4 ms·
This falls under not repairing enough of the damage. If the view is that delaying Alzheimer's to let people die from heart disease a couple of years later is gr
by reasonattlm 10y ago
This falls under not repairing enough of the damage. If the view is that delaying Alzheimer's to let people die from heart disease a couple of years later is great, well, that's a problem. It isn't great. It isn't sufficient. It is taking an entirely too narrow a focus. It is deliberate aim at a worse outcome rather than a better outcome. Cures, not postponement, across the board must be the strategic goal - it is a shirking of responsibilities to shrug and say it is good enough to push off a disease for the year or two that would reduce its mortality rate if all other conditions kept happening at the same level as today, rather than aiming higher.
- WalterBright 10y agoDelaying Alzheimers would be wonderful, even if death is not delayed. Having the last few years of your life stolen by Alzheimers is a living death in and of itself.
- nitrogen 10y agoHaving seen one or more family members suffer for years from Alzheimer's, I'm inclined to agree with you to an extent. Dementia is not a desirable end state. But I think the parent's point is also very important. Those family members also had other things killing them at the same time, so it was really a race between diseases. We need to fix aging (and address the cultural belief that it's necessary), we need to cure cancer and heart disease, etc. Postponement, if it distracts researchers from the real goal rather than acting as a necessary stepping stone, is ultimately counterproductive.
- WalterBright 10y agoQuality of life is just as important, or even more important, than length of life. AD destroys quality of life long before it kills you (and most AD sufferers are killed by something else anyway).
- omilu 10y agoDeath is the single best invention of life -Steve Jobs