| The problem with the amyloid hypothesis is most likely not that it is wrong, but that it is incomplete, and I would say that is the problem with this test as well. I work in neurotech/sleeptech, and AD researchers are using (or want to use) slow-wave enhancement to prevent and possibly manage AD. However, the test for AD is still a psychological tests along with neuroimaging to look for tau tangles and amyloid plaque build up. It has been discussed that we may be looking at multiple different diseases which have similar symptoms and without completely understanding the disease itself, we are categorizing them as AD, though they may have different pathways. Though we can't ignore the challenges to the amyloid hypothesis, we also shouldn't completely throw it out. Most of the experts I've spoken with still believe it is the best hypothesis we have, but that we also should not ignore other possibilities. |
>A team of researchers in Jerusalem, he says, decided to look at patients who survived bladder cancer and compare dementia prevalence among patients treated with BCG and those who weren’t. “Do they differ in the rate at which they get Alzheimer’s disease?” The answer is yes – the BCG group appeared to get 75% protection against Alzheimer’s. A number of studies have now found varying levels of protection from BCG, with an average, according to one meta‑analysis, of 45%.
There's a lot of evidence a lot of it is set off by infectious microbes which can be treated in the usual way. (From https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/dec/01/the-bra...)
The 'politics' puzzles me. Maybe the head of department got fame for hypothesis A and feels his power or money is threatened by hypothesis B? It's not what science should be about.
(There was an entertaining angry Sabine Hossenfelder youtube a few minutes ago on the corruption of science just wasting money, but really letting people die of Alzheimer's is worse. https://youtu.be/shFUDPqVmTg)