3 ms·

I didn't downvote you, however I think people may dislike the idea of one having their own pet hypothesis without linking serious evidence to back it up. Amyloi

I didn't downvote you, however I think people may dislike the idea of one having their own pet hypothesis without linking serious evidence to back it up. Amyloid plaques have been heavily studied and may have some tangential but real link to Alzheimer's, it's a plaquey protein found in the brain along with Beta-Tau which is another protein I believe. I personally haven't heard of any fungi theory yet, the main ones I've heard were viral things, pollution, or perhaps some breakdown in the brain's ability to clean itself up over time. And why are certain individuals spared and not others? I know there are genes that predispose one to it, and there are early-onset cases which come on more often than others. If it was anything obvious in the environment, I'd hope we'd know by now...but it may be something hard to measure in large epidemiological studies like a more rare pollutant or something we overlooked in creating large observational datasets? Anyway, I'd encourage you to link the best studies you've found and that may help some to read them.

iosystem 4y ago
I don't think we should discourage people from having a pet hypothesis if they're open about it. I seriously doubt that in academia most don't have their own pet hypothesis. I think the problem is when persons aren't open about whatever being their pet hypothesis and or even deliberately going out of bounds on what's acceptable based on their own pet hypothesis. As I said to another person that replied to me, you can google "fungi and Alzheimer's " to easily see the research in great detail. Maybe even visiting researchgate and doing the same. Also thanks for replying because I do have family members that have it.
- robbiep 4y ago
  Most pet hypotheses of researchers are informed by actually knowing about the disease, and not disregarding things such as 1) years of schooling (protective) 2) early onset alzheimers (genetic) 3) APOE2 (protective) 4) APOE4 (higher risk) and the multitude of other factors. Basically, if you’re going to make a claim and not be some armchair scientist, you need to not Dunning-Krueger yourself. I’m not saying you have, but the way you’re representing yourself suggests you’re at risk of it
  - iosystem 4y ago
    I think people are acting unfair towards me if what you're asserting is the cause of the behaviour. Unless my interpretation and expression of a "pet hypotheses" was truly wrong of me to do. Since I don't think writing about one's pet hypotheses is making a claim in what would indeed warrant negative behaviour.

iosystem 4y ago

I don't think we should discourage people from having a pet hypothesis if they're open about it. I seriously doubt that in academia most don't have their own pet hypothesis. I think the problem is when persons aren't open about whatever being their pet hypothesis and or even deliberately going out of bounds on what's acceptable based on their own pet hypothesis. As I said to another person that replied to me, you can google "fungi and Alzheimer's " to easily see the research in great detail. Maybe even visiting researchgate and doing the same. Also thanks for replying because I do have family members that have it.

robbiep 4y ago
Most pet hypotheses of researchers are informed by actually knowing about the disease, and not disregarding things such as 1) years of schooling (protective) 2) early onset alzheimers (genetic) 3) APOE2 (protective) 4) APOE4 (higher risk) and the multitude of other factors. Basically, if you’re going to make a claim and not be some armchair scientist, you need to not Dunning-Krueger yourself. I’m not saying you have, but the way you’re representing yourself suggests you’re at risk of it
- iosystem 4y ago
  I think people are acting unfair towards me if what you're asserting is the cause of the behaviour. Unless my interpretation and expression of a "pet hypotheses" was truly wrong of me to do. Since I don't think writing about one's pet hypotheses is making a claim in what would indeed warrant negative behaviour.