Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Case for Transmissible Alzheimer's Grows

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 133 posts

Re: The Case for Transmissible Alzheimer's Grows

#111

Post by subroutine »

mhkool wrote: post #78

Dr Dale Bredesen has a treatment protocol that improves the conditions of all patients from moderately (late Alzheimer) to significantly (early Alzheimer). His treatment protocol recognizes 3 different types/causes of Alzheimer with an additional 2 subtypes. In December 2018 Dr Bredesen published an article where he shows the results of treatment of 100 patients in various health centers: https://www.omicsonline.org/…

After reading the article you linked and browsing his website, I am 100% convinced this person is a charlatan.

Re: The Case for Transmissible Alzheimer's Grows

#112

Post by aiyodev »

arkades wrote: post #5
aiyodev wrote: post #3

If prions stick to surgical instruments “like glue” what about needles and lancets? Could this be the link between diabetes and Alzheimer’s?

No. Those are disposable, not sterilized. There’s no chain of transmission.

They could become contaminated during production.

Re: The Case for Transmissible Alzheimer's Grows

#113

Post by IAmGraydon »

manmal wrote: post #24
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #18

Does this line of inquiry mesh at all with the idea that "Gum disease–causing bacteria could spur Alzheimer’s" Or are they competing hypotheses? reported here in January: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18987015

My wife‘s grandmother had all her teeth pulled and replaced with implants (probably a hint towards lifelong gum issues, and PERHAPS stirring/aggravating infections), and 2 years later developed aggressive Alzheimer’s, dying about 3 years later. She was only 64 when she died. To my knowledge, she never had any neuro or eye surgery. It’s just n=1 of course, but to me the gum disease hypothesis looks way more promising.

Your hypothesis doesn’t make much sense to me. Why wouldn’t you assume that something about the surgery caused Alzheimer’s since that is what directly preceded its onset?

Re: The Case for Transmissible Alzheimer's Grows

#114

Post by IAmGraydon »

saluki wrote: post #80
manmal wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife‘s grandmother had all her teeth pulled and replaced with implants (probably a hint towards lifelong gum issues, and PERHAPS stirring/aggravating infections), and 2 years later developed aggressive Alzheimer’s, dying about 3 years later. She was only 64 when she died. To my knowledge, she never had any neuro or eye surgery. It’s just n=1 of course, but to me the gum disease hypothesis looks way more promising.

We had a family member have all their teeth pulled and go with dentures/implants and it seems to have triggered aggressive Alzheimers as well.

What evidence do you have to support that hypothesis?

Re: The Case for Transmissible Alzheimer's Grows

#115

Post by vidarh »

jacquesm wrote: post #69
dpim wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From cursory googling it looks common for programs to expect you to work right up to the legal limit (80 hours/week based on 4-week averages) during residency. Having 16 hour days for ~7-8 years means that you probably have to get used to being a bit sleep deprived all the time.

What a great idea, to have sleep deprived surgeons. Really, the legal limit should be much less than that for safety reasons alone (patient safety, not surgeon safety).

Part of the problem apart from handover (which wouldn't typically affect surgeons), is the level of complexity. Much of the idea of the modern surgical training (and many other fields) is that the only way of learning well enough is to do, as much as possible. So we push surgeons to carry out as many surgeries as humanly possible.

Whether we have the balance right in terms of maximizing repetition vs. minimizing mistakes from tiredness is a good question, but it's not a given that reducing the number of hours worked for surgeons would improve patient survival without a great deal of care in how (e.g. ensuring you cut their number of hours without reducing their critical skillset).

Re: The Case for Transmissible Alzheimer's Grows

#116

Post by subroutine »

subroutine wrote: post #109
nonbel wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. It is also not clear to me after a quick search whether any amyloid has been called "infectious" other than ones derived from the PRNP sequence. It is very interesting.

