This article is unfair, unbalanced and, because it has a platform in Science, dangerous. \1 Alzheimer's disease: The right drug, the right timehttp://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6420/1250 …
Show this thread
-
And the bottom floor of this house of cards is the original
#AmyloidCascadeHypothesis, which we have tested, time and again, and proven to be at best incomplete and at worst flat-out wrong. \4Show this thread
Right drug/right time is just kicking this dented can down the road. The authors admit reducing amyloid is useless once "downstream pathologies become self-sustaining" This is a new addition to the ACH and further weakens its value. \5
-
-
It means any anti-amyloid therapy will be useful only for pre-symptomatic subjects with no amyloid deposits. Implication: start therapy at age 50 and then continue for 30-40 years. \6
Show this thread -
Plus, given these numbers, even if reducing amyloid were beneficial, why develop *passive* immunotherapy? We'll bankrupt the healthcare system. Sound medicine says 'no'; Wall Street and PhARMA say 'please'. \7
Show this thread -
For too long we've refused to listen to our own data. Without a lot of handwaving, amyloid in any state of aggregation is a weak candidate for a cause of AD. Yet we continue investing billions of clinical research dollars in it. \8
Show this thread -
These massive expenditures crowd out many other candidates with far better potential to lead to clinically meaningful insights. This includes work needed to help persons with AD *now* plus those who will get it despite no amyloid. \9
Show this thread -
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.