J11 wrote:Everyone thank you very much for supporting the thread! Perhaps given my quantitative bent I have been tracking the thread visits. Lately, there has been a noticeable uptick in thread traffic. This is somewhat surprising to me as I have continued my near endless posting on what might seem somewhat repetitive posts about the correlations of aducan. J11 will dare to be dull but informative.
Thank you, J11, for all of your efforts. I think a lot of us have been following your thread to get deeper insights than we can get from news articles. I really appreciate the time and energy you have put into this and will continue to follow it.
I still question the premise underlying the FDA approval, that removing amyloid will result in cognitive benefits.
Did you look at the thread, " A Replacement therapy May Be Able to Rescue the Brain from Alzheimer's"? the article it links to is interesting and presents an opposing view.
Here is the article from the Cincinnati Public Radio station WVXU: https://www.wvxu.org/post/replacement-t ... s#stream/0
Here is a quote from the article: Professor of Neurology Alberto Espay is frustrated the FDA recently approved a drug he says is based on a faulty theory. He says the problem isn't clumps of plaque but missing liquid protein. He says this protein is needed in its original, soluble form to keep the brain healthy.
Sometimes the protein clumps into amyloid plaques but Espay says that's not the problem.
"No matter how high the amyloid gets, if individuals are able to keep a level of the soluble fraction of the product, which is the normal protein, they can do very well. And that is the opposite theory to what's prevailing, what's been with us all along," says Espay.
. What do you think about this approach? Can you see a way that this would fit into any of the models you have been analyzing?