Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Find Genetic Cause For Alzheimer's, Possible Method To Reverse It (upi.com)
schwit1 quotes UPI: Scientists at an independent biomedical research institution have reported a monumental breakthrough: The cause of the primary genetic risk factor for Alzheimer's disease, and a possible cure for the disease. Researchers at Gladstone Institutes in San Francisco identified the primary genetic risk factor for the disease, a gene called apoE4... Their findings were published this week in the journal Nature Medicine... By treating human apoE4 neurons with a structure corrector, it eliminated the signs of Alzheimer's disease, restored normal function to the cells and improved cell survival.
The study's senior investigator says he's already working with a San Francisco pharmaceutical startup to develop the approach and move towards clinical trials, adding that "we are working to accelerate the timeline as much as possible."
The study's senior investigator says he's already working with a San Francisco pharmaceutical startup to develop the approach and move towards clinical trials, adding that "we are working to accelerate the timeline as much as possible."
Any such article sounds encouraging, but from the article linked there is no way to gain any sense of how likely this 'new' information will lead to a cure, if it is indeed even correct.
Alzheimer's is a big deal, so if this is correct we'll see a lot more attention on it.
Do we even want a cure? Alzheimers generates a lot of revenue....
because we sure as shootin' know he'd never go back on his word.
He didn't make any promises in that tweet you linked to, therefore he didn't 'go back on his word'. Now, if you are going to be mad at a politician for doing something he/she criticized others for in the past... well, you are going to have a busy day. I guess you prefer the ones that cover it up though.
Don't be too hard on him. He's just repeating what he heard on social media. Give him credit, he's a very useful tool.
It hardly matters. Old people will eventually spend all of that money on some other medical condition. Unless you have a cure for old age in general, people will still have to face that after decades, their bodies are getting worn down. That means spending more and more money to keep it afloat or just accepting death.
Alzheimers can impact people at any age, it just so happens to happen more often later in life - like cancer.
More interestingly, there is some recent debate that alzheimers might be a 3rd form of diabetes.
Even as a casual reader of medical news I thought apoE has been linked to alzheimer's for years. The specific method of removing and inducing the phenotype might be the actual breakthrough but its not like they discovered apoE4 itself.
I've lost two close family members to Alzheimers. It's one of the cruelest diseases I've ever seen. Yes, we want a damn cure.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Part of the importance is that they use a "small molecule inhibitor" (SMI). This class of medical tins are usually easy to manufacture and ingest. In contrast, most of the other "breakthrough"molecules ave been genetically engineered proteins which are more complex. In addition, SMI drugs can be easily modified to have better profiles.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes ....
(John Lithgow's character got that treatment)
It still matters not one bit. Unless the main cause of death becomes accidents with near complete and instant fatality, eventually a person gets sick and needs expensive medical care. Instead of big pharma selling you meds for Alzheimers, they sell you meds for something else.
Interesting. Thanks
Because when the next elections come, the backlash is gonna be so hard that we're gonna make sure that red-state shallow-end-of-the-gene-pool filth like you NEVER get the chance to take control of this country ever again, and for generations to come.
Wow, what a winning campaign strategy. It's the cheeriness, inclusiveness and optimism in your post that really makes me want to vote for you.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It's first required to detect the apoE gene and whether there are one or two copies to provide a provisional diagnosis, I guess that's not really a problem but the article doesn't say. I would guess that when patients reach some age or perhaps at birth the genetic test would be prescribed by physicians as a matter of course. What's the normal function of the gene?
Having one copy of the apoE gene doubles and two copies multiplies by 12 the chance of contracting Alzheimer's according to the article, which implies that there are other causes of Alzheimer's and also implies that having the gene doesn't predict with any certainty that carrier will exhibit symptoms if he or she lives long enough. Never-the-less this approach appears to have great promise, probably too late to help me (I'm not yet exhibiting symptoms though despite what my detractors may allege!)
Nate
alvinrod shrugged dismissively:
It hardly matters. Old people will eventually spend all of that money on some other medical condition. Unless you have a cure for old age in general, people will still have to face that after decades, their bodies are getting worn down. That means spending more and more money to keep it afloat or just accepting death.
"It hardly matters" to you - for the moment.
Wait until someone you care about develops Alzheimer's (this, of course, assumes you care about anyone other than yourself), and you have to deal with their progressive mental deterioration on a personal level. I can tell you from my personal experience that watching my mother steadily turn into a frightened, confused, paranoid sketch of herself, conversing with whom eventually became little more than an exercise in listening to a skipping record - constantly getting lost before she reached the end of a sentence, repeating the same "news" several dozen times in a half-hour phone call - was profoundly heart-rending.
To focus exclusively on the financial cost of the disease (and you are completely off-base even there, since Alzheimer's can require up to a decade or so of residential, supervised care before it becomes fatal in and of itself) and completely ignore the human one is profoundly callous, at best.
