1. There are numerous studies that show omega fatty acids and MCT's slow cognitive decline significantly in canine patients (short lifespans and big litters allow much "quicker" studies in dogs).
2 Both my wife and a good friend had severe cognitive side effects after taking ezetimibe that resolved weeks after stopping the medications.
My old veterinarian brain strongly suspects there is a link between lipids and development of Alzheimer's based on those two points. While inflammation certainly leads to amyloid and is involved in many degenerative diseases in the body (Ken Johnson was one of my pathology professors in vet school), it is certainly more than amyloid in the brain, and lipids has to be an important clue.
Ken did his work in 1986, and we have known about lipids helping dogs for decades now. It is tragic that there likely very important clues have been overlooked in the pursuit of... Money? Fame? Validation?
I have lost two brothers to Alzheimer's so this is not an academic exercise to me. I agree that the assumption of amyloid being the single problem has wasted time and starved competing avenues of research. There have been others like Dr. Dale Bredesen that have for a long time has advocated other research. Does he have the right answer? Hard to tell because funding outside of plaques is hard to come by. I don't see the problem as an accidental selfish emperor that once replaced the system will heal. There is only one approach because there is only one major source of funding, the federal government. We have a monopoly by design and that determines how much of our health care is run. That a monopoly might be myopic should not come as a surprise. Sixty years ago the US medical system was more decentralized and considerably less monopolistic.
...And the "misses" just keep on comin'! --> Physicists' "String Theory", for and against
"String Theory has been the dominant candidate for a ‘theory of everything’ for decades. But Eric Weinstein thinks its dominance is unjustified and has resulted in a culture that has stifled critique, alternative views, and ultimately has damaged theoretical physics at a catastrophic level. In this exclusive interview, Weinstein defends String Theory against some of its critics, but ultimately argues the need for a fundamental cultural shift to save the vitality of the field from certain death."
Generally, within any cultural context, if one asserts anything too far outside of the widely held belief system of that context, he will be ignored or dismissed by most and ridiculed by some. Typical critics will not bother justifying themselves, thinking there is no need for what they consider to be the self-evident.
Consider for example, the broader and widely held belief that it is socially beneficial for government to coerce taxpayers via their police powers into being involuntary supporters of scientific and medical research, i.e., welfare for PhD’s. I know the latter truthful phrasing has already turned off many and brought up thoughts of “crackpot” in some. Unfortunately, it gets worse. If one would assert that not only is this not socially beneficial, but immoral, few would take it seriously or even try to understand for a microsecond a line of thought in that direction.
However, here is a very brief indication why a very few in fact do consider most government funded research and every other Socialistic function improper and immoral violations of individual rights, and therefore improper functions of government.
In society one can acquire values (money, food, clothing, services, relationships, etc.) from others by (1) voluntary, mutually acceptable peaceful trade of value for value, or (2) involuntary taking values from others by initiating or threatening force, aka crime from local perpetrators or foreign invaders.
All proper government functions should relate to a mutual defense against (2). If government engages in (2), it becomes more dangerous than a criminal, because it should be the institution formed explicitly to have overwhelming defensive power only. When the government redistributes man-made values and benefits - education, healthcare, research grants, food, etc., it must first take these values involuntarily from those who earned them, as would a criminal. Individual rights are sanctions of and defense of peaceful behavior only. There are no rights to goods that require other human beings to produce them. A right to man-made goods, regardless of one’s actions, such as doing nothing, equals the right to force others to provide them, aka enslave them. Taking resources involuntarily from some in society in order to give to others is a form of crime.
Great journalism. This piece reminded me of one of the most mind blowing podcasts I've ever listened to...Eric Weinstein's The Portal episode 19. A deep dive into research mice, telomeres, cancer, immortality, and how they are connected. We have not scratched the surface on how corrupted our foundational knowledge is in some areas. I highly recommend this listen.
"research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government...yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." - Dwight Eisenhower's farewell address, January 1961
Hi Ms. Silberner (and Bari) - I share some of your concerns - more than 20 years ago I was sitting at a table of Alzheimer's researchers who were sure that there would be a powerful treatment very soon. However, some among them were tau enthusiasts, so the hype and failure to produce is not just limited to the beta amyloid crowed.
