4 ms·

A thorough debunking of this protocol from The Lancet: https://sci-hub.se/downloads/2020-04-23/63/10.1016@S1474-44222030113-7.pdf https://sci-hub.se/downloads/2

A thorough debunking of this protocol from The Lancet: https://sci-hub.se/downloads/2020-04-23/63/10.1016@S1474-44222030113-7.pdf https://sci-hub.se/downloads/2020-04-23/63/10.1016@S1474-442... A few quotes: > Despite the certainty inferred by the book’s subtitle, there is no published study that tests or proves the hypothesis that the Bredesen protocol can prevent and reverse cognitive decline. > Readers are informed that participants with subjective cognitive impairment or mild cognitive impairment are included in the studies; however, both conditions can have causes unrelated to neurodegenerative processes. These studies are therefore not targeting a common underlying neuropathological process of Alzheimer’s disease, as the papers suggest. > Readers might not be aware that the three case series evaluating the Bredesen protocol appear in journals considered by some to be predatory open access journals. [...] The journal Aging, where the first two articles were published, appears on the Beall’s list of potential, possible, or probable predatory open access journals [...] > it is notable that the Bredesen protocol has been made commercially available; however, the authors do not disclose any conflicts of interest in their scientific reports.

tgtweak 5y ago
It feels like, in general, 10 data points are not enough to justify efficacy of a protocol. One would also assume that simply exercising and eating properly on their own would have some measurable improvements. As the paper suggests, a larger case study would be in order, specifically with some combinations of the various measures in the protocol to determine individual and compound efficacy on a statistically relevant scale.
knaik94 5y ago
While I appreciate the sci-hub link, the author manuscript can also be found at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7377549/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7377549/ which I think should be encouraged over sci-hub. I love sci-hub and understands its necessity but my cursory look through saw now difference in text or tables provided.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > the author manuscript can also be found at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7377549/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7377549/ which I think should be encouraged over sci-hub. Why? Which one has better policies?
  - tgb 5y ago
    PMC is where papers go that are required to be open access due to funding or chosen to be open access in the life sciences, generally speaking. It's the official place for these and a legal copy. Sci-hub generally isn't. If you support Sci-hub you might as well save them the bandwidth for serving papers that are genuinely open access. And supporting PMC is good to support the further expansion of actually open access papers and the funding of them. PMC also makes everything uniformly formatted which is often a benefit, though sometimes equations can be worse.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
rudin 5y ago
> however, the authors do not disclose any conflicts of interest in their scientific reports I find it amusing the Lancet complains about this considering Peter Daszak's et al covid origins letter was published without disclosing conflicts of interest.

tgtweak 5y ago

It feels like, in general, 10 data points are not enough to justify efficacy of a protocol. One would also assume that simply exercising and eating properly on their own would have some measurable improvements. As the paper suggests, a larger case study would be in order, specifically with some combinations of the various measures in the protocol to determine individual and compound efficacy on a statistically relevant scale.

knaik94 5y ago

While I appreciate the sci-hub link, the author manuscript can also be found at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7377549/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7377549/ which I think should be encouraged over sci-hub. I love sci-hub and understands its necessity but my cursory look through saw now difference in text or tables provided.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
> the author manuscript can also be found at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7377549/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7377549/ which I think should be encouraged over sci-hub. Why? Which one has better policies?
- tgb 5y ago
  PMC is where papers go that are required to be open access due to funding or chosen to be open access in the life sciences, generally speaking. It's the official place for these and a legal copy. Sci-hub generally isn't. If you support Sci-hub you might as well save them the bandwidth for serving papers that are genuinely open access. And supporting PMC is good to support the further expansion of actually open access papers and the funding of them. PMC also makes everything uniformly formatted which is often a benefit, though sometimes equations can be worse.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

rudin 5y ago

> however, the authors do not disclose any conflicts of interest in their scientific reports I find it amusing the Lancet complains about this considering Peter Daszak's et al covid origins letter was published without disclosing conflicts of interest.