This is Mariëtte Robijn:
She’s really ‘leuk’ (Dutch for nice).
Diagnosed at 46 with Parkinson’s, Mariëtte keeps a great blog that touches on many areas of life, including boxing. But it also provides her with a medium to discuss how she lives with Parkinson’s (you should follow her if you don’t already).
In a recent post on her blog – called “Planet Patient vs Planet Researcher” – Mariëtte asks ‘are we really so very different, we patients and researchers?‘
Her answer is ‘Yes!‘ and she listed 10 areas where the differences are apparent.
Mariëtte’s points are made from an educated point of view – she is a very dedicated Parkinson’s research advocate.
Reading through her post, however, I saw it as a nice opportunity to provide the view of things from the other world (Planet Researcher). So, with her permission, I have copied her 10 points here and I have tried to provide a Planet Researcher view of her thoughts (below in red). And I should add that I do not speak for everyone on Planet Researcher – my views are simply that: mine.
This is one of those posts (read: rants) where I want to put an idea out into the ether for someone to chew on. It starts with a very simple question:
Why is ‘the drug’ the focus of a clinical trial?
If our goal is to find beneficial therapies for people with Parkinson’s, then the way we currently clinically test drugs is utterly nonsensical.
And if we do not change our “we’ve always done it this way” mindset, then we are simply going to repeat the mistakes of the past. Others are changing, so why aren’t we?
In today’s post, we will consider one possible alternative approach.
Why is ‘the drug‘ the focus of a clinical trial?
The way we clinically test drugs makes absolutely no sense when you actually stop and think about it.
Other medical disciplines (such as oncology) have woken up to this fact, and it is time for the field of Parkinson’s research to do this same.
Let me explain: