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

Re: Having Alzheimer’s at 38 (2015)

#71

Post by quotemstr » Sun, Jul 08, 2018, 10:50 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…

One day soon, we'll probably be able to generate a hundred embryos, sequence their genomes, and just implant the ones that lack detectable genetic and chromosomal diseases. Same outcome, but without the ethical hurdles inhetent in choosing who gets to reproduce.

Embryo selection will still be hugely controversial, of course, but we have to overcome any reflex to ban the technique. Human genetic engineering is a technology that will profoundly reduce human suffering, and every year we delay it is pure misery.

Re: Having Alzheimer’s at 38 (2015)

#72

Post by projektir » Sun, Jul 08, 2018, 10:58 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…

I think it's really dangerous to talk about we're wired to this or that. It does two things:

- give the thing an odd, unearned, protection status: lots of things people are wired to are frankly pretty terrible and we could do without them (hierarchical dominance dynamics);

- it's very hard to prove that we're actually wired to something vs it being cultural. Given that we can't even prove this, the above is extra strange: we might be giving special statuses to unnaturally developed processes, and the status quo.

Procreation is not special because people want it. It's special because of its effects on populations and politics. But that's neither here nor there in terms of whether or it makes sense for a given group of people to procreate. That question shouldn't be closed.

> Where is the line where we say "You are desirable enough to have children"?

If there is a process out there that already exists, and you find yourself really not wanting to make a decision that is relevant to the continuation of that process, here's a little secret: the decision nonetheless will be made, and always has been made, just not by you.

So there's no slippery slope here, because the selection process is already in place, we're just washing our hands of it, so it looks like an easy decision because it's not our fault when a child with a horrible disease is born. It similarly not our fault when some people are unable to develop relationships.

But it is real, it is true, and it happens. And we could make a difference.

This is the eternal question of whether humans are ready to actually take responsibility for the process of the world or if they want to continue let it flow freely hoping it works out...

Re: Having Alzheimer’s at 38 (2015)

#73

Post by m_mueller » Sun, Jul 08, 2018, 11:03 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #71

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…

One day soon, we'll probably be able to generate a hundred embryos, sequence their genomes, and just implant the ones that lack detectable genetic and chromosomal diseases. Same outcome, but without the ethical hurdles inhetent in choosing who gets to reproduce. Embryo selection will still be hugely controversial, of course, but we have to overcome any reflex to ban the technique. Human genetic engineering is a techn…

Isn't that currently just a matter of legality and cost? You can already test for trisomy syndromes by sequencing a bit of the mother's blood around week 10 and isolating the embryo's chromosomes statistically - that probably takes a very fault tolerant kind of sequencing, but throw in an order of magnitude more money or a couple more years of cost reductions and you're there.

Re: Having Alzheimer’s at 38 (2015)

#74

Post by trcollinson » Sun, Jul 08, 2018, 11:21 PM UTC

mattigames wrote: post #60

trcollinson wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Sorry I might not have made it clear, I just understand the reason why people scorn you for your opinion. I think your opinion is at least somewhat valid and has merit. At the very least I think that it is worth debating and shouldn’t be met with scorn.

As a few have pointed out the slippery slope argument is a bad one. They are right. The slippery slope could be a logical fallacy. But logical fallacies often lead to scorning and anger and fights and such.

Re: Having Alzheimer’s at 38 (2015)

#75

Post by trcollinson » Sun, Jul 08, 2018, 11:34 PM UTC

jopsen wrote: post #67

trcollinson wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The slippery slope argument is nonsense. By that logic taxes is a slippery slope to communism. Employment a slippery slope to prostitution :) We should encourage people with rare generic deceases to use fertility treatments that filters out particularly bad genes; or adopt children instead.

I agree that the slippery slope could be a logical fallacy. It really just describes why the parent post gets scorn when he brings up his idea. Lots of people believe logical fallacies and get upset because of those fallacies. Heck, look at the current US presidential administration.

By the way, there are a ton of people who actually do believe that taxes are a slippery slope to socialism! The employment one is funny. But I think there are people who believe consumerism or capitalism is a slippery slope to criminal activity like prostitution. People are so funny.

