Disease modifying therapy for multiple system atrophy – Parkinsonian Type

BACKGROUND: Multiple System Atrophy –Parkinsonian Type (MSA-P) is a rare, rapidly progressive neurodegenerative disease without any current treatment. Recent research has increased the understanding of brain iron accumulation and its association with neurodegenerative synucleinopathies, like MSA-P. Because of this improved understanding of the disease process, there is potential for new therapies that could benefit patients with MSA-P. Unfortunately, many attempts at finding a new and effective treatments for MSA-P have been unsuccessful. Two drugs that have shown potential in neurodegenerative synucleinopathies associated with brain iron accumulation are iron chelators (Deferiprone) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (Nilotinib.) METHODS: The proposed study is a multicenter, double blind, randomized control study of Nilotinib and Deferiprone for the treatment of MSA-P. There will be two treatment arms; Nilotinib and a placebo group vs. Nilotinib and Deferiprone. There will be a 24 week treatment phase, followed by a 24 week wash-out phase. All patients will have a baseline evaluation including: a full neurological exam with rating scales (UMSARS, UPDRS, SCOPA, and MOCA) to assess motor and non-motor symptoms of MSA-P. Lab and imaging data will include CBC, CMP, serum iron panel, CSF iron panel and brain SWI-MR scans. Neurological exams and rating scales will be assessed every four weeks while imaging and laboratory data will be assessed at baseline (week 0) at the end of the intervention phase (week 24) and at the end of the follow-up phase (week 48). CONCLUSIONS: Deferiprone and Nilotinib when used together will have a synergistic impact on the symptoms of MSA-P and will be more effective when used together versus when they are used individually. SIGNIFICANCE: Patients with MSA-P have shortened life expectancy as well as severely diminished quality of life due to rapidly progressive neurodegeneration. This trial aims to implementing evidence based treatment for MSA-P that could potentially improve life expectancy as well as quality of life in this patient population

God in My Sporting: A Justification for Christian Experience in Sport

Examining the intersection between sport and religious faith can be challenging for kinesiology professionals. Many in academics disregard religious statements and experience as meaningless, unscientific, and even dangerous. Others recognize religious experiences as valid forms of knowledge and opportunities to encounter the sacred. Each of these groups has different explanations of religious experience and the areas of life in which such experience can occur. It is the purpose of this paper to examine the legitimacy of and potential for religious experience in general, as well as Christian religious experience in sport and physical activity. After reviewing previous sport and other literature examining connections between sport and religion, this paper outlines historical and recent challenges to religious knowledge and experience as epistemologically meaningful. A contemporary argument for religious experience as warranted and meaningful is provided, and the final section introduces a Christian understanding of religious experience within physical activity and sport. Infusing physical activity with relevance and meaning derived from religious experience will help in achieving lofty outcomes such as lifelong fitness participation and adherence to exercise programs. Incorporating such a view of sport and physical activity can help make our subject matter relevant to people in a way that transcends content knowledge. One challenge to Christian kinesiology professionals is in presenting these religious opportunities in ways that are inclusive and supportive of other religious faiths

Introduction: contains Cover, Table of Contents, Letter from the Editor, and Masthead

I hope you enjoy the second issue of Volume XI of the Richmond Journal of Law & Technology. The Editorial Board and Staff worked diligently with four outstanding authors to prepare this issue. We are proud to present timely articles by two professors, a practitioner, and the winner of the Journal’s staff casenote competition

Identifying Complex Adaptive Systems Using Quantitative Approaches At A Midsized Biotechnology Firm

Rapid technological progress is becoming more challenging for organizations to implement and manage. The traditional, hierarchical leadership models are often inadequate to cope with continuous change, and the inability to keep up with the latest advances can quickly imperil a company. In particular, the field of biotechnology is currently experiencing revolutionary advances. Where hierarchical leadership models lapse, complexity theory and complexity leadership theory may provide an alternative leadership model for successful organizational adaptation. However, much of the research surrounding complexity theory remains academic. Historical data from a biotechnology company was analyzed during a computer hardware and software upgrade to detect the presence of a complex adaptive system, the fundamental component of complexity. Results showed that after the upgrade, animal care technicians did not significantly increase their collective efficiency; instead, they appeared to significantly increase their collective accuracy. This might indicate that the animal care technicians acted as a complex adaptive system in response to an environmental change. Insights into aggregate employee behavior through the lens of complexity theory might be useful to leadership seeking to successfully implement organizational change. Additionally, the adoption of complexity leadership doctrines by management might help create enhanced conditions to cultivate increased innovation and growth

A Likelihood Story: The Theory of Legal Fact-Finding

Are racial stereotypes a proper basis for legal fact-finding? What about gender stereotypes, sincerely believed by the factfinder and informed by the fact-finder\u27s life experience? What about population averages: if people of a certain gender, education level, and past criminal history exhibit a statistically greater incidence of violent behavior than the population overall, is this evidence that a given person within this class did act violently on a particular occasion? The intuitive answer is that none of these feel like proper bases on which fact-finders should be deciding cases. But why not? Nothing in traditional probability or belief-based theories of fact-finding justifies excluding any of these inferences. Maybe intuition goes astray here. Or maybe something about the traditional theory of fact-finding is wrong. Arguing the latter, this article proposes a new theory of factfinding. In contrast to historic probability and belief-based theories, this paper suggests that idealized fact-finding is an application of likelihood reasoning-the statistical analog of the ancient legal concept of the weight of evidence and the formal analog of modern descriptions of legal fact-finding as a process of comparing the relative plausibility of competing factual stories on the evidence. This likelihood theory marks a fundamental change in our understanding of fact-finding, with equally fundamental implications for practice and procedure. The theory simplifies fact-finding, describing every burden of persuasion as an application of the same reasoning principle. It harmonizes recent scholarship on fact-finding, showing that work on the cognitive processes of fact-finders can be formalized in a comprehensive and coherent theory of the ideal fact-finding process. It explains evidentiary mores, justifying hostility to naked statistical evidence, for example. And it provides new insights into the effects of subjective beliefs on fact-finding, showing not only the harm that results from asking factfinders to decide cases based on their personal beliefs about the facts, but also the way forward in reorienting factfinding away from prejudice, bias, and subjective beliefs, and toward the firmer ground of the evidence itself

Introduction: contains Cover, Table of Contents, Letter from the Editor, and Masthead

On behalf of the Editorial Board and Staff, I would like to welcome you to Volume XI of the Richmond Journal of Law & Technology. As we look ahead to the coming year, and particularly to our tenth anniversary this April, we would like to thank you for your continued support. The Richmond Journal of Law & Technology would not be what it is today without quality submissions from practitioners, positive feedback from our readers, and the diligent efforts of so many who have worked to make the Journal a success over the past ten years. In this first issue, we proudly present you with several timely articles. In addition we are pleased to include the winning submission from our 2004 Writing Competition