warming politics, people DO have a direct impact on their own health with proper nutrition and exercise.

No...disagree. This is not an experimental drug, not a gene therapy process, and this is not an surgical procedure where 'future studies' [more and more studies] or long-term studies are critical. Furthermore, in this case, animal studies are a waste [reading the book, NEUROLOGY OF BRAIN DISORDERS, shows that animal studies yield nothing in human trials]. Habits in eating and exercise can save millions NOW, as many don't have 25 years to wait for the obvious. Obvious = fruits/vegetables/drinking plenty of clean water is 100x better than fast food.

Alzheimer's Disease = Diabetes Type II of the brain? Absolutely!

Nice! What this equals is: proper nutrition + exercise = reducing [perhaps reversing] cognitive decline.

I am surprised the word 'sacrificed' is still used, as to imply some secret religious ceremony that is part of the experimental protocol. Why not just use 'kill'? Sacrifice implies the transforming of a victim into both an object and a myth.

The p-value is statistically significance, but I see the ranges to be similar. So if I was to do a blind analysis on this it would be all over, and would be just guessing if I had to choose one.

Why wasn't a quantile-quantile plot first done? "Many statistical procedures, including t-test, as it is standardly used, are valid only when the points of the empirical quantile-quantile plot are parallel to the line y = x." SCIENCE [1984 Oct 12;226(4671):156-7]. An article often ignored but useful.

Good and simple process to do to ensure the illumination data is the illumination data and not a cylinder-effect [chamber].

That is also what I see looking at this...no 'observational stretching' here.

Why an over-expression of alpha syn? Is it a brain protective mechanism causing PD as a side-effect, or a damaging effect that started upstream causing PD?

"...during the early stages of the disease..." is of course beneficial for any disease but super hard to define in all brain-related diseases. What is truly early in Parkinson's Disease that all docs would agree to that 'early' treatment? Otherwise, early is arbitrary and so are the results from any treatment.

Bidirectional communication explains a lot.

This can be valuable with over-the-counter products; though, the DIETARY ACT OF 1994 can be dangerous here. Good thing ConsumerLab.com tries to keep on eye on such things.

This can be helpful even with developing novel drugs with fewer side-effects.

Will be interesting to see how the signal is performed, and as important, putting a protocol together to track such 'long-distance' communications in that gut-brain axis.

Antibiotics can play a bigger role than expected: "A new study shows that people who take multiple courses of antibiotics are at increased risk for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, most likely because antibiotics change the bacteria in their guts (European Journal of Endocrinology, published online March 24, 2015)." The pieces of the 10,000-piece puzzle are coming together nicely...so far.

Adding to the concluding statement [from http://drmirkin.com/diabetes/antibiotics-may-increase-diabetes-risk.html]:

" Other studies in both humans and animals have shown that: • Early childhood exposure to antibiotics is associated with obesity in later life. • People with diabetes have different bacteria in their guts from those who do not have that disease. • Fecal transplants from obese mice cause thin mice to become fat. • Putting thin mice on antibiotics can make them fat. These and many other studies suggest that taking antibiotics is associated with changes in the bacteria in your gut that can increase risk for obesity, diabetes and inability to respond to insulin."

Could this be a future diagnostic tool. Using super computers on individual microbial gut profile? More accurate for immediate and future health than genetic profiling?

Here is a YouTube video [4:15 min] showing both the PICUP and the SDS PAGE in a laboratory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqQtlYJrrDc

This reminds me of how physicists study crystal structure/structure formation under many conditions. It's a good strategy neuroscientists [really, biomedical researchers] should think as well with respect to in-vitro experimentation = "what happens to this protein when....and how does it relate to the projected in-vivo model, and perhaps is that model flawed?"

A tool used to characterize cellular function...made popular because of the Human Genome Project with respect to protein identification/characterization. Here is a good paper on explaining the use of mass spec (the MS part of the ESI-IM-MS) with proteins: SPECTROSCOPY 16(2002) 15-28. https://masspec.scripps.edu/publications/public_pdf/78_art.pdf It's 10+ years-old, but it's still good.

The most important and often ignore in research training [mostly in the classroom setting] is the de-emphasis of the METHODS & MATERIALS (M&M) section. M&M = why x is in the buffer or why test y is used. Stay away from the "most cited protocols," and focus on your why x or y when putting together protocols for an experiment. This becomes easier to do with more and more hands-on diverse experiences.

Figure 1 is a really good example of how to incorporate a lab result (e.g., a gel) with a drawing of what one is most likely 'seeing.' Something I have not thought of, but I will incorporate this in my future work because this is useful for students and researchers alike.

This publication is another reason why it's important to know as much as possible--to include obtaining hands-on experience--with the techniques used in a variety of fields. Could this help explain the disconnect between animal models and human clinical trials? I think so.