111–120 of 150 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As noted elsewhere in this thread, which you seem not to have read, I discuss that matter in the article, which you also seem not to have read.
Not only have I read it, I know people mentioned in it. There aren't very many.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is just one person's (informed I assume) opinion tough. It does sound like common sense but alas common sense is rarely a good guide when it comes down to how the body works. I don't have a dog in this fight and I don't remember that much but I read someone's "in defense of the amyloid hypothesis" with interest. So if you want an counterpoint, you can go read https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-defense-of-the-am…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You said the camp promoting the amyloid hypothesis has struggled greatly to come up with evidence to support its position. What did you mean by that if not a read of the quality of the evidence? Why do you continue to frame this as a choice between a single cherry-picked expert's opinion, and my own non-expert opinion? Either fairly represent the spectrum of experts' views, or decide based on the actual evidence and…
It's time for the inflammation / diabetes / infection / metabolic dysfunction / liver dysfunction folks to get more money to test their theories.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You said the camp promoting the amyloid hypothesis has struggled greatly to come up with evidence to support its position. What did you mean by that if not a read of the quality of the evidence? Why do you continue to frame this as a choice between a single cherry-picked expert's opinion, and my own non-expert opinion? Either fairly represent the spectrum of experts' views, or decide based on the actual evidence and…
My estimate of the quality of the evidence is based on daily discussions with people who work in that field and reading summary articles in major journals. I typically don't read raw scientific articles directly- those are aimed at people in the field. Instead, my understanding comes from a synthesis of expert opinions weighted by my own priors (based on 30+ years in the field). Derek's opinion is now the prevailing…
It’s poor science to make an argument on authority, if you know the science then you should be quoting the published research and not relying on others so called expertise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is just one person's (informed I assume) opinion tough. It does sound like common sense but alas common sense is rarely a good guide when it comes down to how the body works. I don't have a dog in this fight and I don't remember that much but I read someone's "in defense of the amyloid hypothesis" with interest. So if you want an counterpoint, you can go read https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-defense-of-the-am…
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…
Great news! If you are a mouse. For humans, not yet progressed to trials though safety has been evaluated for other diseases, so possible for trials to happen quickly? " the compound has strong potential to quickly transition into human clinics because it has already undergone safety evaluations for other diseases."
The Hitchhiker's Guide was right. We spend all our time inventing new cures for the mice!
This is so obvious that the only thing I can think is that they simply don't care. They just want to find something that masks the symptoms (perhaps to keep patients dependent on the drug for life if they succeed).
What causes Alzheimer gentlemen? very few people is really trying to solve this answer.
Is it even known what causes the moments of lucidity in patients? Molecules should be mapped to identify the patterns (and therefore track possible sources).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I work in drug discovery. For the past twenty years or so, my personal analogy for this hypothesis has been a fantasy story around the days after the bombing of Dresden, when a new civilization suddenly visits Dresden and has no priors about what may have happened there. The aliens see bricks all over the place and assume that the bricks were the cause of the catastrophe. They take great efforts to pick up the bricks…
The hypothesis that amyloid is simply a downstream effect, not a cause, is of course worth considering, and where my mind was at when I first approached the literature skeptically. The widespread presence of amyloid-beta plaques in Alzheimer's disease has been known since 1906, but the field didn't adopt the amyloid hypothesis for decades precisely because of this possibility. But then in the early 1990's, strong gen…
I doubt there is one root cause of Alzheimers (except maybe in some genetic cases), and this is likely not a panacea, but sounds like it may assist some of the key processes involved in breakdown.
Root behaviors related to sleep quality and quantity, diet, exercise, infection, environmental exposure and stress, as well as genetics, likely all contribute.
But, waste clearing and neuro-inflammation seem to be core processes involved in the progression of the pathology, and improving natural vascular waste clearance seems like a logical place to find at least a small improvement in progression and symptoms...
Analogy: if someone puts metal shavings in an engine, having a better oil filter won't prevent all damage caused by the person putting the metal shavings there (nor will it halt the process), but it will reduce the damage by getting those shavings out of circulation before they have a chance to make even more repeated passes through the engine and do even more more damage. Improved vascular waste clearance is likely only a small piece of the puzzle, like having good oil pressure and filtration, but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant just because it doesn't prevent the other upstream root causes!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now if we consider amyloid beta therapies: we have treatments that target amyloid beta with varying degrees of success but at least some show definite reductions in amyloid beta plaques. To the best of my knowledge that has not shown to improve outcomes in Alzheimer's patients to any meaningful degree. This is false. They slow down disease progression by about 30%, as measured by cognitive outcomes. This is discussed…
I work in drug discovery. For the past twenty years or so, my personal analogy for this hypothesis has been a fantasy story around the days after the bombing of Dresden, when a new civilization suddenly visits Dresden and has no priors about what may have happened there. The aliens see bricks all over the place and assume that the bricks were the cause of the catastrophe. They take great efforts to pick up the bricks…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Alzheimer’s is driven by the buildup of toxic proteins called amyloid-beta. Isn't the current thinking that amyloid-beta buildup is a marker, not a cause? The therapy may be working here, but it isn't clear whether clearing amyloid-beta proteins is the mechanism or an outcome.
Yes. And to anyone paying attention, this has been current since about 2010.
I almost couldn't believe we are still talking about the same causes of alzheimers 16 years later.