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

241–250 of 355 posts

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

#241

Post by rcxdude »

ramraj07 wrote: post #209
rcxdude wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correlation is not causation but it's a pretty good idea to start with how blindingly obvious differences in brains affected with the disease might be related with the disease. There's also evidence that it precedes the symptoms of the disease. And it's also not a good idea to suppose that you are dealing with unrelated effects without good reason. Mutations->more amyloid->earlier symptoms should be considered indica…

Im not gonna try to correct you because its probably going to be futile, but I implore you to paste this thread into chatgpt and ask where you could be wrong in your logic. Correlation not causation is all the more important in a topic like this; nothing you said suggests amyloid causes alzheimers or just forms because of it.

Just say your point instead of dancing around it.

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

#242

Post by gruez »

trhway wrote: post #112
Drupon wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

there is even easier way to estimate the chances of time wasting - it is a "rationalist" website, an "effective altruism"-like version of rationality. wrt. original post - quickly googled, and that for example https://www.news-medical.net/health/What-are-Amyloid-Plaques... - pretty short and seems to be clear that amyloids do have some correlation while may or may be not the cause. "Amyloid plaques form one of the tw…

>there is even easier way to estimate the chances of time wasting - it is a "rationalist" website, an "effective altruism"-like version of rationality.

Is that supposed to be an endorsement or a dismissal? The ostensible goals of "rationality" seem like good things, so it sounds like an endorsement, but in the wake of the FTX/SBF fallout they got a bad rap.

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

#244

Post by card_zero »

DavidSJ wrote: post #197
Drupon wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Many in this thread, who have evidently spent very little time studying the topic, have confidently concluded the experts are wrong. I, also a non-expert, spent six months studying what the experts are doing, concluded that they actually seem to know what they’re talking about, and shared my understanding of that with other non-experts. If you’re going to dismiss me for saying the experts are right, since I’m not an…

DSJ! I remember you from about 2001, when you had made the chatbot VIAL. I can vouch for you being a smartypants 25 years ago, don't know about now.

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

#245

Post by tim333 »

jhedwards wrote: post #193
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'm not sure I understand this. We've added hundreds of gigatons of carbon to the atmosphere. There's no mystery here, it's basic physics and chemistry that this will change things, and it's accepted that we don't know exactly _how_ things will change. The alternative:…

Climate science is much more complicated - there are many things you could disagree with beyond will tons of carbon change things, yes or no.

Like are we doomed or will it just get a bit warmer before we switch to solar for example.

There are also money issues like with the alzheimer's situation. If climate change is dooming us then we should send more money to climate scientists.

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

#246

Post by DavidSJ »

card_zero wrote: post #244
DavidSJ wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many in this thread, who have evidently spent very little time studying the topic, have confidently concluded the experts are wrong. I, also a non-expert, spent six months studying what the experts are doing, concluded that they actually seem to know what they’re talking about, and shared my understanding of that with other non-experts. If you’re going to dismiss me for saying the experts are right, since I’m not an…

DSJ! I remember you from about 2001, when you had made the chatbot VIAL. I can vouch for you being a smartypants 25 years ago, don't know about now.

Ha! You must be using a different username than I knew you by then. Hit me up on one of the many platforms we’re probably both on if you like, would be good to reconnect.

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

#247

Post by tim333 »

throw4847285 wrote: post #198
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.

"Consensus science" is science.

Not by my prefered definition. I like science being the study of nature through reason and experiment. Reality trumps consensus.

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

#248

Post by Barbing »

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

Might this be a doctor vs. physician assistant situation?

The people who know the most are probably busy and (not to be rude) are not necessarily the strongest educators.

Maybe my standard is too low here or I have a different need than you, would make a different accuracy-accessibility tradeoff…

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

#249

Post by tim333 »

bsder wrote: post #40
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…

The Amyloid hypothesis persisted for so long because we didn't have any obvious counterarguments since it is so hard to do studies on the brain. Which also means that it's not a bad hypothesis . What happened is we got the tools to start studying viral associations with other diseases and ... whooops ... suddenly there are associations. The shingles and RSV vaccines seem to affect dementia while others like influenza…

An obvious counter hypothesis is the amyloid is produced to counter an infectious agent. It is a reaction to that, not the cause. I think HSV-1 has been hypothesised. I'm not that up on it, just saying there are alternatives.

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

#250

Post by raverbashing »

tim333 wrote: post #245
jhedwards wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'm not sure I understand this. We've added hundreds of gigatons of carbon to the atmosphere. There's no mystery here, it's basic physics and chemistry that this will change things, and it's accepted that we don't know exactly _how_ things will change. The alternative:…

Climate science is much more complicated - there are many things you could disagree with beyond will tons of carbon change things, yes or no. Like are we doomed or will it just get a bit warmer before we switch to solar for example. There are also money issues like with the alzheimer's situation. If climate change is dooming us then we should send more money to climate scientists.

> There are also money issues like with the alzheimer's situation. (that is: If climate change is dooming us then we should send more money to climate scientists)

Absolutely, the issues are similar

And if this can upend the business model of some big companies we'll give some "incentives" to some "doubtful" scientists even if their doubts are unfounded (actually very well founded but you get the gist)

Which sucks because such work should be free of pressures and incentives

Post reply on HN