4 ms·

sources please!? there's a reason that 18% of clinical trials around drugs against Alzheimer's still target plaques also the etiological model evolved a lot (

by pas 1y ago

sources please!? there's a reason that 18% of clinical trials around drugs against Alzheimer's still target plaques also the etiological model evolved a lot (as others pointed out, it's removing blockage after the pipe has ruptured still can lead to a sinkhole forming later) https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/trc2.70098 https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/trc... also some nuance regarding the scientific fraud and the Amyloid mafia https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/reaction-alzheimer-s-fraud https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/reaction-alzheimer...

DarkmSparks 1y ago
There are no sources, that is the definition of zero evidence. Also, The fraud was found because the theory was invalidated, not the other way around. It was found that real life did not match the theory (by spending billions on human trials that all failed), so they looked back at the theory and found the results were fake. There is however evidence that it doesnt. E.g. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/1107509 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/1... But it was and continues to be ignored.
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  When you say "the only evidence that once existed to say they caused the damage used 100% faked results", that is the kind of claim for which there could be evidence. What's more, it's the kind of claim that you should present evidence for when making the claim, since it's an attack on the credibility and honesty of those doing the study.
  - DarkmSparks 1y ago
    Sure, I am referring there to what started with https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabricatio... And finished with the resignation of the stanford prof engaged in it, and all the evidence that they cause cognitive imparment being retracted. E.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04533 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04533

by pas 1y ago

DarkmSparks 1y ago

There are no sources, that is the definition of zero evidence. Also, The fraud was found because the theory was invalidated, not the other way around. It was found that real life did not match the theory (by spending billions on human trials that all failed), so they looked back at the theory and found the results were fake. There is however evidence that it doesnt. E.g. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/1107509 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/1... But it was and continues to be ignored.

AnimalMuppet 1y ago
When you say "the only evidence that once existed to say they caused the damage used 100% faked results", that is the kind of claim for which there could be evidence. What's more, it's the kind of claim that you should present evidence for when making the claim, since it's an attack on the credibility and honesty of those doing the study.
- DarkmSparks 1y ago
  Sure, I am referring there to what started with https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabricatio... And finished with the resignation of the stanford prof engaged in it, and all the evidence that they cause cognitive imparment being retracted. E.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04533 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04533