A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
$26,500/yr for a drug that doesn't actually help a person with dementia.
How many times is the FDA going to approve beta amyloid lowering drugs that have no benefit to disease? isn't lowering beta amyoid and not affecting disease just proof, in humans, that the beta amyloid hypothesis is wrong?
a drug that doesn't actually help a person with dementia.
It slows cognitive decline, so it might help depending on how far the Alzheimer has progressed. It doesn't restore function however, so that's why it's not enough. On the other hand, about a year ago British researchers found that men who take viagra regularly have less chance of developing Alzheimer... (it still needs to be determined if there's causation there though, and if so, which way it goes).
Viagra was developed as a promising heart disease treatment. In trials the side effects we all know of it for came apparent quickly and so they got it approved for that since it is very easy to prove it is helpful. However there is still good reason to believe that it is helpful for a lot of other things and everyone should take it. What isn't known is if there is anyone who shouldn't take it, what the best dosage is, and lots of other details - but studies are happening and I expect in 10 years it will be a regular treatment for a lot of people who don't care about the side effects.
I probably wouldn't take it, since I have a heart condition and take prescription drugs for it. If other people with my condition like to try first, be my guest, I'd be interested in the results.
Talk to your doctor and read those studies. If you have a heart condition you maybe someone who should start taking it. Or maybe you are amoung those who should never take it. I don't know your exact situation (and I'm not a doctor), I know just enough that I would not be surprised if viaga would be helpful
Drugs like Lecanemab don't help in that they don't reverse the progression of symptoms, but they do help in that they slow down the progression of symptoms. You'd expect someone who was given the drug for a few months to have more of their cognative ability left than someone who hadn't had it, but they'd both be much worse than they were at the start.
Yeah, and I'm not sure that a drug that reverses the symptoms is a realistic target anyway. As far as I'm aware, Alzheimer's ultimately kills neurons. They ain't coming back without a time machine. A treatment that stops degeneration is as good a goal as we're gonna get.
Like, if I lose a limb in a car accident, is it really fair to say that the intervention required to let me live on as an amputee didn't work, since it couldn't grow my limb back?
Not to mention that the original research on amyloid beta has now been proven to have been "doctored" and quite conclusively at that, why they continue to pursue drugs that clear it behooves me. Literally throwing billions of dollars into trash.
The original study was doctored, but plenty of others with similar results weren't.
A money grab for sure. Not exactly shocking, like removing the burned wood after a house fire doesn't make the house livable. It might end up part of a solution, though. It would be really nice to find something that re-enables brain plasticity after damage.
I'm just spitballing, but maybe it could work as a preventative? If it's started early enough.
It could be that Alzheimer's just isn't reversable - like the brain is scarred by it - and look how long even minor scars remain on skin.
could be, but this is hard to prove. And then we have ask what about people who wouldn't get Alzheimer's, is there harm from giving them to them? Lots of other questions come up when treating normal people that we can ignore for those who need help. (if this revered Alzheimers but caused death by Cancer in 5 years it is still worth it for those with Alzheimers)
There are a quite a few inexpensive options for prevention of dementia that are much cheaper than this.