It is a bit disconcerting that they were given a huge amount of cash and only managed to produce a single paper outlining the condition, with no mention of the therapeutic under test or how it performed.
Coming from an academic research background I can tell you that isn't usually the case, especially on government granted funding. The point of academic research is to publish your findings, good or bad, so that others can build on the work you produced, just like you built on the work of others. If there was a huge market for curing us, we would already be cured because people would have been clambering over each other to patent therapeutics and sell them to us. So why hide the results? The truth is they aren't going to make you rich . . .
Personally I think the best method thus far proposed is simply preventing trimethaylmine getting into your system in the first place. It isn't required. My views are that there are two ways to solve this.
1. We know Trimeylamine production is purely through microbial action. Therefore some method of preventing this from occurring is deduced, either by removing the bacteria or preventing Choline TMA lyase activity.
2. We allow Trimethylamine production and chemically alter it in the gut prior to absorption through the intestines.
The second option seems the least intrusive, most researched in other fields and viable. Yet it is also the option overlooked. There are hundreds of papers on chemically altering trimethylamine into non-odourous forms for other applications. Why can't these be tested for application in vivo?
Hell if I could get sheffield to test my urine for a reasonable price, I'd probably try them out on myself