Re: Having Alzheimer’s at 38 (2015)

#76

Post by quotemstr » Sun, Jul 08, 2018, 11:38 PM UTC

m_mueller wrote: post #73

quotemstr wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One day soon, we'll probably be able to generate a hundred embryos, sequence their genomes, and just implant the ones that lack detectable genetic and chromosomal diseases. Same outcome, but without the ethical hurdles inhetent in choosing who gets to reproduce. Embryo selection will still be hugely controversial, of course, but we have to overcome any reflex to ban the technique. Human genetic engineering is a techn…

Isn't that currently just a matter of legality and cost? You can already test for trisomy syndromes by sequencing a bit of the mother's blood around week 10 and isolating the embryo's chromosomes statistically - that probably takes a very fault tolerant kind of sequencing, but throw in an order of magnitude more money or a couple more years of cost reductions and you're there.

Right, but at ten weeks, all you can do is abort, which means it's only practical to screen for a few different genetic flaws this way, particularly if you expect some of them to be bad Mendelian inheritance and not some kind of rare structural flaw. Suppose you want to screen out four recessive traits and each one is inherited with probability 1/4, the probability of rolling a good combination is (3/4)^4 = ~30%. If you want to screen out ten such genes, the probability of a good combination drops to ~5%. With embryo selection, you can perform all the trials in parallel instead of sequentially at ten weeks per trial.

Re: Having Alzheimer’s at 38 (2015)

#77

Post by Beefin » Sun, Jul 08, 2018, 11:45 PM UTC

Dr Rhonda Patrick and Peter Attia are two very prominent researchers that I follow in longitivity and neural degeneration. they discuss APOE4 as being a strong indicator of Alzheimer’s susceptibility. If you have It in your genome it’s scary but also a lot of research goes into preventative means. For example anti inflammation diet is a strong factor because any diseases especially Alzheimer’s is triggered by chronic inflammation. They swear by tumeric (curcumin) extract and probiotics. Also a lot of biomarkers are good for measuring as well as some activittieis like of course exercise but also saunas.

Alzheimer’s is definitely terrifying but leaps and bounds have been made in prevention.

I’m working on a tool to help monitor and track some of these preventative measures: Meports.com

Re: Having Alzheimer’s at 38 (2015)

#78

Post by coldtea » Sun, Jul 08, 2018, 11:50 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…

>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

Perhaps because not having existed can be equally as tragic as having existing but having a disease?

Lots of people are living today who were born blind, or with this or that genetic tendency. And they live their lives as best as they can.

Is the argument that these people better they weren't born at all?

Re: Having Alzheimer’s at 38 (2015)

#79

Post by asveikau » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 12:00 AM UTC

melling wrote: post #22

hackandtrip wrote: post #14

Research is making really big step, we all hope for a cure of this and other plague that are ruining our lives. I often ask myself if the nature of the disease itself make it even worse: AIDS was the worst in its age, people went in streets asking for a cure, now we made huge steps, the same it's happening with cancer, but Alz make everything different: the sick can't make his voice heard, he has no knowledge of what…

Very little is spent on Alzheimer’s research compared to other diseases: https://www.aarp.org/health/brain-health/info-2015/alzheimer... I suppose if we made more of an effort now, we’d make considerable progress in 10-20 years.

Hmm, a while ago I was looking into medical research nonprofits accepting donations and one of them I gave to was Alzheimer's Association. No family history here, was just feeling altruistic about helping out for various causes. Seeing your comment makes me feel good that this is one of the ones I chose.

https://alz.org if anyone else is so inclined.

Re: Having Alzheimer’s at 38 (2015)

#80

Post by coldseattle » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 12:08 AM UTC

acangiano wrote: post #8

Reading this will rightfully scare the bejeezus out of us. The question is, what can we do? Alzheimer is sometimes referred to as diabetes type 3. Cutting out sugar and eating a low carb diet is a good precaution. It likely wouldn't have helped Jo, but it might save quite a few of us from this scary outcome.

He only seemed slightly overweight. I think this is only to be considered when a patient is significantly overweight or obese. Dementia rates are certainly higher in the Obese population.

In any event--this man had a confirmed genetic condition that was the definite cause of his dementia. He was going to get it, no matter what actions he took.

While it may be true that some dementia in obese people may not have manifested if that person did not overeat, that is not the case here.

I recommend you read the article.