he was not in the trenches in 2003. in 2003 we were working in an Alzheimer's lab and everyone in our lab at least was expressing suspicion that there was something wrong with the hypothesis. pretty much every internal lab meeting started with "the amyloid hypothesis is... [this statement exists because our funding stream] though it is not conclusively proven, wink wink"
Granted, I have heard a scientist (in an unrelated field, I think it was some astronomical NPR interview) describe science as a bit like a supertanker...there usually is some prevailing thing that everyone believes in, but as contrary evidence piles up, the direction slowly turns.
I guess my own question is whether Alzheimer's/amyloid thinking was atypically stuck on one hypothesis, vs. is this just the slow pace of progress as usual for a given field? I mean...it's not like the amyloid deposition isn't there...
I only play a AD expert on TV (haha I jest...I like to say this because I had no intention of specializing in this when I was training but, hey, in the real world, you have to treat the "market" that rolls in the door....). I work more in the Parkinson's world, and while I would say there are cliques, which do affect who gets NIH (or used to get...I have no idea what's going on there now...), I can't say there's one prevailing "cabal" that's obsessed with any one direction. the bigger issue is that current Parkinson's research is a bit scattershot in too many directions.
My other pet peeve is somewhat unrelated, where the article mentions other directions like neuroinflammation and oxidative stress; the problem is these are also vague/broad topics, that have been thrown around like panaceas for every disease from head to toe; my own superstition is that when a new drug candidate comes out for "neuroinflammation" or "oxidative stress", I'd bet a healthy bunch of nickels it won't amount to much.
His blog has a category just for discussing Alzheimer's, and he's been talking about ever since he started blogging. So here's a post from 2002 where he points out (somewhat obliquely) that amyloid isn't a proven hypothesis: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/alzheimer-s-vaccin...
> This is looking like one of the crazy ideas that just might work - stipulating, for the moment, that amyloid really is the cause of Alzheimer's. . .
Which is the only good take… if there wasn’t “something promising” with the idea, people wouldn’t have kept at it. There’s only so much time you’re going to waste on pure fantasy before you move on. The whole ordeal had me quite upset as I was supporting studies looking at this, and the patients are beyond desperate for any treatment. None of us got rich.
he was not in the trenches in 2003. in 2003 we were working in an Alzheimer's lab and everyone in our lab at least was expressing suspicion that there was something wrong with the hypothesis. pretty much every internal lab meeting started with "the amyloid hypothesis is... [this statement exists because our funding stream] though it is not conclusively proven, wink wink"
Granted, I have heard a scientist (in an unrelated field, I think it was some astronomical NPR interview) describe science as a bit like a supertanker...there usually is some prevailing thing that everyone believes in, but as contrary evidence piles up, the direction slowly turns.
I guess my own question is whether Alzheimer's/amyloid thinking was atypically stuck on one hypothesis, vs. is this just the slow pace of progress as usual for a given field? I mean...it's not like the amyloid deposition isn't there...
I only play a AD expert on TV (haha I jest...I like to say this because I had no intention of specializing in this when I was training but, hey, in the real world, you have to treat the "market" that rolls in the door....). I work more in the Parkinson's world, and while I would say there are cliques, which do affect who gets NIH (or used to get...I have no idea what's going on there now...), I can't say there's one prevailing "cabal" that's obsessed with any one direction. the bigger issue is that current Parkinson's research is a bit scattershot in too many directions.
My other pet peeve is somewhat unrelated, where the article mentions other directions like neuroinflammation and oxidative stress; the problem is these are also vague/broad topics, that have been thrown around like panaceas for every disease from head to toe; my own superstition is that when a new drug candidate comes out for "neuroinflammation" or "oxidative stress", I'd bet a healthy bunch of nickels it won't amount to much.
Do you see any curative Parkison (not even reversing the damage but stopping it) treatment being available in the next few years ?
1 reply →
His blog has a category just for discussing Alzheimer's, and he's been talking about ever since he started blogging. So here's a post from 2002 where he points out (somewhat obliquely) that amyloid isn't a proven hypothesis: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/alzheimer-s-vaccin...
> This is looking like one of the crazy ideas that just might work - stipulating, for the moment, that amyloid really is the cause of Alzheimer's. . .
I'm not sure we knew this in 2002 but antibodies are proinflammatory, possibly as a result of their catalysis of ozoniation reaction.
Which is the only good take… if there wasn’t “something promising” with the idea, people wouldn’t have kept at it. There’s only so much time you’re going to waste on pure fantasy before you move on. The whole ordeal had me quite upset as I was supporting studies looking at this, and the patients are beyond desperate for any treatment. None of us got rich.