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

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.)