It really depends on how much the company wants to invest. If it really worked, then it would be relatively straightforward for them to put together a Phase II. Not cheap, but relatively straightforward. Or at least it would have been when we had a functioning FDA
Also, the other definition in question is what the UCLA PR person means by "repairing brain damage". As far as I can tell from the paper - the "drug" part was using some neurotransmitter blockers on brain cells on a Petri dish to see if they could change gene expression or oscillatory firing patterns matching recordings in mice undergoing "physical therapy". They did not actually test to see if the stuff grew new brain cells or dendritic connections.
It really depends on how much the company wants to invest. If it really worked, then it would be relatively straightforward for them to put together a Phase II. Not cheap, but relatively straightforward. Or at least it would have been when we had a functioning FDA
Also, the other definition in question is what the UCLA PR person means by "repairing brain damage". As far as I can tell from the paper - the "drug" part was using some neurotransmitter blockers on brain cells on a Petri dish to see if they could change gene expression or oscillatory firing patterns matching recordings in mice undergoing "physical therapy". They did not actually test to see if the stuff grew new brain cells or dendritic connections.