Researchers find a hint at how to delay Alzheimer's symptoms. Now they have to prove it

Northwestern’s Gate counts himself among scientists who “think amyloid isn’t everything,” but said nothing has invalidated the amyloid hypothesis.

But has the amyloid hypothesis, which is based on fabricated data, ever been validated?

Looking at the first photo above, Mr. Heinrichs might want to consider the insulin resistance hypothesis of Alzheimer's.

Looking at the first photo above, Mr. Heinrichs might want to consider the insulin resistance hypothesis of Alzheimer's.

Yep, some doctors are now referring to it as Type 3 diabetes, and seem to be having some success in slowing down the progress of Alzheimer's with low-carb diets.

But has the amyloid hypothesis, which is based on fabricated data, ever been validated?

This is false, the amyloid hypothesis is bases on data from multiple groups and has been validated even by therapeutic approaches, the fabricated data involves only one single variation of the amyloid plaques coming from a single group, and discarding all information from that group does not weaken the amyloid explanation in general.

Looking at the first photo above, Mr. Heinrichs might want to consider the insulin resistance hypothesis of Alzheimer's.

It is well known that is involved, but it does not explain the disease in general.

Yep, some doctors are now referring to it as Type 3 diabetes, and seem to be having some success in slowing down the progress of Alzheimer's with low-carb diets.

To a degree that the best treatments do? not at all, it has the same kind of partial preclinical results that "treating" other possible causes has, from inflammation to infection.

But has the amyloid hypothesis, which is based on fabricated data, ever been validated?

This is false, the amyloid hypothesis is bases on data from multiple groups and has been validated even by therapeutic approaches

Data supporting the amyloid hypothesis, including therapeutic results, is extremely weak.

Addressing insulin resistance through diet is probably better than any drug targeting amyloid.

Data supporting the amyloid hypothesis, including therapeutic results, is extremely weak.

Not according to the scientific consensus on the topic, that is just your personal opinion without any scientific justification. When interventions made to treat the amyloid accumulation have demonstrated therapeutic benefits that is not something "weak", much less extremely so, it is instead a very strong proof that this mechanism is important for the diseases.

Addressing insulin resistance through diet is probably better than any drug targeting amyloid.

Said by which institution of science? none? then why do you think this happens?

Obviously a global conspiracy of all institutions of the planet is not a serious argument, the reality is much more simple, scientists have found a principal cause for the disease and not wanting to accept it do nothing to contradict these findings.

To a degree that the best treatments do? not at all, it has the same kind of partial preclinical results that "treating" other possible causes has, from inflammation to infection.

As Wick's Pencil said, the "best treatments" aren't having much success, so what's the harm in trying dietary changes that seem to be having a positive effect?

You're welded to the idea that only pharmaceuticals can solve a medical problem, and are desperate to gaslight anyone who thinks differently.

As Wick's Pencil said, the "best treatments" aren't having much success, so what's the harm in trying dietary changes that seem to be having a positive effect?

The harm is in overexaggerating dietary changes that have not had even a fraction of the success of the best current approaches. Pretending all other possible treatment candidates are being ignored just because the pathophysiological mechanism has been found is simply fantasy. Studies are still being published about all and every likely way to fight the disease, but unfortunately with negative results.

You're welded to the idea that only pharmaceuticals can solve a medical problem

That is false, you are the one welded to the idea that doing one thing means the rest are being ignored, that has never been the case, the focus on one type of therapy is a result of getting the best results, not the opposite as you think.

and are desperate to gaslight anyone who thinks differently.

Gaslighting is much more properly used about people trying to mislead others to ignore medical science even when it has positive results, and to believe that simpler easier things have not been tried just to push more people into the antiscientific bias propaganda. That is what gaslighting is, to pretend reality is false and baseless claims are true just because you say so.