We spend 4 billion a year on Alzheimers, and what do we have to show for it? We spent at least 500 billion on AIDS and we have PrEP after 40 years of research.

We spend 4 billion a year on Alzheimers, and what do we have to show for it? We spent at least 500 billion on AIDS and we have PrEP after 40 years of research. The author's core assertion is that 1 billion should buy a potential treatment. The entire article is centered around this core premise. That is a flawed idea at it's core and shows that the author is writing on a subject beyond their pay grade. Worse, it's reinforcing emotions that other people who are not experts under the guise of being well researched. This article increases net ignorance. > Instead, the NIH spent the majority of its money on broader, observational research that won’t directly bring relief to patients. "Instead of spending money to solve the problem, they are first trying to understand the problem." Is that not absolutely absurd to you? Am I insane for reading the author's statement that way? Does the rest of the article really not follow the same conceit? The author makes the assertion that if there is no treatment there there is nothing to show. I would argue that to prove "nothing to show" you would have to argue that understanding of long COVID has not been increased. I do not think the article addressed what 1 billion got us, only what 1 billion did not get us.