Revolution or mirage? Controversy surrounds new Alzheimer's drugs

So in return for a few more months, they syphon whatever you have left over many years. Then there are the side-effects. I will remain as I always have: drug free.

I very much doubt that another miracle chemical is truly healing anything.

Data

What's the alternative? Stop looking?

It is not a zero-sum game. Sure, you can look for new chemicals to treat the symptoms. But you should also look for lifestyle issues. However do not expect big pharma to do that...

Wait ... don't say ... is it carbs?

Modern junk food has a lot to do with it. And these modern carbs are highly processed. For sure a lot of studies show an undeniable connection. But perhaps you already knew, hence the rhetorical question?

Lifestyle issues that cause Alzheimer's?

Wait ... don't say ... is it carbs?

Diabetes increases the risk of dementia, especially Alzheimer's disease, so you might be onto something.

Diabetes increases the risk of dementia, especially Alzheimer's disease, so you might be onto something.

That is not the case, diabetes is considered a risk factor not because it produces Alzheimer's but because both things are produced by somehow similar processes, so if a person develops diabetes it means it may also have a facility to develop Alzheimer's. Is like saying Asthma increases the risk of allergies, the correct thing is that both things have the same cause.

That is not the case,

I copied that text from a report from Harvard, which I know you hold in high regard so...

diabetes is considered a risk factor not because it produces Alzheimer's but because both things are produced by somehow similar processes,

processes resulting from years of high carbs?

Diabetes increases the risk of dementia, especially Alzheimer's disease, so you might be onto something.

It is true people with diabetes are at an increased risk of developing dementia compared to those without diabetes.

I copied that text from a report from Harvard, which I know you hold in high regard so

that you don't bring a reference indicates this is not the case, unfortunately a lot of people come here misrepresenting what is originally said and make mistaken points. For example by replacing "is a risk factor" for "increases" making it a wrong claim.

It is true people with diabetes are at an increased risk of developing dementia compared to those without diabetes.

Because of what appears a common cause, not because diabetes causes Alzheimer's. It is also completely true that patients with Asthma have higher risks of allergies, but (once again) not because asthma causes the allergies.

Lifestyle issues that cause Alzheimer's?

Wait ... don't say ... is it carbs?

Diabetes increases the risk of dementia, especially Alzheimer's disease, so you might be onto something.

I always take those Harvard or McGill "reports" with a huge chunk of salt. But here's an actual peer reviewed paper concluding:

"Our results suggest that higher glucose levels may be a risk factor for dementia, even among persons without diabetes."

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1215740

I would cut carbs and supplement with MCT and /or exogenous ketones before considering new experimental drugs.

I would cut carbs and supplement with MCT and /or exogenous ketones before considering new experimental drugs.

Yet you would do that in spite of the evidence that this approach comes with higher health risks and that is why it is not recommended by any institution of medicine in the world. So this hold no weight, ignoring when the consensus contradicts what you want to believe completely destroys any trust you would depend for your approach to be considered, even if that was not contradicted explicitly by health experts of the world.

that you don't bring a reference indicates this is not the case, unfortunately a lot of people come here misrepresenting what is originally said and make mistaken points. For example by replacing "is a risk factor" for "increases" making it a wrong claim

I saw the same reference; just because you didn't access it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

.

I would cut carbs and supplement with MCT and /or exogenous ketones before considering new experimental drugs.

Yet you would do that in spite of the evidence

Well, you might want to show those "experts" the following peer reviewed paper:

Use of medium chain triglyceride (MCT) oil in subjects with Alzheimer's disease: A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, crossover study, with an open‐label extension

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8919247/

"This is the longest duration MCT AD study to date. Eighty percent had stabilization or improvement in cognition, and better response with 9‐month continual MCT oil."

So when the science contradicts what you want to believe completely destroys any trust you would depend for your approach to be considered, even if that was not contradicted explicitly by health experts of the world.

I saw the same reference; just because you didn't access it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

What reference? it has not even been mentioned, that (and that you are completely unable to bring it) is proof enough it does not exist. As expected this is a misrepresentation of what the experts actually recommend.

Well, you might want to show those "experts" the following peer reviewed paper:

In no part of the study the intervention is compared with any other drug to see if the effect is better, only against placebo. Specially important is that it does not restrict carbohydrates and much less to zero as you continuously recommend, something that is against the recommendation of the experts.

In no part of the study the intervention is compared with any other drug to see if the effect is better, only against placebo.

Yeah, and when compared to placebo, it does better than these new expensive risky experimental drugs.

Specially important is that it does not restrict carbohydrates and much less to zero as you continuously recommend,

Yeah, if you restrict carbs, you don't need to take MCT or exogenous ketones because the body will make the ketones. If you do both, restrict carbs and take MCT, I would expect even better results.

something that is against the recommendation of the experts.

People should ask why those so called "experts" are making those recommendations. Financial incentives perhaps....

Yeah, and when compared to placebo, it does better than these new expensive risky experimental drugs.

That is completely incorrect, one of the basic concepts of statistics is that you can't compare results directly as if the conditions were the same, unless you have a validated method to weight the values then there is no valid comparison. At the very least statistical analysis is necessary, and very commonly differences in the methods make this impossible, for all we know the new drugs could have even better results in the same design of testing.

Yeah, if you restrict carbs, you don't need to take MCT or exogenous ketones because the body will make the ketones. If you do both, restrict carbs and take MCT, I would expect even better results.

Still a baseless assumption, you tried to use an unrelated report to support this conclusion, and then pretend this is a support based again on assuming things not tested. This is an example of circular reasoning, according to you (and not the authors) the report supposedly prove your theory because your theory proves the report, no such thing happened.

People should ask why those so called "experts" are making those recommendations. Financial incentives perhaps....

Baseless accusation as well, you have been unable to disprove the evidence that support the scientific consensus, looking for excuses for something you have not been able to prove happens in the first place makes no sense.