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

Copper transport drug restores memory and clears toxic Alzheimer's proteins

monash.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 150 posts

Re: Copper transport drug restores memory and clears toxic Alzheimer's proteins

#51

Post by righthand »

DavidSJ wrote: post #44
dekhn wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I had to choose between Derek Lowe (author of the anti-amyloid-research article who is also highly experienced and skilled in pharma) and Scott Alexander/David Schneider-Joseph (psychiatrist and AI engineer, respectively), all my priors suggest Lowe gives better advice. "I am David Schneider-Joseph, an engineer formerly with SpaceX and Google, now working in AI safety. Alzheimer’s isn’t my field, but I got very in…

This frequently comes up as a critique of my article, but I don't claim to be disrupting the field as a smart outsider. Rather, I looked at the field and concluded that the experts seem to know what they're doing. Derek Lowe is very much in the minority on this matter.

“Derek Lowe is very much in the minority”

Is putting your thumb on the scale against Lowe. When a few replies down from here some commenters have provided an article demonstrating the exact fraudulent science in favor of what Lowe is saying.[0] It seems you may very well be disrupting it because he has a minority opinion. So you’ve possibly spent 6 months understanding an incorrect and fraud supported thesis. That seems like an outsider trying to disrupt it by using their “Google/SpaceX” creds to claim authority on the work of insiders.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48544407

Re: Copper transport drug restores memory and clears toxic Alzheimer's proteins

#52

Post by TaupeRanger »

dgoldstein0 wrote: post #32
TaupeRanger wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are wrong. This paper very clearly does not show that it "works". The debate exists for a good reason - the very thing this paper claims to show is the exact thing the person you replied to was questioning. And that is a central question in all of Alzheimer's research. There are dozens of studies that show mice improving their memory/spatial reasoning as Alzheimer's models. None of them have led to a proven impro…

> Over 56 days, the treatment reduced toxic amyloid-beta by 42 per cent and improved spatial learning by nearly 44 per cent So there's some benefit. Sounds like their next step is a much larger trial to answer the question you are posing.

The word "benefit" does not apply here. The only "benefits" patients and families care about are: 1) does the patient live longer, and/or 2) does the quality of life improve in a meaningful way? Amyloid plaques are a surrogate marker, and (as already explained by many people in this thread) have not been established as a causal factor in disease. In fact, some work has even suggested a protective role for plaques. So we do not have enough evidence to say that a 42% reduction in amyloid-beta IN MICE relays any benefit at all to humans.

You are correct that a series of clinical trials, which would take 7-10 years, would clear things up. But for now, we simply don't know.

Re: Copper transport drug restores memory and clears toxic Alzheimer's proteins

#53

Post by DavidSJ »

righthand wrote: post #51
DavidSJ wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This frequently comes up as a critique of my article, but I don't claim to be disrupting the field as a smart outsider. Rather, I looked at the field and concluded that the experts seem to know what they're doing. Derek Lowe is very much in the minority on this matter.

“Derek Lowe is very much in the minority” Is putting your thumb on the scale against Lowe. When a few replies down from here some commenters have provided an article demonstrating the exact fraudulent science in favor of what Lowe is saying.[0] It seems you may very well be disrupting it because he has a minority opinion. So you’ve possibly spent 6 months understanding an incorrect and fraud supported thesis. That se…

1. I don't say Derek Lowe is wrong because he's in the minority. Minorities are sometimes right. But since the parent comment was arguing on authority and my lack thereof, I point out only that one shouldn't cherry-pick one's choice of authorities. Either accept the majority opinion of the experts, or come to your own opinion based on the quality of the arguments and evidence.

2. I would never want anyone to believe what I say because of "Google/SpaceX creds" (I didn't even write that line, Scott added it, and only to provide a brief biography and acknowledge that I do not work in the field, not to lend an air of authority to my words).

3. There's no need to cite the fraud to me, since I already discuss it in my article. You are welcome to read that article and form your own opinion about the arguments therein.

Re: Copper transport drug restores memory and clears toxic Alzheimer's proteins

#54

Post by dekhn »

DavidSJ wrote: post #44
dekhn wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I had to choose between Derek Lowe (author of the anti-amyloid-research article who is also highly experienced and skilled in pharma) and Scott Alexander/David Schneider-Joseph (psychiatrist and AI engineer, respectively), all my priors suggest Lowe gives better advice. "I am David Schneider-Joseph, an engineer formerly with SpaceX and Google, now working in AI safety. Alzheimer’s isn’t my field, but I got very in…

This frequently comes up as a critique of my article, but I don't claim to be disrupting the field as a smart outsider. Rather, I looked at the field and concluded that the experts seem to know what they're doing. Derek Lowe is very much in the minority on this matter.

