[margalabargala]

> 1) already have effective anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies, and 2) they don't seem to work that well

I fear you may be falling into the exact trap that the person you replied to, is warning against.

There is not just one thing called "amyloid", so not only are the "anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies" not effective against all amyloid, the amyloid against which they are effective may well not be disease-contributing amyloid.

The state of the field is much more complicated that deciding between pop-sci summaries of "amyloid bad" and "amyloid irrelevant" and directing funding accordingly.

[kurthr]

Yeah, this reminds me of "asbestos" which is not a single thing and has many non-dangerous examples, but has been banned because a few of them (and contamination is a worry) are a significant hazard. If the different structures were just called something different, they might have significant commercial applications, but "asbestos".

Same thing with MRI with the removal of Nuclear from NMR. Sure the 3D imaging is cool, but you know that they had to remove that N from the name for marketing.

Ok, and then there's EUV lithography. Don't call it X-Ray lithography even though it's 13nm, because there were decades of expensive failures with that marketing.