I don't know - that's why I think more funding is needed. Directing that funding against likely targets seems a sensible idea. Until someone finds some bacteri

I don't know - that's why I think more funding is needed. Directing that funding against likely targets seems a sensible idea. Until someone finds some bacterial or pathogen cause for Alzheimer's and dementia, funding should go on the "we don't use it we lose it" assumption. Yes there may be other factors of course, and given the surprise over stomach ulcers it's entirely possible the use it or lose it idea is wrong. But science funding needs to be a smart money play not a scattergun.