[giantg2]

"The problem with the amyloid hypothesis is most likely not that it is wrong, but that it is incomplete,"

If the hypothesis is that amalyoid causes AD, then I think we've disproved that (even with your statement that it's incomplete). If I remember correctly, there are individuals who have amalyoid without developing AD, or who have had their amalyoid levels reduced without improvement. At this point, it seems that amalyoid is more of a symptom than a cause. But you are correct that the data is dirty - many studies have not tested for amalyoid itself, instead relying on clinical diagnosis, and subsequent studies are finding at 25% of mild to moderate AD may be other forms of neural degeneration. So many of the AD studies out there focusing on amalyoid reduction are garbage because many of them happened before being able to use imaging to test amalyoid levels.

[pedalpete]

This is what I mean by "we are likely looking at different diseases". Something that would be diagnosed as AD, but without amyloid levels (if it is decided that this the correct marker to look at).

It's as if we were to look at diabetes, and then not recognize there are (at least) two types of diabetes, with VERY different causes, and recommended treatments.