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

Why has there been so little progress on Alzheimer's disease?

freakonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 355 posts

Re: Why has there been so little progress on Alzheimer's disease?

#161

Post by defrost »

stingraycharles wrote: post #158
bradley13 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty clearly not. It would seem that beta amyloids correlate with Alzheimer's, but do not cause it. The problem us "consensus science". You could get funding to research beta amyloids, but not to research any competing hypotheses. It's much like climate science today: any dissent at all, even just questioning the predictions of catastrophe, immediately brands you as a heretic.

> It's much like climate science today: any dissent at all, even just questioning the predictions of catastrophe, immediately brands you as a heretic. I think this is not a great example, as there’s a huge group of people that, in fact, does not agree with the consensus and would happily fund research that (tries to) prove otherwise. I fully agree with your point, though, just not the example.

Over the past decades the group that are not happy with the AGW consensus in the hard earth sciences crowd have principally funded FUD via think tanks, ala the pro-tobacco lobby back in the day, rather than research.

The few examples of research driven from the skeptic PoV (eg: urban heat skewing, etc) have landed on the side of the AGW consensus.

Re: Why has there been so little progress on Alzheimer's disease?

#162

Post by josh-sematic »

This is what the replication crisis looks like in tangible effect. I feel that consensus around major questions should never form without totally independent confirmation of experimental results. Even if not due to intentional fraud, you have to worry about, systematic errors, p-hacking, or sheer statistics (a million experiments performed by researchers is likely to yield at least one 1-in-a-million statistical fluctuation that looks like a genuine result).

Re: Why has there been so little progress on Alzheimer's disease?

#163

Post by Noaidi »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #90

I'm surprised there was no mention (at least none that I found when searching) of the relatively recent research coming out of Harvard regarding the hypothesis that low levels of lithium in the brain are responsible for a lot of Alzheimer's cases. The research is still in the very early stages (largely mouse models, though they did develop the hypothesis by looking at differences in human brain tissue post mortem), b…

Nah, lithium is only treating something that is occurring much deeper: low glucose transport in the brain.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8772148/

This is why APoE e4 alleles are a risk factor, because they control glucose transport.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-025-03550-w

The brain is just losing energy.

Re: Why has there been so little progress on Alzheimer's disease?

#164

Post by Noaidi »

tsoukase wrote: post #103

It's because there is little progress in uncovering the mechanisms of the disease. Alzheimer's et al are tau-opathies and Parkinson's et al are synuclein-opathies. Both are degenerative and we wait for their common base in a Grand Unified Theory. I like to view degeneration of any tissue as death due to (premature) aging. So, if we treat it, we achieve immortality by applying it to all body. This is something hard.

Grand Unified Theory:

Low intracellular ATP/GTP.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adq6077

Re: Why has there been so little progress on Alzheimer's disease?

#165

Post by AtNightWeCode »

No mention of Leqembi or Kinsula? Both FDA approved. And Simufilam that was mentioned was cancelled because of a failed phase III study years ago.

But fair, improved biomarker data does not mean the drug is making any real improvements for the patients especially with the side effects. But it is also well known.

Re: Why has there been so little progress on Alzheimer's disease?

#166

Post by jleyank »

Closi wrote: post #105
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are wrong, for several reasons. From the human perspective, researchers are people, and they do have their incentives. Making a breakthrough, of any kind, is important for them - even if for their career (but many do genuinely care and want to help humanity as a whole). From marketing and sales perspective, look at what happen to pharma companies capitalization when Ozempic appeared: a relatively small El…

Plus even if it does involve expensive drugs and long term treatment, that would be a huge step towards cheap drugs and short term treatment. Lots of treatments start expensive and then come down in cost as competitors step in.

Patents run out also.

Re: Why has there been so little progress on Alzheimer's disease?

#167

Post by fn-mote »

Drupon wrote: post #108
gruez wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Problem was, the model was wrong. I thought despite the fraud, it's still the best model we have[1]? The fact there was fraud doesn't mean the model is immediately incorrect. At best, it means its foundations are shakier than we thought, but it's not a slam dunk repudiation. [1] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-defense-of-the-amyloid-h...

>I am David Schneider-Joseph, an engineer formerly with SpaceX and Google, now working in AI safety. Alzheimer’s isn’t my field If anyone wants to know who wrote the article linked before wasting time reading it, there you go.

For you, simply listing the author of the post is enough to discard it. Not everyone is that well informed, so it would be helpful for you to add another sentence explaining why this author has no credibility with you.

Re: Why has there been so little progress on Alzheimer's disease?

#168

Post by torcete »

ArnoldusManlius wrote: post #154

What are the 3 pro’s of Alzheimer’s disease? The 3 pro’s of Alzheimer’s disease are: - Every day you make new friends - You can hide your own eastern eggs - And every day you make new friends ——- This a a bit of a dark joke that goes around in The Netherlands. In Dutch it goes like this: Wat zijn de drie voordelen van Alzheimer? De drie voordelen van Alzheimer zijn: - je maakt elke dag weer nieuwe vrienden - je kan j…

"Alzheimer’s disease is a condition of the elderly, and they’re on their way out anyway." That's a such a protestant way of thinking. It contrasts very much with the catholic culture of southern Europe. I am not saying that is better or worse, but I think it is a very clear example of how different the culture is across the UE. One key aspect is how to look after your elders.

Re: Why has there been so little progress on Alzheimer's disease?

#169

Post by hotstickyballs »

stingraycharles wrote: post #158
bradley13 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty clearly not. It would seem that beta amyloids correlate with Alzheimer's, but do not cause it. The problem us "consensus science". You could get funding to research beta amyloids, but not to research any competing hypotheses. It's much like climate science today: any dissent at all, even just questioning the predictions of catastrophe, immediately brands you as a heretic.

> It's much like climate science today: any dissent at all, even just questioning the predictions of catastrophe, immediately brands you as a heretic. I think this is not a great example, as there’s a huge group of people that, in fact, does not agree with the consensus and would happily fund research that (tries to) prove otherwise. I fully agree with your point, though, just not the example.

That’s not true. If you want to have a job at a prestigious institution then the research committees are pretty consistent in their biases.

Re: Why has there been so little progress on Alzheimer's disease?

#170

Post by pas »

bradley13 wrote: post #145
gruez wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Problem was, the model was wrong. I thought despite the fraud, it's still the best model we have[1]? The fact there was fraud doesn't mean the model is immediately incorrect. At best, it means its foundations are shakier than we thought, but it's not a slam dunk repudiation. [1] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-defense-of-the-amyloid-h...

Pretty clearly not. It would seem that beta amyloids correlate with Alzheimer's, but do not cause it. The problem us "consensus science". You could get funding to research beta amyloids, but not to research any competing hypotheses. It's much like climate science today: any dissent at all, even just questioning the predictions of catastrophe, immediately brands you as a heretic.

half the stuff currently in clinical trials is not targeting amyloids.

https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/trc...

Post reply on HN