Having Alzheimer’s at 38 (2015) • Hacker News Board

Re: Having Alzheimer’s at 38 (2015)

#51

Post by vfc1 » Sun, Jul 08, 2018, 9:30 PM UTC

throwaway1909 wrote: post #45

vfc1 wrote: post #42

It's the food. Alzheimer looks like a form of arteriosclerosis of the brain. In autopsies to Alzheimer patient brains we can see the small arteries of the brain clogged with fat and colestrol, here is a video showing this with pictures - https://youtu.be/WhtpyVhlu28?list=PL5TLzNi5fYd8E6GHQcmIWYGE7... If plaque building in main arteries can cause heart atacks, the exact same blood is getting to the brain - imagine wha…

Your conspiracy theory approach to science backed by Youtube videos is obnoxious. The cause of Alzheimer's is still unknown, but most likely related to amyloid plaques. Diet may contribute. Or it may not. In a 38 year old, it's genetics. Period.

The videos are summaries of scientific studies, and in the description of each video there are links to a text article on the topic, and from there we have the links to all scientific papers.

For example in the video "Oxidized Cholesterol as a Cause of Alzheimer’s Disease", the sources cited are summarized here in this article - https://nutritionfacts.org/video/oxidized-cholesterol-as-a-c...

If you scroll down and click on the tab "Sources", the linked studies are there.

38 years is a long time, I don't see why the age makes you immediately conclude that it can only be genetic and not influenced by diet.

Getting obese is also genetic, some people can still be slim with the standard western diet, while others start gaining weight at a certain age.

Yey, if you eat right you will likely never get obese, even though you have an obesity-prone genetics.

If some people can get heart attacks at 38, why is it so surprising that they can also get Alzheimer's if they have been eating foods very high in fat and cholesterol multiple times a day non-stop since birth?

If Alzheimer's is triggered or strongly linked to dietary choices, at least we should be informed of that while the studies continue.

Re: Having Alzheimer’s at 38 (2015)

#52

Post by pmyteh » Sun, Jul 08, 2018, 9:32 PM UTC

mattigames wrote: post #49

entropy_ wrote: post #38

My wife's family has a different disease running through it, though one with very similar outcomes. Huntington's. It's genetic and dominant (so a parent having it means 50/50 for the children). Average age of onset is 38. Symptoms are a mixture of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's (both dementia and motor control issues). Her uncle was diagnosed at 38, her mother at 50. I wasn't around for the first one, but have been ther…

Yeah the only end of it is gonna be when people with such diseases stop having children, but just pointing out such an obvious solution generates all kinds of scorn from the people you are talking to, they seem to immediately think of "eugenics" and every other bad word and imagine you running a concentration camp... and not just people voluntarily using birth control to avoid the suffering of their own offspring tha…

Huntington's normally first appears in a family when the carrier is late in life, so it's really not that simple. Not uncommon to already have grandkids before you know. The average age of onset reduces as the generations go on.

And FWIW it has a spontaneous occurrence rate, so even if all known carriers have no offspring it wouldn't eradicate it.

Re: Having Alzheimer’s at 38 (2015)

#53

Post by hk__2 » Sun, Jul 08, 2018, 9:38 PM UTC

ajaxaddicted wrote: post #46

throwaway1909 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your conspiracy theory approach to science backed by Youtube videos is obnoxious. The cause of Alzheimer's is still unknown, but most likely related to amyloid plaques. Diet may contribute. Or it may not. In a 38 year old, it's genetics. Period.

Period. So ignorant. At least give those videos a look. There is actual science behind it. Diet contributes big time.

> Period. So ignorant. At least give those videos a look. There is actual science behind it

You may want to post peer-reviewed research papers backing those videos instead. It’s a lot easier to review.

Re: Having Alzheimer’s at 38 (2015)

#54

Post by dang » Sun, Jul 08, 2018, 9:44 PM UTC

throwaway1909 wrote: post #45

vfc1 wrote: post #42

It's the food. Alzheimer looks like a form of arteriosclerosis of the brain. In autopsies to Alzheimer patient brains we can see the small arteries of the brain clogged with fat and colestrol, here is a video showing this with pictures - https://youtu.be/WhtpyVhlu28?list=PL5TLzNi5fYd8E6GHQcmIWYGE7... If plaque building in main arteries can cause heart atacks, the exact same blood is getting to the brain - imagine wha…

Your conspiracy theory approach to science backed by Youtube videos is obnoxious. The cause of Alzheimer's is still unknown, but most likely related to amyloid plaques. Diet may contribute. Or it may not. In a 38 year old, it's genetics. Period.

Please don't post flamewar comments to HN, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are.

Breaking the site guidelines with throwaway accounts eventually gets your main account banned as well, so please don't.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Having Alzheimer’s at 38 (2015)

#55

Post by vfc1 » Sun, Jul 08, 2018, 9:45 PM UTC

hk__2 wrote: post #53

ajaxaddicted wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Period. So ignorant. At least give those videos a look. There is actual science behind it. Diet contributes big time.

> Period. So ignorant. At least give those videos a look. There is actual science behind it You may want to post peer-reviewed research papers backing those videos instead. It’s a lot easier to review.

Here are the studies that those videos summarize, I would love to hear your opinion on the validity of the information:

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/oxidized-cholesterol-as-a-c...

You can see the sources by scrolling down and hitting the "Sources Cited" tab. Do you have reasons to believe that the information has been misinterpreted?

