"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<_vPMb.6552$i4.827 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> Cross-posted again.
>> Forgive me, please, if I await further information.
>> [Unless you can tell me that zinc and copper
> ions are not normal constituents of the brain.]
>> k. p. collins
>> "Hua Kul" <gmp at adres.nl> wrote in message
> news:3da4c6e5.0401122154.2a7e71c5 at posting.google.com...> > "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<D9JMb.5155$q4.1649 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > >
> > > Blanket-blocking of this or that ion's action will
> > > not work.
> > >
> >
> > Apparently it did work.
> >
> > --Hua Kul
Hi,
K. P., apparently you have misunderstood the peer reviewed paper.
Whenever such an abstract accompanies a popular press article, give it
more attention. Only the pop article speaks of anything that could be
interpreted as "blanket-blocking". The abstract clearly referes to a
specific amyloid-ion effect.
I will also give you another little hint that could be quite
useful in furthering your general medical understanding. Theoretical
molecular considerations, espeacially the dubious type your seem to
place such stock in, must always take a back seat to clinical trials,
even small phase II ones.
If I had Alzheimer's, I would be on this Clioquinol like a duck on
a June bug, while awaiting further studies. I will never understand
why people have so much trouble appreciating the value of good
"risk/benefit" analysis.
Thomas