More importantly, the subtitle of your piece is very wrong and misleading. Medicine doesn't have treatment for Alzheimer's (or any other dementia) but there are many things that medicine can do for *people* with a dementing illness. This ranges from education and support for the person and the caregiver, to simplifying and modifying treatments for other conditions in persons with cognitive impairment and a life-limiting disease, to just referring to the Alzheimer's association. Unfortunately, far too many medical people also say "there is nothing we can do" when there is so much they could do, if they were willing.
Substitute lupron and puberty blockers and you have essentially the same story. .But it is much more tragic that children are being sterilized and often deprived of sexual function for a conditional treatable often by therapy alone. There are many other well documented effects on bone, brain and vision. Why don't you write a parallel story about this much more tragic story about young people who have not yet had a chance to live healthy lives?
There may be no cure for Alzheimer's, at least not in the near term. More people are living longer than at any time in history, and diseases of old age are to be expected.
Rather than restricting drug availability, perhaps we can better educate ourselves that new drugs are risky, and that it's better to wait and only use those which have been in the market for at least 5 years and shown greater risk than benefit. Those who chose to take the risk are free to do so, and those like me who are more conservative in approach to medication can wait and see. My doctor offers new drugs, but he always defers to my wishes and provides other more proven avenues, including no treatment.
Surprised not to find mention of Dr Dale Bredesen at UCLA, author of a well read book on Alzheimer's, in this article about attempts to decipher this disease. His approach makes sense and moves the ball significantly IMO, though not all the way to the end zone.
FWIW
1. There are numerous studies that show omega fatty acids and MCT's slow cognitive decline significantly in canine patients (short lifespans and big litters allow much "quicker" studies in dogs).
2 Both my wife and a good friend had severe cognitive side effects after taking ezetimibe that resolved weeks after stopping the medications.
My old veterinarian brain strongly suspects there is a link between lipids and development of Alzheimer's based on those two points. While inflammation certainly leads to amyloid and is involved in many degenerative diseases in the body (Ken Johnson was one of my pathology professors in vet school), it is certainly more than amyloid in the brain, and lipids has to be an important clue.
Ken did his work in 1986, and we have known about lipids helping dogs for decades now. It is tragic that there likely very important clues have been overlooked in the pursuit of... Money? Fame? Validation?
Certainly not in pursuit of science!
And thank you for your great work here!
I have lost two brothers to Alzheimer's so this is not an academic exercise to me. I agree that the assumption of amyloid being the single problem has wasted time and starved competing avenues of research. There have been others like Dr. Dale Bredesen that have for a long time has advocated other research. Does he have the right answer? Hard to tell because funding outside of plaques is hard to come by. I don't see the problem as an accidental selfish emperor that once replaced the system will heal. There is only one approach because there is only one major source of funding, the federal government. We have a monopoly by design and that determines how much of our health care is run. That a monopoly might be myopic should not come as a surprise. Sixty years ago the US medical system was more decentralized and considerably less monopolistic.
Britain's stupidity has no peer :
"Man needs doctor’s note to prove he’s alive after letter told him he was dead"
Bizarre communication from Department of Work and Pensions leaves Mark Cusack with no National Insurance number
| By (Daily) Telegraph (London) Reporters 24 February 2023 • 2:33pm
...And the "misses" just keep on comin'! --> Physicists' "String Theory", for and against
"String Theory has been the dominant candidate for a ‘theory of everything’ for decades. But Eric Weinstein thinks its dominance is unjustified and has resulted in a culture that has stifled critique, alternative views, and ultimately has damaged theoretical physics at a catastrophic level. In this exclusive interview, Weinstein defends String Theory against some of its critics, but ultimately argues the need for a fundamental cultural shift to save the vitality of the field from certain death."
Link: https://iai.tv/articles/eric-weinstein-the-string-theory-wars-auid-2394
Different Beth here
Joanne, In your research did you hear much about Alzheimer's as type three diabetes?
Generally, within any cultural context, if one asserts anything too far outside of the widely held belief system of that context, he will be ignored or dismissed by most and ridiculed by some. Typical critics will not bother justifying themselves, thinking there is no need for what they consider to be the self-evident.
