Do I just ignore them?

I believe that it is best to ignore people who dismiss our work and our vision, even when the statements go beyond dismissal to disparagement. I won't ignore what they say. And I won't ignore them forever. But ignoring distractions until the right time to engage is an efficient approach.

My inclination is to show them the truth, to set them straight. And it is hard to resist. But timing is critically important.

For example, I recently received an email sharing the reaction to our plan from a Parkinson's foundation. They dismissed the approach based because they were not aware of any completed research.

I just don't get it. Of course there is no clinical research completed. We're pushing for the first study of RB-190 in people with Parkinson's. But there are plenty of relevant research studies that are completed and published in peer-reviewed journals. Included amongst them is our publication from 2021 that reported for the first time how much dopamine there is inside the dopaminergic neurons of people with PD - the cells that determine whether there is healthy or impaired movement.

Then in 2024 we published a review article to summarize the completed research. We reported how RB-190 reverses pathology in 9 pre-clinical models of disease. This publication cited 77 peer-reviewed completed research projects.

And there are more publications of the completed research supporting our plan.

When is the right time to engage with the nay-sayers? And how can we make more of them aware of the research, which provides such a compelling story? Our approach is to keep the relationships warm with those foundations and experts who are willing to engage. That has led to people agreeing that the completed data support the launch/conduct of our clinical trial.

And the way we're going to expand the circle of believers to include the nay-sayers is to launch the trial, carefully collect data and share the results transparently and widely.

So while my first inclination is to set these folks straight - to put the publications in front of them, the timing is off. For now, I believe the right thing to do is ignore this negativism that is not based on data but rather, the lack of awareness of the data. When we have the clinical data, we'll share that (and publish it). That will be the time when we can build momentum at this foundation and others, as well as with the experts.

Do you agree? If not, what approach would you suggest?