The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.Drug slows Alzheimer's but can it make a real difference?
By LAURAN NEERGAARD NEW YORK©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
17 Comments
Aly Rustom
Japanese drugmaker Eisai
Wow! I used to teach English there in their Myogadani branch over 10 years ago! Natsukashii!
Strangerland
Amazing how many experts at Google-Fu we have here
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4286994/
Strangerland
Yes, I'm good with Google. I don't pretend to know anything about Alzheimer's though.
Yet so many people commenting as if they know what they're talking about...
virusrex
Unfortunately this is something expected for something that has been so difficult to develop, a miracle drug that had clear curative properties is what everybody is aiming for, but if it has been impossible to find it until now something like Iecanemab, a drug with risks and limited benefits.
Still, this is advancement in something that was stuck almost at zero for decades, more research and investment (hopefully from governments so the motivation becomes public health more than profit) and we may have better options working on similar mechanisms in the near future.
Luis David Yanez
Extremely skeptical, especially because just a few months ago there was a bombshell article from Science magazine ( https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease ) that exposed what seems to be fabrication and falsification by researches on what had become the main theory behind what causes alzheimer's disease (The amyloid theory), which this drug is trying to attack as many other drugs did since this theory was published, and drug after drug that tried to tackle this main problem didn't actually solved alzheimer's disease or even slowed it.
Raw Beer
I believe the only direct evidence that the amyloid fibrils actually cause (i.e., are not just associated with) Alzheimer's disease is that study that turned out to be falsified.
painkiller
Raw BeerToday 01:41 pm JST
This is absolutely true because no study has ever concluded and been supported by medical consensus that amyloid fibrils actually cause Alzheimer's disease.
It is not enough to say any deposits that cause the same problems that Alzheimer's causes are therefore the cause of Alzheimer's and in fact, no medical professional would make such claim.
Amyloid fibrils are self-assembled fibrous protein aggregates that are associated with a number of presently incurable diseases such as Alzheimer's but associated does not mean the cause of such disease.
painkiller
StrangerlandToday 03:01 pm JST
You showed you're one of them--besides, there are no Alzheimer experts here so where do you think people get their information from?
virusrex
It also have much less clinical data that shows a benefit on Alzheimer patients. The double blind cohort study that could indicate if nicotine have any actual clinical relevance still have not reported their results.
Raw Beer
Yep, that sums it up nicely...
virusrex
Of course they do, expecting something and corroborating/proving that something with objective data is a perfectly valid motivation to do a study. There is always the possibility the expectations turn out to be false or the results different in some way.
You have repeatedly argued that you have no expertise on scientific or medical topics, this can explain this belief, but it could have been easily dispelled by searching for any source where scientists say there is no point in doing a study if they were already expecting a result (since you would find only information that contradicts you)
virusrex
Your sources clearly contradict this conclusion.
The article is about fabrication and falsification on the role of one variety of deposits, not on the general theory itself, and since phase 3 clinical trials of therapeutics including Iecanemab have reported positive results (something that would be impossible if the whole theory was false) this remains a valid target for therapies.
virusrex
That would be completely wrong, the reference already provided clearly says that other preclinical studies have concluded the deposits are a cause uf the same kind of problems that Alzheimer causes. The one disproved is again only about Aβ, not amyloid deposits in general.
virusrex
That would be false, as the reference already provided proves. Making an appeal to a consensus that can be so easily contradicted means this is just a personal opinion, and one that can be proved mistaken.
The same happens with professional communications from many other sources
https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/what-happens-brain-alzheimers-disease
So it was terribly easy to prove your claim that professionals would never make say this was false. Obviously the NIH National Institute of Aging is a real authority and should be a better reference than your own appeal to be one (since you have not provided any reference but your own opinion).
virusrex
What evidence do you have about what other people commenting here are or do for a living? How can you claim there are no Alzheimer experts here?
painkiller
No, because if this is what the experts had expected, then they wouldn't engage in a study to try and find out if it is effective or not.