Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Not a miracle cure: only about a quarter of those in the study saw a mild reduction in the progression of the disease, and at least two deaths have been linked to the drug. But hopefully the start of some actually successes in treatment/prevention of this insidious disease.

"Researchers have hailed the dawn of a new era of Alzheimer’s therapies" That's really stretching it here, to say the least. Honestly this is an outright oversell, and these "researchers" are probably the minority. Many many Alzheimer's researchers are very sceptical about drugs removing ameloid buidlup because previous studies doing exactly that have resulted in very little improvement of patients. Again, here they also say a modest improvement in people with hereditary Alzheimer's. This study thus showing again that ameloid buildup is likely a symptom, causing mild damage, and not addressing the cause of the pathology. So to sell these antibody therapies in Alzheimer's as a new era is simply bogus.

I agree that the findings are sensationalized. IMO it shows how eager people are for any kind of advancement. I think the wider hope is that successfully targeting ameloid buildup at the least gives us more information about the underlying mechanics. It’s an increment, to be sure.

Can I ask a question to validate your reply. What expertise do you have on the subject? If medical to what level in regards to the subject matter?

I thought it was common knowledge in the medical community now that ameloid plaques were just a minor symptom-contributor for being at the scene of the crime, and not the driver of the disease. That's been my takeaway from listening to various prominent Alzheimer's researchers at least.

I’d have to do some more research myself. It sounds like you have a more sophisticated understanding than I do.

Regardless, potential Alzheimer’s treatments have mostly been a cascade of failures, so I can see the optimism here. Even finding a drug that correlates with slower ameloid buildup is good news, because (to further your analogy) it might give detectives more evidence regarding the actual crime. For example, now researchers might be able to tease out variables in order to narrow down a causation, which could make it easier to identify more (and possibly more important) correlations. It’s just a small step, but the first in a long time that feels like the correct direction.

I thought this said shows instead of slows and was sitting here going "this sick bastard posting this here". Time to get the eyes checked.

How about Parkinsons?

"NHS ‘nowhere near ready’ to deliver new Alzheimer’s drug, doctors say"

[removed]

Sure you can ask, it's quite irrelevant to ask though. I'm personally involved in tumor immunology, the field where therapeutic antibodies 'come from'. But since I'm speaking in facts, and not as a matter of 'trust me I'm a professional', it's better to validate the facts I mention if they sound untrustworthy. The reason why I am aware of this scepticism is because there was a nice documentary on DW, if I remember correctly, and one on our national TV in the Netherlands and a long read in the science department of a very high quality news paper with input from experts. But since we're here now, I don't mind to piss on the pharmaceutical industry a bit more. These antibodies were truly a breakthrough in cancer treatment, completely opening up the immune system as a valid strategy to fight cancer. These companies try to sell the same "breakthrough" but for Alzheimer's. But is laughably pathetic the least and evil to patients/family of patients who get their hopes up. Stop trying to sell it as a wonderdrug with such mediocre results, it only hurts the trust scientists.

Yeah let someone else be the guinea pig

It is common knowledge that the amyloid hypothesis only holds water for about 1% of all Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. Those folks inherit genetic susceptibility factors that cause higher amyloid production or slower amyloid clearance, and they develop AD earlier than sporadic cases. We still routinely use those amyloid-heavy genetic mouse models of Alzheimer's in the lab to test memory effects of different drugs or interventions, so there's still a heavy amyloid basis in research even though it may not apply to most AD cases.

Amyloid DOES build up and have deleterious effects in some genetically-based AD cases. It's not worthless research, but instead, it only applies to a select small percentage of AD cases who carry those particular gene variants.

Interesting question - Parkinson's patients aren't great candidates for amyloid therapies because amyloid deposition doesn't seem to CAUSE Parkinson's symptoms or be associated with brain function deficits in this population. At least not consistently. Amyloid builds up in a lot of people as they age, especially if they have sleep problems, but it doesn't always mean Alzheimer's or a decline in thinking. (For examples of the disconnect between amyloid burden and brain function, see this 2019 study in PD patients)