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

Expecting scientific rigor is not a bad bias: everyone who has been willing to do actual science agrees that climate change is real and significant. For example, Richard Muller was a climate skeptic who had a great job at one of the most prestigious universities in the world, got funding to establish a team to critically review climate science research … and concluded it was right:

“When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that.”

https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/after_climate_research_phy...

If you haven’t read up on both, it’s hard to appreciate how unlike climate science is from the beta amyloid theory. The latter has some evidence but there were always alternate theories by serious researchers because it involved multiple systems which scientists were still working to understand and basic questions around causation and correlation had significant debate.

In contrast, climate scientists reached consensus about climate change four decades ago and by now have established many separate lines of evidence which all support what has been the consensus position. More importantly, since the 1970s they have been making predictions which were subsequently upheld by measured data from multiple sources. The ongoing research is in fine-tuning predictions, estimating efficacy of proposed interventions, etc. but nobody is seriously questioning the basic idea.

Almost all of the people you hear dismissing climate change are funded by a handful of companies like Exxon, whose own internal research showing climate change was a significant threat produced a chart in 1982 which has proven accurate:

https://skepticalscience.com/pics/Exxonpredictions.png

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxons-own-resea...

It is sad. That reply, which you rightfully were irritated by, could have been expressed as a polite question.

That sort of question is what the response from user @bsder above helpfully tries to answer. That mode would invite more productive discussion, not more defensive annoyance.

Rules on HN say “Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.” but it is hard.

All I can suggest is: be patient and try to be positive

It is self-evident? What do you mean. The guy is not an expert, end of story

One important researcher fabricated data that directed too much funding to the amyloid hypothesis.

Next question.

There's progress, just only for those with access and can afford it

The President is singlehandedly kept this side of functional via infusions of this drug each month

https://beingpatient.com/fda-alzheimers-leqembi-nih-memo-tru...

They mysteriously rushed approval despite all other activity suspended the week after he was sworn-in

Watch how he disappears for a few days each month, that's why, it can only be done in a hospital and they have to do MRI for leakage