Comment by Drupon

Many in this thread, who have evidently spent very little time studying the topic, have confidently concluded the experts are wrong.

I, also a non-expert, spent six months studying what the experts are doing, concluded that they actually seem to know what they’re talking about, and shared my understanding of that with other non-experts.

If you’re going to dismiss me for saying the experts are right, since I’m not an expert, then shouldn’t you dismiss those who spent far less time than I to learn about the subject, who are saying the experts are wrong?

For you, simply listing the author of the post is enough to discard it. Not everyone is that well informed, so it would be helpful for you to add another sentence explaining why this author has no credibility with you.

there is even easier way to estimate the chances of time wasting - it is a "rationalist" website, an "effective altruism"-like version of rationality.

wrt. original post - quickly googled, and that for example https://www.news-medical.net/health/What-are-Amyloid-Plaques... - pretty short and seems to be clear that amyloids do have some correlation while may or may be not the cause.

"Amyloid plaques form one of the two defining features of Alzheimer’s disease, the other being neurofibrillary tangles"

Interesting that the latter is inside the neurons while the former is outside - speaking of complexity. The article also describes that activating microglia back helps with amyloid plaques while this

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33010092/#:~:text=The%20stud...

"The neurofibrillary tangles (NFT) and amyloid-ß plaques (AP) that comprise Alzheimer's disease (AD) neuropathology are associated with neurodegeneration and microglial activation. "

Human body reminds a large monolith codebase - fixing one thing breaks some other :). Claude Code, Human Body CRISPR edition, can't come soon enough...