4 ms·

This again? The test is optional. Feel free to skip it. Tell 50 million people they’re likely to have Alzheimer’s then tell them where to donate towards a cur

by melling 7mo ago

This again? The test is optional. Feel free to skip it. Tell 50 million people they’re likely to have Alzheimer’s then tell them where to donate towards a cure, or treatments to slow it by a decade.

tptacek 7mo ago
Nobody is ever going to do that with this test, because the overwhelming majority of positive test results in a population-wide sample will be false, and the proposed diagnosis is devastating. This is a test for people who already have symptomatic dementia that helps confirm the diagnosis.
- Dylan16807 7mo ago
  Well this test isn't for whether you will get Alzheimer's, so that disqualifies it before we even consider the accuracy. But apparently your odds go above 30% if you live long enough, so if you could test for being in that cohort I think that result would be too common to actually be devastating.
jcranmer 7mo ago
> Tell 50 million people they’re likely to have Alzheimer’s then tell them where to donate towards a cure, or treatments to slow it by a decade. Pharmaceutical companies have spent something like $50 billion on developing Alzheimer's drugs with, well, the most furtive of straw-grasping to show for it. It's probably the most expensive single disease target (especially as things like cancer are families of diseases)... the failure to have good results isn't for lack of money, and merely throwing more money at it is unlikely to actually make progress towards meaningful treatments.
- hattmall 7mo ago
  It just seems really obvious to me that it's not one disease. One problem with the research is that there is SO much money. It's corrupting. There's a whole thing about the plaque cartel and if you aren't testing around a possibly flawed concept the availability of funds is much lower. I just feel the thinking is off, it's like we are trying to treat cuts by removing scabs and scar tissue. We really need deep investigation on the sources, which I feel in many cases are industrial chemicals and how some people's body / immune system respond to them. One of the most compelling studies I saw was how distance from a Golf Course predicted neurodegenerative diseases, based on their use of certain pesticides.
- melling 7mo ago
  So, you’re saying it’s an unsolvable problem? Someone always says “merely throwing money at the problem…” What time period was the money spent? The last 25 years? The United States spends $1 trillion a year in debt interest. $50 billion is nothing
criddell 7mo ago
I wonder if after services like 23andMe became popular and millions of people found out they have the Alzheimer genes, did donations towards brain research rise?

by melling 7mo ago

tptacek 7mo ago

Nobody is ever going to do that with this test, because the overwhelming majority of positive test results in a population-wide sample will be false, and the proposed diagnosis is devastating. This is a test for people who already have symptomatic dementia that helps confirm the diagnosis.

Dylan16807 7mo ago
Well this test isn't for whether you will get Alzheimer's, so that disqualifies it before we even consider the accuracy. But apparently your odds go above 30% if you live long enough, so if you could test for being in that cohort I think that result would be too common to actually be devastating.

jcranmer 7mo ago

> Tell 50 million people they’re likely to have Alzheimer’s then tell them where to donate towards a cure, or treatments to slow it by a decade. Pharmaceutical companies have spent something like $50 billion on developing Alzheimer's drugs with, well, the most furtive of straw-grasping to show for it. It's probably the most expensive single disease target (especially as things like cancer are families of diseases)... the failure to have good results isn't for lack of money, and merely throwing more money at it is unlikely to actually make progress towards meaningful treatments.

hattmall 7mo ago
It just seems really obvious to me that it's not one disease. One problem with the research is that there is SO much money. It's corrupting. There's a whole thing about the plaque cartel and if you aren't testing around a possibly flawed concept the availability of funds is much lower. I just feel the thinking is off, it's like we are trying to treat cuts by removing scabs and scar tissue. We really need deep investigation on the sources, which I feel in many cases are industrial chemicals and how some people's body / immune system respond to them. One of the most compelling studies I saw was how distance from a Golf Course predicted neurodegenerative diseases, based on their use of certain pesticides.
melling 7mo ago
So, you’re saying it’s an unsolvable problem? Someone always says “merely throwing money at the problem…” What time period was the money spent? The last 25 years? The United States spends $1 trillion a year in debt interest. $50 billion is nothing

criddell 7mo ago

I wonder if after services like 23andMe became popular and millions of people found out they have the Alzheimer genes, did donations towards brain research rise?