Re: Having Alzheimer’s at 38 (2015)

#56

Post by trcollinson » Sun, Jul 08, 2018, 9:48 PM UTC

mattigames wrote: post #49

entropy_ wrote: post #38

My wife's family has a different disease running through it, though one with very similar outcomes. Huntington's. It's genetic and dominant (so a parent having it means 50/50 for the children). Average age of onset is 38. Symptoms are a mixture of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's (both dementia and motor control issues). Her uncle was diagnosed at 38, her mother at 50. I wasn't around for the first one, but have been ther…

Yeah the only end of it is gonna be when people with such diseases stop having children, but just pointing out such an obvious solution generates all kinds of scorn from the people you are talking to, they seem to immediately think of "eugenics" and every other bad word and imagine you running a concentration camp... and not just people voluntarily using birth control to avoid the suffering of their own offspring tha…

I think the issue you are probably running into is a lot more nuanced then you are portraying it to be. Whether you are religious or scientific or some mix of both, creating offspring is a pretty fundamental instinct that is very deeply ingrained into humans. Logic might say "If you have a genetic abnormality you should stop procreating for the greater good of society/your potential offspring/yourself". But we aren't wired to think that way. We think of procreating. The percentage of people who want absolutely zero offspring at any point in their entire life is really tiny. People want children and will put themselves into great levels of harm to have them. You can't really fight that. Children make us happy.

The reason people tend to think of eugenics and concentration camps and such is because they don't know where your slippery slope leads to. If someone with huntington's disease should not have children for the greater good, what about people with a family history of cancer, or a family history of heart disease. We find people with a tendency towards weight gain less desirable, should those people also not have children? What about people with baldness? It seems absurd but maybe they also aren't all that desirable. Where is the line where we say "You are desirable enough to have children"? And if we draw a line, do we need to enforce it? I mean people with huntington's disease certainly cost society a lot without bringing as much benefit. Should we force people like that not to have kids? Where do we lay that line in the sand and say "this is for the greater good!"

To me, I entirely understand why people give you scorn for your opinion. It is a slippery slope and it goes against a fundamental human instinct that brings joy and happiness regardless of the overall cost, pain, and suffering.

Re: Having Alzheimer’s at 38 (2015)

#57

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jul 08, 2018, 9:49 PM UTC

ajaxaddicted wrote: post #46

throwaway1909 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your conspiracy theory approach to science backed by Youtube videos is obnoxious. The cause of Alzheimer's is still unknown, but most likely related to amyloid plaques. Diet may contribute. Or it may not. In a 38 year old, it's genetics. Period.

Period. So ignorant. At least give those videos a look. There is actual science behind it. Diet contributes big time.

[deleted]

Re: Having Alzheimer’s at 38 (2015)

#58

Post by canada_dry » Sun, Jul 08, 2018, 9:50 PM UTC

symmitchry wrote: post #17

This sounds insane to say, if you haven't lived with a parent or family member with dementia, but if that happens to me I really hope I have the nerve to kill myself.

I fervently believe its just a matter of time (hopefully the next 10 yrs) til we add "end-of-living power of attorney" to the list of documents that govern how we get old.

This legal document would lay out instructions to implement assisted suicide upon reaching a (difficult I know) threshold of mental/physical impairment.

With the exponentially increasing health care burden that aging baby boomers are inflicting on gov't purse strings it shouldn't receive much resistance.

Re: Having Alzheimer’s at 38 (2015)

#59

Post by downrightmike » Sun, Jul 08, 2018, 9:50 PM UTC

mattigames wrote: post #49

entropy_ wrote: post #38

My wife's family has a different disease running through it, though one with very similar outcomes. Huntington's. It's genetic and dominant (so a parent having it means 50/50 for the children). Average age of onset is 38. Symptoms are a mixture of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's (both dementia and motor control issues). Her uncle was diagnosed at 38, her mother at 50. I wasn't around for the first one, but have been ther…

Yeah the only end of it is gonna be when people with such diseases stop having children, but just pointing out such an obvious solution generates all kinds of scorn from the people you are talking to, they seem to immediately think of "eugenics" and every other bad word and imagine you running a concentration camp... and not just people voluntarily using birth control to avoid the suffering of their own offspring tha…

For most of human history, surviving childhood was 50/50. Growing old enough to see your kids start having kids of their own was also rare. When you have a short life span, later in life things aren't selected against. But never in our history have we had the tools and the knowledge that we have now. We will continue to understand and stop these diseases.

Re: Having Alzheimer’s at 38 (2015)

#60

Post by mattigames » Sun, Jul 08, 2018, 9:56 PM UTC

trcollinson wrote: post #56

mattigames wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah the only end of it is gonna be when people with such diseases stop having children, but just pointing out such an obvious solution generates all kinds of scorn from the people you are talking to, they seem to immediately think of "eugenics" and every other bad word and imagine you running a concentration camp... and not just people voluntarily using birth control to avoid the suffering of their own offspring tha…

I think the issue you are probably running into is a lot more nuanced then you are portraying it to be. Whether you are religious or scientific or some mix of both, creating offspring is a pretty fundamental instinct that is very deeply ingrained into humans. Logic might say "If you have a genetic abnormality you should stop procreating for the greater good of society/your potential offspring/yourself". But we aren't…

Being wired to think that way doesn't make it right under any light whatsoever; and I never say anything about enforcing anything; that's where the slippery slope starts by you and everyone else who thinks the same, where people pretend you are talking about enforcing, but you are just bringing the _option_ of not having children as a valid way to end the suffering, because even talking about such option brings all the hatred when it should be seen as a logical way to avoid suffering without stepping on the rights of anyone to reproduce.