> Alzheimer's researchers have, very clearly, wholly ignored them This is more of what I was talking about - the extreme confidence that seems to require no ex

> Alzheimer's researchers have, very clearly, wholly ignored them This is more of what I was talking about - the extreme confidence that seems to require no externally demonstrated evidence or expert knowledge. It's clear that in continuing this discussion I can expect only doubling down on these armchair certainties. Incidentally, even the paradigm-challenging researchers are using mouse models and amyloid plaques to make their arguments, e.g. Dr. Itzhaki's work on HSV as a risk factor [1]. Broadsides against these things sweep away the very work you wish to promote. > Your noisy defense I'm not defending amyloid beta stuff. I don't know enough to say one way or another, and we should probably invest in diverse approaches when focusing on just one isn't working out very well. That said, I think that challenges to the scientific experts should be based on compelling evidence and reasoning, not mere assertions of certainty. > misrepresented what I said and did People can look at the conversation and decide that for themselves. I tried to tell you something that would help you have a more meaningful intellectual life if you understood it. Now you've heard it. You won't hear from me again. Good day. [1] https://www.statnews.com/2019/06/25/alzheimers-cabal-thwarted-progress-toward-cure/ https://www.statnews.com/2019/06/25/alzheimers-cabal-thwarte...