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

361–370 of 398 posts

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

#361

Post by zajio1am »

zajio1am wrote: post #360
elfexec wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Academia was always broken. Despite the current undeserved reputation as academia being open to debate and new ideas, the opposite has always been true. Academia has its sordid history of dogmaticism and hero-worshipping. And progress in knowledge usually advanced in spite of academia rather than because of it. Go read about the battles between Newton and Hooke or even Newton and Leibniz. The doctor who first suggest…

> My personal favorite is Georg Cantor who was mercilessly attacked by his fellow academics within math and even without for his theories on infinite numbers. I do not think this is comparable to other examples. Math is not science in the sense that its correctness is not determined by the outside reality, only by its internal consistency. Different (finite vs infinite) axiomatizations leads to different classes of m…

> so it is only a matter of custom which structures are worthy of studying

Or in other words, which proof steps are considered valid.

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

#362

Post by el_cujo »

Udik wrote: post #347
el_cujo wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I agree there is a very strong incentive for certain groups to disprove climate change and they're backed by a lot of money and influence. Comparatively, there doesn't really seem like that big of an incentive to sell a "lie" that CO2 is fucking the climate. That being said, it does irk me a bit that I know so many people who smugly demean the moronic science-deniers who don't believe in climate change, even tho…

> there doesn't really seem like that big of an incentive to sell a "lie" that CO2 is fucking the climate. The article we're commenting on argues there's been a huge pressure towards researching ways to stop beta amyloid plaques; and yet there's no obvious "incentive" to do so. It's just a catchy hot topic on which many have invested their careers. In the case of climate change, you have to factor in both the scienti…

>Most of the predictions are decades away in the future, so the story can go on unchecked for decades. And so on.

It's not just the sea level rising stuff in the future though, now basically any adverse weather event is blamed on climate change. Powerful hurricane, big mudslide, wild fires, etc. I'm not saying climate change doesn't play a role in any of these, but the news media plays it a little loose with any of these events and citing them as being caused by/evidence of climate change with 0 proof. But again, if you question any of if then YOU are the one painted as being against science.

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

#363

Post by WhompingWindows »

smt88 wrote: post #24
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…

> sunk cost fallacy ...doesn't really make sense here. Let's say it takes 20 years and 5+ institutions to fully explore a single avenue of research. If you're 15 years into that research and you think there is a chance that you'll reach a breakthrough in 5 years, you're much more inclined to want your (and the other 4+ institutions) to pursue it for 5 more years rather than starting over. That's not sunk-cost fallacy…

"If you're 15 years into that research and you think there is a chance that you'll reach a breakthrough in 5 years, you're much more inclined to want...to pursue it for 5 more years rather than starting over."

How is that not sunk-cost fallacy?

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

#364

Post by wayoutthere »

OGWhales wrote: post #357
wayoutthere wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ketamine works wonders for them too. Clinical trials are happening for mushrooms as well.

Ketamine is already used medically, correct? I'd imagine that would be easier to push/study because of that. Still super glad to see psychs being studied. It always frustrated me that due to scheduling in the US it was much harder to study them.

Yeah, ketamine is used as a sedative and painkiller in people who don't tolerate opioids. It's used off-label in low doses for treatment of depression and chronic migraines -- though is almost always administered by a doctor in a structured theraputic regimen.

The success of an approved drug like ketamine in treating depression and chronic migraines has opened the doors for studying other hallucinogens.

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

#365

Post by smt88 »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #363
smt88 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sunk cost fallacy ...doesn't really make sense here. Let's say it takes 20 years and 5+ institutions to fully explore a single avenue of research. If you're 15 years into that research and you think there is a chance that you'll reach a breakthrough in 5 years, you're much more inclined to want your (and the other 4+ institutions) to pursue it for 5 more years rather than starting over. That's not sunk-cost fallacy…

"If you're 15 years into that research and you think there is a chance that you'll reach a breakthrough in 5 years, you're much more inclined to want...to pursue it for 5 more years rather than starting over." How is that not sunk-cost fallacy?

An example of what I'm describing is:

Decision A: 5 years (after 15 already spent) = 75% chance of success

Decision B: 20 years (after 0 already spent) = 10% chance of success

In that scenario, Decision A (sticking with your current research) is more rational as long as your estimate of your chance of success is accurate. We know from the article that this is not true -- their estimates were wrong.

The sunk-cost fallacy would apply for something like:

Decision A: 20 years (after 15 already spent) = 10% chance of success

Decision B: 20 years (after 0 already spent) = 10% chance of success

Since both A and B have the same cost and same likelihood of success, you should not consider the time you've already spent. Most humans would, though.

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

#366

Post by smt88 »

garmaine wrote: post #289
smt88 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politicians don't make decisions about which researchers get grants and which don't.

They make decisions about what money is available in the first place, and appoint the leaders of the organization that runs the grant selection process.

No one is campaigning on NSF research. The director is appointed, but most of the staff are career workers who aren't replaced when the President or Senate change.

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

#367

Post by milofeynman »

nextos wrote: post #313
gavinray wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have subscribed to the theory that humans are first and foremost a host for bacteria, and that whether that relationship is symbiotic or dysbiotic is largely a factor of how happy your bacteria are. Happy microbiome, happy human. Unhappy microbiome, unhappy human. It seems like more research is published every day that links the microbiome to common disorders and diseases. Do you have any solid resources for someon…

I'm afraid we still know little about dysbiosis, but most decent findings are in the literature. I'd encourage you to take a look at good recent papers. Once you get used to the jargon, you will start learning a lot. Quick entry point, take a look at references in the introduction section of: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2019.12.18.881433v1.... Some other entry points: * Commensals in hunter gatherers: htt…

Do you have any references to crohn's? Thanks

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

#369

Post by gardenfelder »

I am reading the book "An Epidemic of Absence" by Moises Velasquez-Manoff, which articulates a basis for everything being covered in this HN thread. While I wish the author made better use of citations and footnotes, the narrative seems compelling.

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

#370

Post by nextos »

milofeynman wrote: post #367
nextos wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm afraid we still know little about dysbiosis, but most decent findings are in the literature. I'd encourage you to take a look at good recent papers. Once you get used to the jargon, you will start learning a lot. Quick entry point, take a look at references in the introduction section of: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2019.12.18.881433v1.... Some other entry points: * Commensals in hunter gatherers: htt…

Do you have any references to crohn's? Thanks

This one discusses IBD and Crohn's: https://www.nature.com/articles/nmicrobiol20174
Post reply on HN