Maybe a few (Huntington's comes to mind as a possibility) but ALS seems a long shot inasmuch as it involves both upper and lower motor neurons, with the "disease" itself named after autopsy findings of lateral sclerosis in patients with amyotrophy (and certain other signs and symptoms).

Several weeks ago in the treatments forum I posted a theory that what we are told is upper motor neuron symptoms is actually some combination of sensory reflex neuron and spinal ganglion symptoms, without motor cortex involvement. Of course I realize that there is some evidence of some upper neurological involvement in at least some ALS patients, but I was disappointed that there was no discussion at all.

If you ask, "What goes wrong in ALS, just the stuff you can see with a microscope or figure out with especially clever EMG, forget all that biochemical stuff?" it's as though nobody's ever looked at anything but cadavers. I understand the difficulties involved in doing biopsies and such on human patients, but the lab meeses lack the capacity to say NO!, that's why they were created in the first place. How is it possible that nobody can say what dies where and when in the progression of ALS? It amazes me that the basic anatomy of ALS is very nearly uncharted territory.

--Dave J.