How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by bsder » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 8:54 AM UTC

igorkraw wrote: post #20

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…

While I'm all for changing funding systems I want to point out that there fact we have these scandals is the system somewhat working . Similarly to how constant criticism of the government/large corporations isn't a sign of rot, but of a system where improvements are still possible -as long as someone is pointing out the problems you can fix them. And science is not supposed to be immune to this, the culture of scien…

> The truth has a habit of shining through if you are encouraged to keep asking questions and follow up on them.

I would say that the latest Alzheimer's drug failure finally broke the camel's back. While NIH will tolerate groupthink indefinitely, biopharma eventually wants a payback.

I suspect biopharma pulling funding and causing the amyloid people to suddenly lose clout is more to blame for the come-to-Jesus party in Alzheimer's land.

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

#52

Post by dhimes » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 8:55 AM UTC

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".

This is an extremely important point. Since I was a grad student, there have been at least 5 monumental "findings" in physics:

1. A spinning top weighs less if it spins one way than if it spins the other

2. A "fifth force," IIRC it was linked to baryons

3. The climate is warming, not (as people thought) cooling

4. Superconductivity can be achieved at high (liquid Ln2) temperatures

5. Fusion can be achieved at low (room) temperatures ("cold fusion").

6. Homeopathic properties of water

7. Faster-than-light travel of neutrinos

In each case there was a rush for confirmation- tons of excitement in the field, etc. Some were confirmed; some debunked; some remain controversial. I read somewhere that Google is working on cold fusion?

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

#53

Post by igorkraw » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 8:56 AM UTC

sillysaurusx wrote: post #35

The truth has a habit of shining through if you are encouraged to keep asking questions and follow up on them. The point is that people are actively discouraged from asking questions and following up on them. People lose their careers and livelihoods for asking the wrong sorts of questions. Truth is no barrier to social backlash. In fact, questions that might be true tend to be the ones that get people the most heate…

On the specific topic of IQ and scientific racism, the "centrist" position of "just asking questions" has been a cloak for agendas and not caring about the truth for a while now. Exhibit A: https://mobile.twitter.com/Simon_Whitten/status/117331966332... Exhibit B, what happens when you actually dig into the science behind the most well known peddler of the IQ is real and important, therefore racism is actually not a problem meme https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo

Note that I'm not saying there aren't good faith inquiries to be had, but it is really hard to have these with racist agendas being pushed whole claiming "neutral" questions.

A few observations that I would like people to keep in mind when looking at these fields:

- the people who complain about being "silenced" continue to find funding, public platforms to push their research and in some cases, tenure

- the "hard questions not being raised" seem to cluster around the question of differences between "races" and less around whether the concept of race actually makes sense in humans (AFAIK geneticists generally think no), whether these differences might be socially constructed (yes, that's possible. If there are systemic social biases against groups with genetic genes the impacts of these will be 100% explained by the presence of these genes in data, but 0% genetically determined as in biologically determined). And often they are then raised to dismiss concerns about the systematic problems which might have caused the measured problems

- scientific racism and shoddy science in this field has a long history, and people carry their misconceptions around. Famous examples are "objective" written IQ tests given to barely literal test subjects, or asking trigonometry questions, Both of which test the schooling of the subjects more than the IQ

In an inherently political field of science, denying the political nature and implications of questions being raised and the manner in which they are raised and trying ot claim "objectiveness" is in and of itself a political tactic.

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

#54

Post by ekianjo » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 8:58 AM UTC

> there is not even a disease-slowing treatment.

True-ish, but Aricept is generally seen and used as a disease-slowing treatment (even if the data is inconclusive, it is perceived this way by physicians).

