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

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

#371

Post by dang » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 5:48 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #271

dang wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's a better title? We can change it. Better = more accurate and neutral, using representative language from the article.

I really think it's better to defer to the original authors or the submitter on titles. Retroactive title changes have become common on HN and they're somewhat annoying. Certainly the original title upset some people, but perhaps that is a conversation worth having; Statnews isn't a frivolous news outlet, and the revised title elides the intradisciplinary conflict at the heart of this story, creating the impression t…

HN's way of dealing with titles has been around forever and functions surprisingly well overall. When grumblings come up they are usually reasonable and we usually react by changing the title until readers stop grumbling. But these cases are a small percentage of the total. Sometimes the community is divided about what's reasonable, in which case every title change generates grumbling and the process never converges. In that case we either stick with the original title or just make a call and move on.

I think you make a good point about this title. In a case like this it's best to break the tie with the original title, so I've changed it back above.

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

#372

Post by davinic » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 6:19 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #365

WhompingWindows wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 fall…

I would say that this is an example of the planning fallacy.

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

#373

Post by omgwtfbyobbq » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 6:30 PM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #337

omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing the perception that it slowed Alzheimer's is because some patients were misdiagnosed. Aricept can help with falls in Parkinson's patients with balance problems, and in my experience seems to help with arousal. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3013493/ Accurately diagnosing the elderly is difficult. My grandmother was diagnosed with Alzheimer's 15-20 years ago, which was likely inaccurate. At…

Yes, until recently there was no way to confirm Alzheimer with certainty until after death. But recent imaging solutions make it possible to see the amyloid plaques in living subjects.

Can imaging differentiate between people who have plaques with and without impairment?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180817093810.h...

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

#374

Post by will4274 » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 6:33 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #342

will4274 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's the downside to "believing" in climate science, though? Let's say it's all a hoax. The way I see it, the worst thing is funds are diverted for things that don't help us that much. The "green new deal" is estimated to cost between $50 and $100 trillion over ten years. The current US budget is about $4.5 trillion per year. What else could the US government do with between 100% and 200% of the current budget? H…

Rather amazingly, the $93 trillion dollar price tag seems to be a function of right-wing think tank groupthink. Some right-wing think tank came up with the number, and you can see it cited on mises.org, the Washington Examiner, Fox Business, and a wide variety of other right-leaning outlets, all citing the original right-wing calculation uncritically. Seems somewhat apropos on a discussion thread about groupthink tha…

The proponents of the plan refuse to estimate it's cost. I don't think it's unreasonable or unexpected to use opponent's estimates when they are the only estimates available. The (left-leaning) website factcheck.org notes that the green new deal is likely to incorporate a Medicare-for-all program with a pricetag around $36 trillion, so the order of magnitude is at least correct.

So, I think your "groupthink" descriptor is a off base. I'd also note that you didn't respond to the substance of my comment (seriously - replace the $50 to $100 trillion in my comment with $20 trillion - does it make a difference to my argument??) but instead frothed at a widely cited estimate without providing another estimate that you saw as more reliable.

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

#375

Post by rumanator » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 6:35 PM UTC

mikekchar wrote: post #327

patmcc wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does the medical establishment benefit from not curing your illness?

Having experienced something that seems to be similar, imagine that you are working on a web server. It is very slow sometimes. Your project leader is absolutely convinced that the problem is due to multiple requests being made to the DB at the same time. He has been lobbying to rewrite the DB layer for some time now. He hates the archetecture that was left to him by the previous lead developer and is absolutely sure…

> It's not that keeping the poor behaviour is benefitting him in any way. It's more that the new solution is not his solution and he's got a lot riding on his solution being chosen (justify his code rewrite).

It might also be worth to add that he might have been subjected multiple times to alternative theories that were refuted, and in his eyes this new outlandish theory isn't even the most credible one on that list.

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

#376

Post by rurp » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 6:44 PM UTC

Itsdijital wrote: post #334

atombender wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, psoriasis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6369634/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30222202 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29908580 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6881942/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6048199/ etc.

I went on a soylent-like diet a few years ago and my psoriasis completely went away for the first time ever. I also felt better than ever. Eventually I went back to just eating regular food and within a month it was coming back along with not feeling as great. I have still never been able to nail it down, and my dermatologist is pretty dismissive of it.

