3 ms·

Did the people with the anti-virals take them immediately and upon getting infected? Or did they just have to take them at some point post-infection? Couldn't r

Did the people with the anti-virals take them immediately and upon getting infected? Or did they just have to take them at some point post-infection? Couldn't really tell from the article/not sure how the biology works.

kaycebasques 8y ago
It’s not clear to me, either. Here’s my interpretation, based off the abstract: > These authors report that infection with a different herpes virus, herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV1), leads to a similarly increased risk of later developing SD. Further, when the authors looked at patients treated aggressively with antiherpetic medications at the time, the relative risk of SD was reduced by a factor of 10. It should be stressed that no investigations were made on subjects already suffering from SD, and that those treated were the few rare cases severely affected by HSV. Nonetheless, antiherpetic medication prevented later SD development in 90% of their study group. https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-disease/jad180266 https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-... And the article: > The latter study — deemed "most important" by Profs. Itzhaki and Lathe — examined 8,362 people aged 50 and above who received a diagnosis of herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection, as well as a control group of 25,086 age-matched healthy people. Within the HSV1 population, a small amount happened to get aggressive treatment at some point. It’s not clear whether they got treatment at any point in their life, or if they got treatment after the study began (meaning they got treatment at age 50 or later). This minority happened to have much less chance of Alzheimer’s later on in life. In regards to the timing of the treatment, my guess is that they got treated upon outbreak, since it said that they were severely affected. They would get treatment when they were in the most pain or discomfort. It sounds like only a small minority of the 8K people in the HSV group got treatment.

kaycebasques 8y ago

It’s not clear to me, either. Here’s my interpretation, based off the abstract: > These authors report that infection with a different herpes virus, herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV1), leads to a similarly increased risk of later developing SD. Further, when the authors looked at patients treated aggressively with antiherpetic medications at the time, the relative risk of SD was reduced by a factor of 10. It should be stressed that no investigations were made on subjects already suffering from SD, and that those treated were the few rare cases severely affected by HSV. Nonetheless, antiherpetic medication prevented later SD development in 90% of their study group. https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-disease/jad180266 https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-... And the article: > The latter study — deemed "most important" by Profs. Itzhaki and Lathe — examined 8,362 people aged 50 and above who received a diagnosis of herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection, as well as a control group of 25,086 age-matched healthy people. Within the HSV1 population, a small amount happened to get aggressive treatment at some point. It’s not clear whether they got treatment at any point in their life, or if they got treatment after the study began (meaning they got treatment at age 50 or later). This minority happened to have much less chance of Alzheimer’s later on in life. In regards to the timing of the treatment, my guess is that they got treated upon outbreak, since it said that they were severely affected. They would get treatment when they were in the most pain or discomfort. It sounds like only a small minority of the 8K people in the HSV group got treatment.