No, he's not (I work in pharma at a company that does basic and applied research on Alz). It's more correct to say there are several camps, but the camp promoting amyloid plaques as the causative/driver for Alz has struggled greatly to come up with evidence supporting its position.

Re: Copper transport drug restores memory and clears toxic Alzheimer's proteins

#55

Post by janalsncm »

TaupeRanger wrote: post #13

Flagged. Nonsense puff piece by the university. The headline itself is beyond terrible - this is a mouse model and would need years of further successful research to be able to say that it "restores memory" in any meaningful way, let alone in actual humans.

Press release should be replaced by actual journal article, which doesn’t omit “mouse model”.

Re: Copper transport drug restores memory and clears toxic Alzheimer's proteins

#56

Post by DavidSJ »

dekhn wrote: post #54
DavidSJ wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This frequently comes up as a critique of my article, but I don't claim to be disrupting the field as a smart outsider. Rather, I looked at the field and concluded that the experts seem to know what they're doing. Derek Lowe is very much in the minority on this matter.

No, he's not (I work in pharma at a company that does basic and applied research on Alz). It's more correct to say there are several camps, but the camp promoting amyloid plaques as the causative/driver for Alz has struggled greatly to come up with evidence supporting its position.

Is your view that amyloid is actually a minority view among researchers? That seems completely wrong based on basically every conference proceeding I've viewed and the volume of papers and citations I've examined.

If your view is merely that there is a "camp" of experts that disagrees, then sure, but in that case, I do not think it is honest to frame this as a choice between believing in the authority of a single expert from that camp, vs. the (lack of) authority of me, a non-expert.

(I also think your read of the evidence is wrong, but I won't restate the arguments in my article.)

Re: Copper transport drug restores memory and clears toxic Alzheimer's proteins

#57

Post by marton78 »

avgDev wrote: post #19

My mother has early onset alzheimer's disease. We currently know very little about the disease and the current treatment options are controversial. The efficacy of the medications removing the amyloid plaque from the brain is questionable, as people still decline. What makes alzheimer's difficult is that it is not really a single uniform disease. There are subtypes. Since my mother has it, I was presented with an opt…

Give her -- and yourself -- lithium orotate. It's an asymmetric bet: it won't hurt, but very well might help. It has been found to be effective in murine models.

Re: Copper transport drug restores memory and clears toxic Alzheimer's proteins

#58

Post by littlexsparkee »

ck2 wrote: post #18

btw definitely related and seems significant: they found people who use glucosamine (joint pain, knees etc) have a 25% higher chance of Alzheimer's progression https://thesciverse.org/scientists-found-that-a-supplement-t... (still can't figure out if that website is "AI" but they have great articles)

note this is only the case for those with early-stage cognitive decline. for healthy individuals, it actually has neuroprotective effects.

> Glucosamine mimicked the effects of a low-carbohydrate diet in a prior animal research, resulting in increased lifespan [21], and studies consistently showed that a low-carbohydrate diet protects against dementia [22, 23]. An animal study suggested that glucosamine may promote cognitive function by impacting energy metabolism [20]; other animal models have indicated the neuroprotective and anti-neuroinflammatory effects of glucosamine

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10052856/

Re: Copper transport drug restores memory and clears toxic Alzheimer's proteins

#59

Post by janalsncm »

Maybe a slight problem is liver toxicity at the doses in this study? The drug was tested at lower doses for other diseases, but above 72 mg caused problems. Quick conversion math is telling me this study would want 170+ mg.

Maybe there’s some way to get around this particular issue.

Re: Copper transport drug restores memory and clears toxic Alzheimer's proteins

#60

Post by dekhn »

DavidSJ wrote: post #56
dekhn wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he's not (I work in pharma at a company that does basic and applied research on Alz). It's more correct to say there are several camps, but the camp promoting amyloid plaques as the causative/driver for Alz has struggled greatly to come up with evidence supporting its position.

Is your view that amyloid is actually a minority view among researchers? That seems completely wrong based on basically every conference proceeding I've viewed and the volume of papers and citations I've examined. If your view is merely that there is a "camp" of experts that disagrees, then sure, but in that case, I do not think it is honest to frame this as a choice between believing in the authority of a single exp…

My opinion is that amyloid-as-cause moved from a majority to a minority view over the past few years, but it's not yet reflected in the literature (the entire amyloid establishment isn't going to give up its dominant position easily).

Also, I didn't say anything about the evidence (I don't have a "read" on the evidence, because I don't read Alz literature). My point is entirely that my priors indicate that Derek is a more reliable reader than you.

Post reply on HN