You might want to look into trying an elimination diet. There are quite a few resources online for this and gist of it is that you cut out a whole bunch of food types that have been known to cause issues with some people. After a few weeks of that you add back in a single group of food every few days and check if any symptoms return.

Some people have had luck using this method to find issues that doctor visits weren't able to surface.

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

#377

Post by wavepruner » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 6:47 PM UTC

not_kurt_godel wrote: post #336

wtallis wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're really not helping your case by citing two people who come across as even more shifty. Piling on more low-quality evidence like this just raises more questions and doubts, and gives the impression that you either cannot identify credible evidence or that none exists.

Agreed. The first source cites his own talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBTr9iQQuq4 , in which he starts out with the disclaimer: > It [his cure for Alzheimer's] isn't a proven reality so if you're looking for double-blind clinical studies of this you're gonna be disappointed. But if you're willing to suspend your disbelief and try something as simple as giving your family member without Alzheimer's disease some…

There's a lot more to it than that. Did you watch the series of videos? The underlying mechanism of how mercury can induce β‐amyloid production and tau phosphorylation has been discovered.

Perhaps this paper would be better than the videos. I posted the videos because they are easier to understand. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1471-4159...

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

#378

Post by wavepruner » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 6:51 PM UTC

wtallis wrote: post #326

wavepruner wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for the feedback regarding how I come across. Next time I will try to include more specific detail in the OP that hopefully does not upset people. I've found that a vague introduction protects me from down-votes, but perhaps there is a way to talk about some details without that happening. The illness is chronic mercury toxicity and the treatment is chelation therapy. I know a man who reversed his dementia…

You're really not helping your case by citing two people who come across as even more shifty. Piling on more low-quality evidence like this just raises more questions and doubts, and gives the impression that you either cannot identify credible evidence or that none exists.

I posted the videos because they are easier to understand. The underlying mechanism of how mercury can induce β‐amyloid production and tau phosphorylation has been discovered. Here's a paper that discusses the same ideas: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1471-4159...

And I'm not sure why you describe Boyd Hayley's work as low quality. The man has published a huge amount of work, much of which was funded by the NIH.

Ultimately I think the highest quality evidence is the actual curing of sick people. I know my claims of being cured and of others being cured are hard to believe. If you saw first-hand the transformation we went through then you would know we are on the right track.

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

#379

Post by qqqwerty » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 7:07 PM UTC

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…

How exactly is media pressure influencing climate science? Most of the foundational research was done long before climate change was being discussed in the media. And as far as I am aware, the media continues to have zero influence in how NSF grants are awarded.

Another fun fact, Fox News, a nakedly partisan cable network that adamantly denies the existence of climate change is the most watched channel on cable TV. They just recently hit their highest viewership[1]. And the President of the United States has been known to set his policy priorities based on things he sees on Fox News. So who's influence should we be worried about?

In the spirit of acknowledging potential sources of bias and influence that originally started this thread, I will acknowledge that the "mainstream media" occasionally gets it wrong and does have a tendency to sensationalize stories about climate change. But I would like you to acknowledge that the "other mainstream media"[2] like Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting Group are just as bad (if not worse), and are just as powerful and influential (if not more so) as their counterparts in the "mainstream media".

[1]https://www.axios.com/fox-news-record-ratings-2019-msnbc-cnn... [2] Calling it "right wing media" does disservice to the fact that these media outlets likely have more collective viewership and readership than the "mainstream" outlets.

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

#380

Post by scottlocklin » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 7:10 PM UTC

tempsy wrote: post #131

scottlocklin wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gum disease is also linked to being old, just like Alzheimers disease, heart disease, baldness, wrinkly faces, diabetic disease and lots of other things. Sermon: people are really, really shit at linear regression.

The logic that chronic illness can’t be prevented and is either genetic or inevitable is so problematic. Like everyone is going to get old and if I think getting old means I will inevitably get gum disease which could cause Alzheimer’s then why bother flossing or caring about preventative oral health?

#1: you're going to die, and while you can stave it off by living a certain way, there's ultimately nothing you can do about it.

#2: gum disease is correlated with age. Alzheimers is also correlated with age. The connection between the two correlations is age. That means there is basically no evidence gum disease causes Alzheimers any more than heart disease or having wrinkles on your forehead causes gum disease.