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

How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

statnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 398 posts

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#41

Post by vixen99 »

ncmncm wrote: post #26
Galanwe wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “ The same thing happened for decades where low fat diets were supposed to help for heart disease but that has only recently been reversed” Oh did not know that. Do you have reference material?

The original health warnings were not about fat, but about meat. That ran into the meat-packing lobby, and then everything after had to be couched in terms of fat. There has never been evidence that fats were bad, as such, just meat as produced in the US, and sugar. But no one was allowed to say so.

But how do you define 'original'? in 1956 the American Heart Association announced that a 'diet which included large amounts of butter, lard, eggs, and beef would lead to coronary heart disease'. Not just meat! See also the enormously influential study and conclusion by Ancel Keys. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys. His seven countries study stressed the dangers of cholesterol and fat.

It's interesting that Keys, credited with discovering the Mediterranean Diet, died at the age of 101.

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#42

Post by mturmon »

allovernow wrote: post #31

>scientists whose ideas fell outside the dogma recounted how, for decades, believers in the dominant hypothesis suppressed research on alternative ideas: They influenced what studies got published in top journals, which scientists got funded, who got tenure, and who got speaking slots at reputation-buffing scientific conferences Not quite in topic, but Is it really such a stretch to acknowledge that the same forces i…

Bias in what sense? There is overwhelming physical evidence that climate is changing ... it’s not really a “cabal” situation.

Can you detect any evidence of any forces attempting to bias climate science? Perhaps you mean energy companies?

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#43

Post by missosoup »

allovernow wrote: post #31

>scientists whose ideas fell outside the dogma recounted how, for decades, believers in the dominant hypothesis suppressed research on alternative ideas: They influenced what studies got published in top journals, which scientists got funded, who got tenure, and who got speaking slots at reputation-buffing scientific conferences Not quite in topic, but Is it really such a stretch to acknowledge that the same forces i…

It's already happening. Not so much in climate science, but in climate activism.

Banning plastic straws, planting trees, etc. are popular yet entirely ineffective measures. Actually effective measures like rolling out nuclear power are unpopular and yet most climate scientists agree that we're likely boned without it.

I urge everyone to look at tools like [1] to get an idea of what it takes to deal with climate change.

[1] https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7....

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#44

Post by catoc »

jonplackett wrote: post #17
catoc wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read this: https://thebigfatsurprise.com/ The website initially may look like yet another diet approach, but this is actually a serious publication. And a good read.

I spoke to someone about this the other day and they claimed it was now the dairy and meat industry campaigning in response to get their fatty foods re-accepted. Is there any truth to this? Or anyone heard anything about this?

I actually did read the book. It is really well researched. It certainly did not come across like that when the book was first published.

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#45

Post by bsder »

dba7dba wrote: post #4
anigbrowl wrote: post #2

I have the impression when we read stories like this that it's not that the leading researchers in the field are hostile to other ideas, as such, but that they are not very well versed in economics and thus think that scarce research funding should flow their way because giving any to other possibly-wrong approaches would be wasteful, and likewise abandoning or discounting the predominant theory would be a terrible m…

think that scarce research funding should flow their way because giving any to other possibly-wrong approaches would be wasteful I heard someone recently tell me how using science to form views on topics (social/psychology/etc) is dangerous, because science is really about funding. AND large donors/entities who can fund science often pick science research projects that sound cool and sexy. They may not be pushing any…

> AND large donors/entities who can fund science often pick science research projects that sound cool and sexy. They may not be pushing any agenda but do lean toward funding trendy ideas.

As well as those who do the science. You want tenure, you better not be too far off the beaten path.

The biggest "scandal" at this level was the "cellular immunology" folks who based entire edifices around "recognition of non-self". And then DNA sequencing came along and completely smashed that. However, those professors were still tenured.

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#46

Post by Gibbon1 »

vixen99 wrote: post #41
ncmncm wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original health warnings were not about fat, but about meat. That ran into the meat-packing lobby, and then everything after had to be couched in terms of fat. There has never been evidence that fats were bad, as such, just meat as produced in the US, and sugar. But no one was allowed to say so.

But how do you define 'original'? in 1956 the American Heart Association announced that a 'diet which included large amounts of butter, lard, eggs, and beef would lead to coronary heart disease'. Not just meat! See also the enormously influential study and conclusion by Ancel Keys. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys . His seven countries study stressed the dangers of cholesterol and fat. It's interesting that K…

Fred Kummerow died at 102. And unlike Keys got to eat eggs and butter every morning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Kummerow

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#47

Post by g42gregory »

An honest question: How does this compare to the group-think in the climate change/global warming research? Are we similarly rejecting funding to any research that does not fit into the common consensus? The fact that we call some people "climate change deniers" tells me that we have an unhealthy dynamics going on there. Will it take 30 years to get to the same point?

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#48

Post by kristopolous »

ping_pong wrote: post #3

This is another example of group-think in scientific research. The same thing happened for decades where low fat diets were supposed to help for heart disease but that has only recently been reversed after decades of indoctrination. This happens all throughout scientific research, where science is supposed to be immune to this, but it's obviously not. So many things we take as gospel, only to be reversed decades late…

Scientific truth is a competing value, not an exclusive one.

I wish it was exclusive, but it just isn't. There's ego, prestige, institutions, social arrangement, capital structures... The practice of science is the cleanest practice we've found but its quest for truth hasn't fully escaped the influence of these things.

There may be a way to structure the finances, work, and collaboration to escape these things through some new kind of institutional approach, but it's just not there yet.

Compare science to its predecessors, such as witchcraft and magic (ex: a medicinal herb would have been called magic for centuries). Look at zoology's predecessor, bestiary studies, wherein sea monsters, unicorns, and a giraffe were considered in the same class of anecdotal creatures. Psychology works far better than its predecessors as well, astrology and exorcisms.

Science is a far better approach then these things but there's still work left to do. We're not at the end of history but instead are tasked with moving it forward.

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#49

Post by OneGuy123 »

praptak wrote: post #32

The major and established beliefs in science usually have some fringe competition/opposition. You can only tell in hindsight whether it's "a cabal stifling valid criticism" or "scientists refusing to waste time on distractions".

You are missing the point.

The point is this: we do not have a cure for this dieases now.

Therefore, we do not know where to look at all.

Therefore the best approach is to look at everything possible, since we obviously have no idea where to look.

If we knew where to look, we would have atleast a partial cure.

But no cure works now, none.

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#50

Post by anewvillager »

catoc wrote: post #14
Galanwe wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “ The same thing happened for decades where low fat diets were supposed to help for heart disease but that has only recently been reversed” Oh did not know that. Do you have reference material?

Read this: https://thebigfatsurprise.com/ The website initially may look like yet another diet approach, but this is actually a serious publication. And a good read.

It's certainly a controversial book. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Teicholz

> Teicholz' claims were harshly criticized by the DGAC, the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and others, including a petition signed by 180 scientists, and they called for the BMJ to retract the article or issue corrections.[11][13][16][19][20] The BMJ issued a correction in October 2015 and another in December 2016, the latter with a statement that after an independent review of the paper, it had decided not to retract it.[21][22][23][24]

> Meanwhile, the Arnold Foundation had been pressing for Congressional hearings about the DGAC report and attempted to block the release of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans; its lobbying group arranged meetings for Teicholz with members of Congress and White House staff.[11][13] Teicholz and the Foundation were criticized at the time for being allies of the meat and dairy industries in their lobbying and other public relations efforts to maintain high levels of meat and dairy consumption by US consumers.[25][26]

Post reply on HN