I'm telling you-- i went down the prion rabbit hole myself recently and the entire path is littered with misconception and inconsistencies in how the term "prion" is being used. One place to start other than wikipedia is this cdc site that lists know prion diseases... https://www.cdc.gov/prions/index.html After some digging, I concluded that all the diseases they listed are related to PRNP. Please, please, correct me…

Follow-up -- Spoke with my postdoc friend who informed me there are basically 3 definitions of prion being used in the literature (outside formal reports, he contends that, just as 'epigenetics' evolved to mean nothing in particular, the term 'prion' could mean almost anything). The big three:

1. The purists say prions are protein-only infectious agent; and they have a strong case since the word prion was coined as an abbreviation for "proteinaceous infectious particle". However the specific prion protein underlying these various diseases were all turning out to be the same thing.

> This evidence has led to the now widely accepted prion theory, which states that the cellular protein PrP is the sole causative agent of prion diseases; there is no nucleic acid involved. The theory holds that PrP is normally in a stable shape (pN) that does not cause disease. The protein can be flipped, however, into an abnormal shape (pD) that does cause disease. pD is infectious because it can associate with pN and convert it to pD, in an exponential process--each pD can convert more pN to pD.

  What is a Prion - Scientific America
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-a-prion-specifica/
2. So they officially named this protein (drumroll) prion protein (PrP), and the PrP gene was named PRNP (PRioN Protein). Yep, there is literally a "prion protein". This protein called prion protein is probably like any other highly conserved protein, and performs important every-day cell stuff. So prion protein does not usually display prion-like behavior

Not confused yet? Don't worry, there is a 3rd definition that has taken shape...

3. Self-templating. The word "prion" or "prion-like" has come to mean any protein that display self-templating, and is usually talked about in conjunction with epigenetic inheritance. My postdoc buddy contends this 3rd definition is winning the useage war, and so when he hears "prion", he assumes "proteins that can fold into multiple conformations with some being self-propagating." A very clear example of this usage can be found in this article on yeast (and no, it doesn't involve PRNP analogs): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3319070/

Re: The Case for Transmissible Alzheimer's Grows

#117

Post by jodrellblank »

aiyodev wrote: post #3

If prions stick to surgical instruments “like glue” what about needles and lancets? Could this be the link between diabetes and Alzheimer’s?

If prions stick to surgical instruments "like glue" how do they come off when used for surgery in the second human being infected? (And can we use that mechanism to get them off to sterilize them?)

Re: The Case for Transmissible Alzheimer's Grows

#118

Post by leoh »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #113
manmal wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife‘s grandmother had all her teeth pulled and replaced with implants (probably a hint towards lifelong gum issues, and PERHAPS stirring/aggravating infections), and 2 years later developed aggressive Alzheimer’s, dying about 3 years later. She was only 64 when she died. To my knowledge, she never had any neuro or eye surgery. It’s just n=1 of course, but to me the gum disease hypothesis looks way more promising.

Your hypothesis doesn’t make much sense to me. Why wouldn’t you assume that something about the surgery caused Alzheimer’s since that is what directly preceded its onset?

I think it's not the surgery, it's that the surgery was required due to gum disease

Re: The Case for Transmissible Alzheimer's Grows

#119

Post by manmal »

b_tterc_p wrote: post #86
manmal wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlikely because only eye and neuro tissue would carry prions for contamination of equipment, right? Dental equipment should never come in contact with such tissue.

Aren’t gums chock full of nervous tissues?

Oh yes, you are right. I hope this whole issue will trigger some research. With these massive costs for Alzheimer's treatment coming towards them, even insurances should be interested in real advancements by now.

Re: The Case for Transmissible Alzheimer's Grows

#120

Post by doktrin »

bitexploder wrote: post #2

Just a clarifying point from the article: Transmissible != Communicable. Still, it makes me wonder what sort of other spooky “life forms” we can host.

> Just a clarifying point from the article: Transmissible != Communicable

That's a good point for those who just skip straight to the comments, but you should edit this to use the language of the article (contagious vs communicable)

Post reply on HN