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

181–190 of 355 posts

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

#181

Post by next_xibalba »

jleyank wrote: post #30

They had a biological model. They had multiple drugs that were showed activity against that model, and effectiveness in humans. Problem was, the model was wrong. Pharma’s burned billions chasing this as it’s possibly the biggest market imaginable. Whether it was fraudulent or just incorrect is a different question. We don’t know all of the details of human biology. We don’t even know what all we don’t know. Most gues…

> Whether it was fraudulent or just incorrect is a different question.

And probably the more important question. How badly is the machine that does science broken? If we don’t focus here and fix it, there will be further decades without progress, all while wasting further billions.

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

#182

Post by Earw0rm »

The brain is a dynamic system, and a poorly understood one at that. It relies on active processes in order to not degenerate (likely the main reason why sleep deprivation is eventually fatal). Science is still some way from cataloguing all the processes involved, never mind fully understanding their workings.

Alzheimer's isn't a single-point-of-failure disease, more like a dysregulation of maintenance. So there are lots of things that can tip the odds one way or another, and we may get a lot better at prevention - to the point of reducing incidence maybe five-fold, or delaying its symptomatic onset to beyond the relevant lifespan - but the idea that there might be a single "cure" seems like wishful thinking.

It may also prove to be that, like a spinning-top, once things start to go off-axis it may be very difficult to restore the original stable state, and at most we can just slow it down a bit.

Perhaps more uncomfortable, if most of the effective interventions, risk-reduction-wise, are social/lifestyle related, that has implications for whether people have the agency to access those things.

(Time/energy/facilities/resources for exercise/active lifestyle being an obvious case in point, which is already well known to have a moderate protective effect).

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

#183

Post by cubefox »

Mistletoe wrote: post #96
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…

Every time I read about it and get jazzed I take it and feel awful. I’m guessing my brain chemistry is better without it.

Any side effect goes away if you reduce the dosage sufficiently. In the recent Harvard study the dose was very small when you convert it to a human equivalent dose.

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

#184

Post by Mistletoe »

cubefox wrote: post #183
Mistletoe wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I read about it and get jazzed I take it and feel awful. I’m guessing my brain chemistry is better without it.

Any side effect goes away if you reduce the dosage sufficiently. In the recent Harvard study the dose was very small when you convert it to a human equivalent dose.

I do try small doses.

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

#185

Post by [deleted] »

acdha wrote: post #171
hotstickyballs wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 t…

[deleted]

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

#186

Post by josh-wrale »

cookiengineer wrote: post #121
josh-wrale wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not always. Genetic causes are known.

... which kind of points to the indicator that "Alzheimer != Alzheimer", implying that too many diseases with the same side effects are categorized together? A lot of virological and parasitical components have historically been wrongly associated with genetic markers, too. Toxoplasmosis parasite comes to mind. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasma_gondii

Non-sequitur

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

#187

Post by delecti »

r0l1 wrote: post #148
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…

It’s actually quite simple: 1–5 mg lithium orotate, vitamin D, omega-3 from algae with high levels of polyphenols, a daily exercise routine, and good food—not the processed crap you often get in the US. My grandmother is 94 and still mentally so sharp that she amazes me every time. https://michael-nehls.de/

Was she diagnosed with Alzheimers, which she then managed to halt the progress of?

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

#188

Post by codexjourneys »

jkman wrote: post #175
fn-mote wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

By this logic, we wouldn't have some of the breakthroughs made throughout history. Outsiders have made some pretty interesting leaps (later honed by experts). Expertise is great, but it can exist outside of formal education, and it isn't the only metric.

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

#190

Post by cubefox »

Mistletoe wrote: post #184
cubefox wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any side effect goes away if you reduce the dosage sufficiently. In the recent Harvard study the dose was very small when you convert it to a human equivalent dose.

I do try small doses.

Apparently not small enough ("feel awful")
Post reply on HN