I'm not going to say, "I hope it happens to someone you love," because I wouldn't wish Alzheimer's on anyone. But I surely am tempted ...
Check out my novel.
Can we get other qualified experts to confirm this before news sites like slashdot start publishing it as scientific breakthrough? Oh wait.
Wait until someone you care about develops Alzheimer's (this, of course, assumes you care about anyone other than yourself), and you have to deal with their progressive mental deterioration on a personal level.
You're dealing with the politicized misanthropy movement here. They hate it when a disease is cured because it means either more young people having "too many" children, or more useless old people who should all be gassed for the benefit of Mother Gaia.
I didn't vote for Trump.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It still matters not one bit. Unless the main cause of death becomes accidents with near complete and instant fatality, eventually a person gets sick and needs expensive medical care. Instead of big pharma selling you meds for Alzheimers, they sell you meds for something else.
And? What's wrong with spending money to improve your condition or make life more comfortable/fun?
Hopefully they didn't use Theranos to confirm.
Philistine.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
For example, from freaking 1993,
Abstract
Several studies have reported an association of the apolipoprotein E allele 4 (APOE*4) to familial and sporadic late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD). Here we report on the relationship between APOE*4 and early-onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) in a Dutch population-based study. The frequency of the APOE*4 allele was 2.3 times higher among EOAD cases compared to controls. Among patients, the allele frequency was 1.6 times higher in those with a positive family history than in those without. A significant increase in risk of EOAD was found for subjects homozygous for APOE*4 regardless of family history of dementia, but an increase in EOAD risk for APOE*4 heterozygotes could only be shown in subjects with a positive family history. Our study demonstrates a significant association between APOE*4 and EOAD which is modified by family history of dementia.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ng0594-74
The fact that goldmansachs thinks these lousy few billions earned (after all the costs) is not worth it if it does not come yearly, shows where the problem is. The solution to it could be a license for crooking (lawyers and finance magicians) as above attached to a yearly decimation lottery so you can abuse general public as usual but once a year you have to go through the thrill of being selected to feed the lion etc. You televise or stream it and have revenue to cover costs of lions.
Grandma.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
>Old people will eventually spend all of that money on some other medical condition
Some of them. Some of them will just let it go and pass that money to the next generation.
I wonder how do I prevent robbers in scrubs from robbing my offspring dry using my senile condition.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
Very strange abstact. In the beginning it implies that diabetes cause Alzheimer, while the last sentence indicates to the opposite.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Also, Google Scholar search on this reveals only old articles, latest I have seen was 2014.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
I've already known people who have developed dementia or other degenerative mental conditions. Some have had their health fail for other reasons like cancer and I've known plenty who've been done in mostly by their own vices. Talk to anyone who's been around long enough and they've seen plenty of medical tragedy, either in their own life or in that of their friends and family.
I say that it doesn't particularly matter because in the end there's going to be something that comes for you whether it's Alzheimer's, heart disease, cancer, strokes, etc. Whatever it is, it's scarcely pretty. I hope that when I go it's something quick like a sudden heart attack that did my grandfather in instead of something that's long and hell on everyone else around me. However, if he had the choice to live until whatever might kill him next, I'm pretty sure he'd pay whatever cost necessary. He simply didn't have any choice in the matter.
Again, it doesn't really matter because even if we can cure Alzheimer's there's just something else that will kill us instead. Perhaps it will be something that won't rob us of our sense of self or destroy the person that is us, but it's just as costly in the end from a financial point. Even my grandmother who lived a long life and enjoyed relatively good health up until her death needed care providers to help her once she became incapable of completely caring for her self. That adds up over the years.
No matter how good your health is eventually you reach a point where no amount of money can keep you alive for a second longer. Yet people desire to cling to life as much as possible. It's just not in our genes to lay down and die and if it ever was or is, those would tend not to be passed on. It's not that the medical field is particularly greedy or more so than any other business, but that people by and large are willing to spend everything they have to live just a little bit longer. I'd like to say that the ones who won't do that are the most sane among us us, but I suspect that many of them feel no reason to go on which is perhaps more tragic.
The study's senior investigator says he's already working with a San Francisco pharmaceutical startup to develop the approach
from the article linked there is no way to gain any sense of how likely this 'new' information will lead to a cure
You need to pay more attention to how /. strings you along.
Yesterday the Goldman article was posted to stir up discussion about the evils of Big Pharma and how they don't want to cure diseases.
Today we get this nebulous article about how some altruistic researchers from San Francisco found a cure for Alzheimer's and are working with a Silicon Valley start-up to develop it.
If that start-up turns out to be Theranos it would be a clickbait trifecta.
I read an article about this on one of the mainstream aggregators early this morning (Either Yahoo or Google).
If the subject was not so serious, say about athletes foot rather than Alzheimers, I would have dismissed it after the initial skim, rather than actually spending a few minutes to read it. And on reading it, I felt like, yeah, this is a huge amount of hype being built upon a very tiny foundation.
