4 comments

  • gumby 6 hours ago
    I don’t believe the plaques have been shown to be prion based, but who knows what the transmission mechanism might be.

    More relevantly, the etiology is still a mystery, and nobody knows if the amyloid β is a defense, cause, mechanism, or harmless side effect of Alzheimer’s. Drugs attacking plaque have not made a difference on the disease in clinical trials. In fact the plaque theory seems to have been supported by fraud (causing a president of Stanford to be ejected) and distracted research for years.

    People are working on other causes, most of which lately has focused on the tau protein.

  • peterfirefly 6 hours ago
    > The recent recognition of iatrogenic amyloid β cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) and Alzheimer's disease, caused by inadvertent seeding of amyloid β pathology following historical medical procedures

    That doesn't explain why shingles vaccinations are (somewhat) protective against Alzheimer's.

    • modeless 5 hours ago
      Unfortunately the vaccine-dementia association is a spurious finding. See this presentation: https://youtu.be/qlTnnQytOJ0

      The mechanism is that people with the shingles vaccine are less likely to visit the hospital (because they don't get shingles). Because they have fewer hospital visits they are less likely to receive an incidental diagnosis of dementia from a hospital.

      • dnautics 1 hour ago
        is it? They extended the study from "just wales" to "all of UK" and I wonder if it's possible that in the rest of the UK, adherence to the strict week-of-eligibilty criteria was less strict than in wales.
      • peterfirefly 4 hours ago
        Thank you!

        Will watch the presentation later. It'll probably be my next "laundry video".

        I recently had shingles so I wouldn't be needing the vaccine for quite some years, anyway, whether it protects against Alzheimer's or not.

        It's quite painful, like a big part of one's body has been scolded with very hot water or steam. And afterwards, it is incredibly itchy.

        I highly recommend the vaccination just to avoid the risk of that.

      • copperx 5 hours ago
        Whoa, that's more complex than I thought.
  • analog8374 5 hours ago
    Would you say that modern medical science is truth-motivated or profit-motivated? 50-50? 60-40?
    • gumby 4 hours ago
      On the research side, 90% (or more)/10%. Overwhelmingly there’s little money to be made beyond a few outliers.

      On the commercial side obviously money issues dominate (because the costs are enormous as are the commercial risks), but from my experience in the industry there’s a surprising amount of idealism too. Naturally, some people mouth that idealism to justify their avarice, but quite a lot are motivated by it.

  • echelon 7 hours ago
    We should be cloning monoclonal antigen free humans and harvesting blood from factories.

    All of medical science still imagines a world where humans are in "God's shape", denying the fact that we are machines made of systems of smaller machines.

    We could clone headless humans and have factories full of them. Transplants could cure all but brain cancer. Reverse aging too.

    Every time I meet a postdoc biologist and hear them drone on about the limits of detection, I'm furious we are overlooking the obvious answer to everything. The mechanization of the human body as a plant and lab.

    It's just going to take someone bold enough to do it, because people look at this as a horror. Like the first medical inquiry into cadavers being an affront to God.

    It would fix everything and propel the biological sciences hundreds of years into the future.

    We are dumb superstitious apes.

    • californical 6 hours ago
      > All of medical science still imagines a world where humans are in "God's shape", denying the fact that we are machines made of systems of smaller machines.

      No, it’s that these systems of systems are so incredibly complex that we still don’t understand many of them deeply. And misunderstanding the relationships of systems leads to major side effects and unpredictability.

      If we understood these systems then we wouldn’t have vague success rates on things like drugs or surgeries - we’d be able to say “based on all of these factors this is the treatment that works for you”. But we can’t do that, instead we have trials and shrug and say “it works for most people so it’s worth using”

    • YawningAngel 7 hours ago
      > We could clone headless humans and have factories full of them. Transplants could cure all but brain cancer. Reverse aging too.

      We literally couldn't do this if we wanted to

      • exhilaration 6 hours ago
        Agreed, this is just dumb and really really hard. Much easier to genetically modify animals like pigs or cows to make compatible blood.
    • ajkjk 6 hours ago
      since we're making things up -- why don't we just spin up a program that trains a bunch of novice clerics to cast Cure Disease?
    • Zigurd 6 hours ago
      Developing a blood substitute for emergency transfusions seems like a 100X more tractable problem.
    • hbcdbff 6 hours ago
      Your HN username should be in the dictionary under “Dunning-Kruger”.