> In patients with Alzheimer's Dementia participating in clinical trials, administration of single daily doses of 5 mg or 10 mg of ARICEPT produced steady-state inhibition of acetylcholinesterase activity (measured in erythrocyte membranes) of 63.6% and 77.3%, respectively when measured post dose. The inhibition of acetylcholinesterase (AChE) in red blood cells by donepezil hydrochloride has been shown to correlate to changes in ADAS-cog, a sensitive scale that examines selected aspects of cognition. The potential for donepezil hydrochloride to alter the course of the underlying neuropathology has not been studied. Thus ARICEPT cannot be considered to have any effect on the progress of the disease.

> Efficacy of treatment of Alzheimer's Dementia with ARICEPT has been investigated in four placebo-controlled trials, 2 trials of 6-month duration and 2 trials of 1-year duration.

> In the 6 months clinical trial, an analysis was done at the conclusion of donepezil treatment using a combination of three efficacy criteria: the ADAS-Cog (a measure of cognitive performance), the Clinician Interview Based Impression of Change with Caregiver Input (a measure of global function) and the Activities of Daily Living Subscale of the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (a measure of capabilities in community affairs, home and hobbies and personal care).

- % Response

- Intent to Treat Population n=365, Evaluable Population n=352

- Placebo Group 10%, 10%,

- ARICEPT tablets 5-mg Group, 18% (sig), 18% (sig)

- ARICEPT tablets 10-mg Group, 21% (sig), 22% (sig)

Aricept does not seem to have much efficacy overall, but it makes a lot of money for the lack of alternatives. (https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/3776/smpc)

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

#55

Post by buzzkillington » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 9:01 AM UTC

g42gregory wrote: post #47

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?

The same way that it compares to the group think that asbestos causes mesothelioma.

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

#56

Post by twic » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 9:03 AM UTC

OneGuy123 wrote: post #49

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.

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

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

This doesn't follow.

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

#57

Post by ivalm » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 9:04 AM UTC

g42gregory wrote: post #47

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?

> The fact that we call some people "climate change deniers" tells me that we have an unhealthy dynamics going on there

1. Climate change is observable, it doesnt rely on a theory, just measurements. Nonetheless there are a bunch of people trying to discredit what is essentially a very well established observation.

2. Genesis of climate change (ie is it anthropogenic) is not a direct observable, but looking at concentrations of CO2/other gasses and where it comes from it is not too hard to convince yourself of humans as root cause. Again, a lot of people deny human-driven climate change despite all evidence pointing one way.

3. Perhaps the most uncertain are climate model predictions. I agree that this where something might be overlooked, or maybe not.

At any rate, "climate change deniers" by and large object to (1) and (2), and those people really have no credibility. If someone accepts anthropogenic climate change but proposes a new model that fits observation-- more power to them!

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

#58

Post by travbrack » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 9:06 AM UTC

g42gregory wrote: post #47

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?

Another honest question: have we established that humans caused climate change? Is it even possible to do so?

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

#59

Post by gyuserbti » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 9:09 AM UTC

igorkraw wrote: post #20

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…

While I'm all for changing funding systems I want to point out that there fact we have these scandals is the system somewhat working . Similarly to how constant criticism of the government/large corporations isn't a sign of rot, but of a system where improvements are still possible -as long as someone is pointing out the problems you can fix them. And science is not supposed to be immune to this, the culture of scien…

This standard sentiment seems to me to be a machiavellian justification for the status quo and for not trying to improve anything. The costs of the problems are the problem, not whether they are eventually resolved extremely ineffiently.

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

#60

Post by catoc » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 9:10 AM UTC

anewvillager wrote: post #50

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.

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 O…

Yes, the sugar industry was not silenced by this book, so the fight continued. And I am sure you can come up with criticisms about any research publication. But the main point is undisputed: the "low-fat" science at that time was not purely science. It had been influenced - for years - by lobbyists and scientists with a personal agenda.

Then it becomes like so many topics these days: when people (I don't mean you anewvillager) throw enough counter arguments - true or not - distinguishing the truths becomes harder and harder, certainly for the population at large, not so well versed in the subject.

[BTW: I have no affiliations whatsoever with the author or the books, other than that I read it]