[josh-wrale]

Non-sequitur

[cookiengineer]

> Non-sequitur

Not sure what you are trying to achieve with comments like this, besides intentional gas lighting.

Could've commented with links to scientific articles or papers that disprove my theory.

Instead you chose to be ... this?

[josh-wrale]

https://med.stanford.edu/news/insights/2025/09/rethinking-al...

[cookiengineer]

You do realize that they are referring to the same study and dataset, which showed that shingles is correlated to APOE4, right?

Not sure if you are trolling at this point.

[josh-wrale]

I am not a researcher in this field. I have read a lot about APOE4, and nearly everything I have seen about APOE4 makes it out to be the clearest of all predictors for Alzheimer's. I get that you're upset that I posted like I did, but I am not trolling. The point was that genetic causes are not an exceptional predictor for Alzheimer's. I had a hard time seeing how the best established predictor for Alzheimer's validates there being too many things labeled as Alzheimer's. If I had posted with a focus on some edge case, then it probably would have made more sense to me, but as I read it, it really seemed like a stretch.

Dropping this thread now. I am fine with being wrong, but my brief posting was not trolling.

[DANmode]

Non-diagnostician

[josh-wrale]

Point stands.

[DANmode]

So does the lack of a model for Alzheimer’s,

and other chronic illnesses,

that the consumer-facing medical industry prefers to dismiss.

[anon84873628]

The tau hypothesis is looking like a good model.

[josh-wrale]

I didn't argue a model beyond one cause.