Consider for example, the broader and widely held belief that it is socially beneficial for government to coerce taxpayers via their police powers into being involuntary supporters of scientific and medical research, i.e., welfare for PhD’s. I know the latter truthful phrasing has already turned off many and brought up thoughts of “crackpot” in some. Unfortunately, it gets worse. If one would assert that not only is this not socially beneficial, but immoral, few would take it seriously or even try to understand for a microsecond a line of thought in that direction.
However, here is a very brief indication why a very few in fact do consider most government funded research and every other Socialistic function improper and immoral violations of individual rights, and therefore improper functions of government.
In society one can acquire values (money, food, clothing, services, relationships, etc.) from others by (1) voluntary, mutually acceptable peaceful trade of value for value, or (2) involuntary taking values from others by initiating or threatening force, aka crime from local perpetrators or foreign invaders.
All proper government functions should relate to a mutual defense against (2). If government engages in (2), it becomes more dangerous than a criminal, because it should be the institution formed explicitly to have overwhelming defensive power only. When the government redistributes man-made values and benefits - education, healthcare, research grants, food, etc., it must first take these values involuntarily from those who earned them, as would a criminal. Individual rights are sanctions of and defense of peaceful behavior only. There are no rights to goods that require other human beings to produce them. A right to man-made goods, regardless of one’s actions, such as doing nothing, equals the right to force others to provide them, aka enslave them. Taking resources involuntarily from some in society in order to give to others is a form of crime.
Great journalism. This piece reminded me of one of the most mind blowing podcasts I've ever listened to...Eric Weinstein's The Portal episode 19. A deep dive into research mice, telomeres, cancer, immortality, and how they are connected. We have not scratched the surface on how corrupted our foundational knowledge is in some areas. I highly recommend this listen.
I'm noticing a trend here, cant quite put my finger on it though... oh well, off to CVS to get another boost.
"research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government...yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." - Dwight Eisenhower's farewell address, January 1961
Dogma has no place in science or medicine, but since people practice both, those fields, like every other field of human endeavor, are rife with it.
Hi Ms. Silberner (and Bari) - I share some of your concerns - more than 20 years ago I was sitting at a table of Alzheimer's researchers who were sure that there would be a powerful treatment very soon. However, some among them were tau enthusiasts, so the hype and failure to produce is not just limited to the beta amyloid crowed.
More importantly, the subtitle of your piece is very wrong and misleading. Medicine doesn't have treatment for Alzheimer's (or any other dementia) but there are many things that medicine can do for *people* with a dementing illness. This ranges from education and support for the person and the caregiver, to simplifying and modifying treatments for other conditions in persons with cognitive impairment and a life-limiting disease, to just referring to the Alzheimer's association. Unfortunately, far too many medical people also say "there is nothing we can do" when there is so much they could do, if they were willing.
Substitute lupron and puberty blockers and you have essentially the same story. .But it is much more tragic that children are being sterilized and often deprived of sexual function for a conditional treatable often by therapy alone. There are many other well documented effects on bone, brain and vision. Why don't you write a parallel story about this much more tragic story about young people who have not yet had a chance to live healthy lives?
So ethics don't come into any of this?
There may be no cure for Alzheimer's, at least not in the near term. More people are living longer than at any time in history, and diseases of old age are to be expected.
Rather than restricting drug availability, perhaps we can better educate ourselves that new drugs are risky, and that it's better to wait and only use those which have been in the market for at least 5 years and shown greater risk than benefit. Those who chose to take the risk are free to do so, and those like me who are more conservative in approach to medication can wait and see. My doctor offers new drugs, but he always defers to my wishes and provides other more proven avenues, including no treatment.
Our healthcare complex is Versailles. Many halls of mirrors to view to view delusional arrogance at the expense of a society.
I do not know where to begin but this is so much deeper than this excellent article.
Surprised not to find mention of Dr Dale Bredesen at UCLA, author of a well read book on Alzheimer's, in this article about attempts to decipher this disease. His approach makes sense and moves the ball significantly IMO, though not all the way to the end zone.