3 ms·

“Top Modifiable Risk Factor” I think we should dig deeper into the numbers before deciding. I get the feeling we aren’t going to see the same numbers like we d

“Top Modifiable Risk Factor” I think we should dig deeper into the numbers before deciding. I get the feeling we aren’t going to see the same numbers like we do for smoking. The odds for *everyone* increases greatly simply by aging. And it’s costing a fortune. “Costs Associated With Alzheimer’s Disease Reach $277 Billion Annually, Report Finds” https://acl.gov/news-and-events/news/costs-associated-alzheimers-disease-reach-277-billion-annually-report-finds https://acl.gov/news-and-events/news/costs-associated-alzhei...

phpisthebest 4y ago
Well the disease of Aging is the number one killer. We should solve that
- melling 4y ago
  I’ll just leave off by saying that some causes of death have a much higher cost to society. Spending a decade with Alzheimer’s then dying is expensive. Simply dying quietly in your sleep at the age of 99 after living a healthy life, not so much
Jach 4y ago
Clicking through the submission shows: "Approximately 1 in 3 of ADRD cases (36.9%) in the US were associated with 8 modifiable risk factors, the most prominent of which were midlife obesity (17.7%; 95% CI, 17.5-18.0), physical inactivity (11.8%; 95% CI, 11.7-11.9), and low educational attainment (11.7%; 95% CI, 11.5-12.0)." Interpreting those risk factors as saying x% higher risk than not, i.e. a relative risk of 1.177, it's a far cry from smoking relative risk findings > 20. I agree that just solving the disease, or at least making its treatment options cheaper (so that it's not a big deal if some people cost a bit more to treat than others), is a lot better than trying to alter levels of service based on BMI. But throwing more money at ADRD directly is probably a mistake, especially given findings like https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/faked-beta-amyloid-data-what-does-it-mean https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/faked-beta-amyloid... I'm much more in favor of solving aging. Maybe see what happens if you give SENS $1bn/yr. Don't even need to take more public money, I'm sure Alzheimer's researchers won't miss it. (Though even without SENS being better funded, things are looking up; there are more groups, and things have been able to be spun out into startups. It's especially relieving that the Theranos case hasn't completely destroyed the concept of VC-funded health-related startups as a class, since VC money is a lot better than government money dollar-for-dollar. Before his personal drama with SENS recently, Aubrey estimated 50-50 odds at solving aging by 2035. With more funding, that could probably be improved.)

phpisthebest 4y ago

Well the disease of Aging is the number one killer. We should solve that

melling 4y ago
I’ll just leave off by saying that some causes of death have a much higher cost to society. Spending a decade with Alzheimer’s then dying is expensive. Simply dying quietly in your sleep at the age of 99 after living a healthy life, not so much

Jach 4y ago

Clicking through the submission shows: "Approximately 1 in 3 of ADRD cases (36.9%) in the US were associated with 8 modifiable risk factors, the most prominent of which were midlife obesity (17.7%; 95% CI, 17.5-18.0), physical inactivity (11.8%; 95% CI, 11.7-11.9), and low educational attainment (11.7%; 95% CI, 11.5-12.0)." Interpreting those risk factors as saying x% higher risk than not, i.e. a relative risk of 1.177, it's a far cry from smoking relative risk findings > 20. I agree that just solving the disease, or at least making its treatment options cheaper (so that it's not a big deal if some people cost a bit more to treat than others), is a lot better than trying to alter levels of service based on BMI. But throwing more money at ADRD directly is probably a mistake, especially given findings like https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/faked-beta-amyloid-data-what-does-it-mean https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/faked-beta-amyloid... I'm much more in favor of solving aging. Maybe see what happens if you give SENS $1bn/yr. Don't even need to take more public money, I'm sure Alzheimer's researchers won't miss it. (Though even without SENS being better funded, things are looking up; there are more groups, and things have been able to be spun out into startups. It's especially relieving that the Theranos case hasn't completely destroyed the concept of VC-funded health-related startups as a class, since VC money is a lot better than government money dollar-for-dollar. Before his personal drama with SENS recently, Aubrey estimated 50-50 odds at solving aging by 2035. With more funding, that could probably be improved.)