If there is anything to it, then I am sure that there will be a more substantive article soon. This one has the aroma of a Fleischmann–Pons announcement about it.
1. Not much of the spending on Alzheimers is for drugs, it's home and institutional care. Pharmas would much rather eat the whole pie, not just a slice.
2. A cure would be quicker to bring to market, because trials would show efficacy much more quickly. For conditions where treatments are on the market, a cure would be given higher priority by the FDA than treatments, so that part of the process would be faster too.
.3. Price. A cure would sell at a good multiple of the cost of a year of treatment. This would probably be true for most chronic diseases. Would you rather chare $250K per customer upfront or $50k per year for five years?
4. Market share and marketing costs. For pretty much any chronic disease, a cure would quickly displace treatments from the market. You wouldn't have to hire a fleet of salespeople and fly doctors to resorts to get the word out either: everyone would already know about it. So profit margins would be much higher.
So you don't see any value in staying non-senile for as long as possible or extending lifespan?
I'm sure they will soon discover a much more profitable long--term treatment option instead. /cynical
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Can we get other qualified experts to confirm this before news sites like slashdot start publishing it as scientific breakthrough? Oh wait.
At least they didn't proclaim, "Mission Accomplished!" -- 'cause that always goes over well ... :-)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Aging is something we could solve.
Check out the strategy here:
The Science of Curing Aging" | Talks at Google
https://youtu.be/S6ARUQ5LoUo
Itâ(TM)s not about extending life. Alzheimerâ(TM)s doesnâ(TM)t directly kill you. You die from âoecomplicationsâ. Itâ(TM)s about preventing the years of suffering, and it IS suffering, for individuals and their families before they finally pass on. Alzheimerâ(TM)s is the waterboarding of diseases, and all the family can do is watch. Just my opinion as an ex EMT with 2 RN sisters that had to go through it with our father, so we unfortunately knew more about the disease medically speaking than most, and it didnâ(TM)t let us down in terms of how bad it could get. It sucks bigtime and needs to be researched every bit as aggressively as cancer, etc.
Stock up on gas masks and guns while you still can.
"Pharma" has no interest in selling old people anything. Old people die and cease to be a revenue stream so screw them. Pharma wants young and middle aged people to sell wanky placebos to for the rest of their lives. Expensive medications which reduce death over 20 years by 0.5% and form the majority of the revenue stream of "Pharma".
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
"people will still have to face that after decades, their bodies are getting worn down" Speak for yourself, you young whipper-snapper. I'm approaching the start of my 8th decade (I'm nearly 68), and I intend to keep going for awhile.
Of course my body may disagree...
I'm not disagreeing with you, what you describe is certainly the most common outcome. But some people are different. My mother's ability to transfer short-term memories to long-term memory went away; the result was that she could tell you about things that happened a few minutes ago, or things that happened fifty years ago, but lost the ability to tell you what happened an hour or a day or a year ago. Believe it or not, there was actually an upside to that. My sister would take mom out to a coffee shop, and suggested that my mom order the caramel latte. When mom tasted it, she'd say, "Wow, that's good! I've never had one of those before!" Her enjoyment was new every time, and I'm sure my sister got a kick out of it.
But as I say, that's not a common experience, and I know that mom knew her memory was not good, and it frustrated her; but she found ways to work around it, rather than rolling in despair. I hope if/when my time comes, I can cope as well as she did. (Or better, this cure is real.)
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which this brain is too small to contain.
Do we even want a cure? Alzheimers generates a lot of revenue....
This is something that's a real tragedy and it feels very wrong to joke about it, based even on the fact that some companies want to not cure things but reduce them to get continuing money. My grandmother had it, it was the worse thing to see her go slowly.
Do we even want a cure? Alzheimers generates a lot of revenue....
In this case, the "cure" is likely monthly doses of this particular medicine for the rest of your life. This is exactly the type of "cure" that a company wants to have.
Even in a case where you could completely cure someone, a company who sells expensive medicine for it might not have an incentive to cure it but a different company without a conflict of interest still has an incentive to develop an expensive one time cure for it.
Eventually everyone gets hungry too and then people try to sell them food.
Are you going after these monsters who grow and sell food or what exactly?
Or are you just openly a misanthrope?
This outlook of the purpose of medicine is why America is so backwards. The point is to improve life, not lengthen it. A moment of clarity in an Alzheimer sufferer weighs as much as a year of living.
Why do you think that improving life and extending life are mutually exclusive?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Many doctors are ignorant of fields that they weren't taught extensively, and are prejudiced against techniques outside their specialties. Most are almost completely ignorant about nutrition. Many uncritically believe the claims of pharmaceutical salesmen. Overall, I doubt that they're any more dishonestly profit-motivated than other professions.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Neo-cons have penetrated all parties and Trump has put them in charge of defense (Bolton). Remember 2002-2003 Iraq war drum? Get ready.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
"Many uncritically believe the claims of pharmaceutical salesmen."
That is their only source of information for drugs.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock