[HN Gopher] Alzheimer's amyloid hypothesis cabal thwarted progre... ___________________________________________________________________ Alzheimer's amyloid hypothesis cabal thwarted progress toward a cure for decades Author : nabla9 Score : 111 points Date : 2022-06-21 20:05 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.statnews.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.statnews.com) | jyounker wrote: | This is why we need more funding for biomedical research. Some | proportion of those additional funds need to be distributed _on a | consistent basis_ to long-shot or unexplored hypothesis research. | | The issue is that politicians have for decades described this | sort of research as "government waste". | m348e912 wrote: | "Trust the science" has been a often drummed mantra the past | several years but it's important to consider science is subject | to bias, group think, influence, and sometimes corruption. | (although the latter doesn't seem to apply here) | | I applaud the researchers who have spoke out against the | consensus at their own professional risk, it's a shame they have | to take on such burden. | sydthrowaway wrote: | Now take your logic and apply it to COVID-19. | reidjs wrote: | Was there a lot of controversy among the scientific community | ? The experts seemed to all say pretty much the same thing - | masks indoors, social distance, get vaccinated, etc. | codefreeordie wrote: | Indeed. What would happen to the career of a scientist who | even tried to do something else? | | (many careers were ended. In some cases, states threatened | to pull licenses or even imprison researchers for even | considering alternatives) | aceon48 wrote: | Not true. Some doctors tried to prescribe off label | treatments and were prohibited, fired, etc (for example | ivermectin or hydroxy | mft_ wrote: | The same treatments that have been shown to offer little | benefit, or even be detrimental? | TaupeRanger wrote: | Say specifically what your criticisms are. Such a generalized | statement sounds like the beginning of a conspiracy rant. | matthewdgreen wrote: | The fact that researchers can and _will_ speak out against | consensus is exactly why I do "trust science." I don't trust | consensus theories to be accurate at every instant in time, | particularly in areas that have received more limited scrutiny | (or where experiments are expensive and time consuming), but I | generally do believe that it's the very best process the human | race has ever devised for arriving at truth. | Angostura wrote: | Science is a _method_ , where free-flowing ideas are subject to | the cut and thrust of debate and review. | | In general, where a set of ideas are protected, _despite_ | contrary, high-quality, evidence, this is the opposite of | 'trusting the science'. | wussboy wrote: | These are not science problems, these are human problems and | the breadth of human endeavor is crippled by them. What is | unique about science is that it acknowledges these problems and | has mechanisms to address them. | Cupertino95014 wrote: | > as Aisen put it last week on the sidelines of the Aspen Ideas | Festival, "I don't think I'm part of a cabal." | | That's nice. No one _thinks_ they 're doing evil. | | >A frequent reason top journals declined to publish her papers, | as they did those of other amyloid skeptics, was previous | rejections. As one peer reviewer wrote about a funding proposal | Itzhaki submitted in 2010, "very few [of your] papers have | appeared in the most highly regarded journals." | | I don't think "cabal" is too harsh a word to use here. "Other | journals have rejected you, so we will, too." | | > One of the four reviewers gave her scores of "poor" (3 on a | 10-point scale) on key criteria, arguing that because "there is | no conclusive evidence for a major role of this pathogen in | Alzheimer's disease," the research "will not have an impact on | advancing the field of dementia research." A second reviewer | called the role of pathogens in Alzheimer's "a fringe topic." | Although one gave Itzhaki scores of 10 ("outstanding"), the two | dismissive reviews sank her chances. | | If the amyloid hypothesis had made stunning progress, that | approach might have made sense. If not... "the jury is still out, | so let's hear your ideas" would be the real Science. | mturmon wrote: | FTA, contradicting the headline (emphasis mine): | | > Despite being described as a "cabal," _the amyloid camp was | neither organized nor nefarious_. Those who championed the | amyloid hypothesis truly believed it, and thought that focusing | money and attention on it rather than competing ideas was the | surest way to an effective drug. | | This discrepancy indicates part of the problem: the investigators | narrowing the search for causes honestly believe in what they're | doing. | | The NIH review panelists really believe they're safeguarding the | NIH budget, and the Pharma execs really believe they're wisely | allocating their R&D budget. | jvanderbot wrote: | Probably unrelated, but I've realized from dealing with certain | people in the criminal justice system, that almost nobody | believes they are evil or doing bad things. They just want to | do what they think is right, believe that what they are doing | is common and acceptable, think often justice takes strange | forms, or otherwise can justify what they do till the day they | die. The worse someone is, the more strongly they can justify | what they do. | 300bps wrote: | Not unrelated at all. | | We judge ourselves by our intentions. | | We judge others by their actions. | | This leads to people with evil actions judging themselves as | good. "I didn't want to do it. They gave me no choice." | [deleted] | nextos wrote: | My experience is that many prominent professors behave in a | monopolistic way. That is, they try to sabotage theses, grant | applications and publications in review that go against their | own research. | | Lots of different areas, particularly in medicine, have slowed | down or stagnated as a consequence of this. For example, the | connection between immunity and cancer was obvious in the 1990s | but it took many uphill battles to get funding for | immunotherapies. Proponents of somatic mutations as a cause of | cancer have typically taken most of the research funds and | blocked alternative ideas. | | Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, T1D, etc. have pretty similar | stories. | | Luckily less politically driven funding agencies and, | ultimately, VCs are introducing some efficiency back into the | system. | forum_ghost wrote: | ...but VC and private equity funding for biotech has been | available in the 90s too? | nextos wrote: | It was an order of magnitude more difficult to raise VC | money _for biotech_ back then. | | There are articles around discussing how in case of | Alzheimer's it was impossible to get VC funding for immune | ideas, even though they already had interesting evidence. | The same cabal was also blocking them. | bryan0 wrote: | needs a (2019). I'm curious what type of progress in the field | has been made since then. | nabla9 wrote: | Related: | | Derek Lowe: Had Enough, Eh? Come Back and Take What's Coming to | You! https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/had-enough-eh | | >It is hard to even begin to estimate the amount of time, effort, | and money that has been spent on this idea. And this is just the | antibodies! There are plenty of other whacks that have been taken | at the amyloid hypothesis (secretase enzymes and more), and none | of them have ever worked. Keep in mind that there are plenty of | preclinical efforts over the past thirty years that never even | saw the light of day (I was on some of those myself), and the | reason you never heard about any of them is because they didn't | work, either. Nothing has worked. Not once. The amyloid | hypothesis has been targeted again and again and again from | different directions with different drug candidates, and never, | ever even once has it shown signs of truly helping Alzheimer's | patients. I very much include Biogen's Aduhelm in that | assessment. So I ask again: how long are we going to keep doing | this? | irthomasthomas wrote: | Type 3 diabetes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_3_diabetes | jleyank wrote: | Pharma has sunk billions into the amyloid hypothesis, fielding | multiple candidates to no avail. Good money thrown after bad. | Huge market need, has to go back to working out a new animal | model. Self-delusion at it's best, or blind optimism with "this | time, it's going to be different". Lucy and Charlie Brown snd the | bloody football. | ed wrote: | > The NIH, for instance, is funding the 130-patient study of | whether an antiviral can help Alzheimer's patients; Columbia's | Dr. Davangere Devanand, who is leading it, expects results in | three years. | | Which would be around now (the article is from 2019). | Unfortunately results aren't available and aren't expected until | December 2023. The study finished recruiting 2 months ago. | | More information on this specific trial: | https://beta.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03282916?patient=NC... | ncmncm wrote: | I'm taking my valacyclovir periodically, regardless. It might | be useless. But it keeps the cold sores down. | codefreeordie wrote: | Hmm, I wonder what other high-visibility areas of research suffer | from similar problems | crawshaw wrote: | Committees, like all decision-making entities, are sure to make | mistakes. This is a good argument for multiple independent | funding sources for research. | | To some extent these exist, like HHMI. This article does not go | into detail about why those institutions did not fund different | research, which would be interesting to explore. | moneycantbuy wrote: | Plausible alternative causes include herpes virus, diabetes, | fungal infection, and/or sleep disorders. | smegsicle wrote: | also aluminum in some form | iosystem wrote: | My pet hypothesis is that Alzheimer's is the effect of fungi on | the body. I think depending upon genetics we have a certain | resistance and as we age it weakens. Possibly early onset | Alzheimer's could be any factor of exposure levels throughout | one's life and or from genetics possibly weakening the resistance | of the body towards fungi. While the type of dementia that most | elderly develop is possibly the outcome of long-haul exposure to | fungi. I've already read some research between fungi and | Alzheimer's but not all. I'm just someone who has/had family | members with the illness and I'm curious about it. edit: whoever | downvotes me, please reply because I'm very curious on if you're | downvoting for any specific reason from research that makes you | highly doubt my pet hypothesis. | forum_ghost wrote: | what made you think it's fungi exposure? | iosystem wrote: | I've been reading research on Alzheimer's from the start of | when I became informed about my family members having it. | There's multiple approaches that research is going over of | course. Some is on fungi like what my comment asserts. If you | do a quick google search you can read about it in great | detail. | redbar0n wrote: | Even science is not precluded from dogmatic thinking. | | Dogmas are everywhere, not merely within religion. | | In science it's merely framed as <<paradigms>>. | | This story details how it looks. | londons_explore wrote: | I would bet money that alzheimers will eventually be found to be | primarily caused by either a 50+year incubation period | transmissible disease or by pollution. | | As soon as we get good data as to the cause, I think we'll be | able to eliminate it pretty quickly. For example if we find that | it is spread by contaminated milk, we will make tests for the | disease on milk and soon get rid of it. | rnk wrote: | It's really hard to find causes and later cures for things that | come slowly over lives that take many years to hit you. | olliej wrote: | The amyloid hypothesis is such utter bullshit, at this point | there have been empirically effective anti-amyloid plaque drugs. | That is drugs that effectively and measurably reduce amyloid | plaque build up. None of those drugs have impacted Alzheimers | symptoms in any way. | | If you have a hypothesis of the cause of a disease, and you | create drugs that effectively treat it, and those drugs don't | effect the disease symptoms or progression you need to accept the | hypothesis is wrong. | orangepurple wrote: | I have heard people claim that Alzheimers is type 3 diabetes. | Is there any truth in that? | m348e912 wrote: | I have read that metals like aluminum, copper, zinc, and iron | can play a factor in the onset of Alzheimer's, but that might | be related to the amyloid plaque theory. | | I regularly take zinc and iron supplements and have used | aluminum based deodorant, so I hope there's no relationship! | bpodgursky wrote: | Anyone who confidently answers this question is lying. | giantg2 wrote: | I'll confidently answer. | | We don't know. | borodi wrote: | So you do know :) | fswd wrote: | I will take a really risky guess on the premise that | there are many different types of causes for Alzheimer's. | But one type of them might be caused by parasites. And | it's either the body's response or an intended affect of | the parasite to enclose the parasite in a type of plague. | Kind of like biofilm... or both. Reducing the plague or | biofilm could allow the immune system to respond to it by | "seeing" it... in some cases. It might also allow the | parasite to grow faster if the immune system isn't | successful or can't see it. Based on my guess, a | treatment plan would involve biofilm/plague "breakers", | fasting or behavior changes to reduce and eliminate | parasite's life cycle, and anti-parasite medicines that | can reach the blood brain barrier. Again, I think there | are different types of causes for Alzheimer and this is | just one cause. | orangepurple wrote: | Spirochetes can also form biofilms. I wonder if ticks | that carry Lyme disease can cause Alzheimers. | lief79 wrote: | You would be able to look for correlations with other | tick borne diseases. Are there geographic correlations | with Alzheimer's. | | Seems like low lying fruit that someone would have looked | into. | JamesBarney wrote: | They just mean that there is some insulin dysfunction with | Alzheimer's. They don't really know how important it is both | from a symptom or cause standpoint. | nunb wrote: | It would be interesting to see the correlation in families | with a history of diabetes, and to correlate it to T2 | diabetes or "metabolic syndrome". I have anecdata about this, | but I wonder if any studies are being done in family-groups, | such as identical twins etc. | giantg2 wrote: | "None of those drugs have impacted Alzheimers symptoms in any | way." | | I think in some cases it actually made the symptoms worse. | anonygler wrote: | One might wonder if a similar thing had been happening with low | carb / keto diet research. Being adopted as a fad diet has | overwhelmed the constant scorn from the nutrition community. | skissane wrote: | Lynn Waterhouse, Eric London and Christopher Gillberg have a | similar opinion of ASD: see their 2017 letter to the editors of | _Autism Research_ , "The ASD diagnosis has blocked the discovery | of valid biological variation in neurodevelopmental social | impairment" | | https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1832 ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-21 23:00 UTC)