I’ve caused a ruckus without even being aware. Please know that I didn’t publish this blog here, nor did I chose the subject line. (I’m not trying to dump on Theresa who I know had good intentions by sharing.) If I were to have posted, I would have framed the blog with some context. That said, I certainly stand behind every word. I tried (perhaps unsuccessfully) to word my letter to question Dr. Hellmuth’s motivations rather than assuming that I knew them. I’m completely open to being proven wrong and warmly welcome her to a conversation as I indicated in my blog. This blog post is anything but anti-science. I (and our entire organization) remain open to any and all strategies that will benefit our population.
Brian, yes! I appreciate the new focus on long-COVID which has offered another avenue for Dr. Hellmuth to build her reputation. Our NF52 also shared a
case study in which Dr. Hellmuth helped to identify a stroke condition in an elderly man presenting with dementia. I love to see this positive example that could have come from a member of Dr. Bredesen’s team. She identified and addressed a contributor to this patient’s cognitive decline and thereby improved his cognition- brilliant! There are always more things that bring us together than divide us.
ApropoE4, you’ve taken a page from Dr. Hellmuth’s playbook. Rather than discussing the science, you’ve cast shade on the funders of Dr. Bredesen’s recent trial, cast doubt upon his
Conflict of Interest declarations, attacked the journal in which he published, and questioned the data in the trial, the sum total of which is an effort to discredit the research itself without ever discussing his actual research. I especially appreciate that you’ve noted the improvement in volumetrics, which I find to be the most compelling of all of the data.
Dr. Cyrus Raji analyzed the imaging for the clinical trial. I know he would welcome any questions that you have; you can reach him at
craji@wustl.edu.
Instead of an ad hominem attack, I wonder if we could have a conversation about Dr. Bredesen’s Alzheimer’s hypothesis that was born over 30 years of laboratory research before transitioning to clinical practice. Dr. Bredesen asserts that Alzheimer’s results from an imbalance in the brain’s neuroplasticity signaling. As we age and are exposed to multiple assaults over time, damaging forces overtake repair forces, resulting in a downsizing of the brain’s ability and subsequent cognitive decline. His goal is to change your biochemistry to provide optimal conditions for our brains to thrive by identifying and addressing personalized contributors (metabolic derangement, poor nutrient status, lack of oxygen from OSA, exposure to viruses, etc.) that are contributing to the damage. He asserts that amyloid-beta (if present) is actually the body’s response to damage. You can read more about the background of the science
here.
The fact remains that Dr. Bredesen is the only researcher to my knowledge who is making any substantive progress in treating Alzheimer’s disease. Eight-four percent patients in this trial experienced significant cognitive and imaging
improvements that we haven’t seen elsewhere. The best that any pharmaceuticals (to-date) have been able to do is
slow decline. IMHO, anyone who is working in this field should be curious about his results. Alzheimer’s is among the only top ten causes of global death for which we have no sustainable effective treatment. There are many millions suffering now (in the early stages) and many millions more with the underlying pathophysiology who may be able to benefit from this approach. As an Alzheimer’s activist, simply ignoring it is doing a disservice to our population.
Let’s also keep in mind the deeply flawed system in which all Alzheimer’s research is conducted. As we’re all aware hundreds of trials and billions of dollars have been spent on the amyloid hypothesis which still hasn’t panned out. Researchers have successfully been able to reduce amyloid-beta but that has NOT led to an improvement in cognition — the ultimate goal. Even worse, a recent
report suggests that some of the the data of which that hypothesis was build may have been falsified which just adds another layer of “messiness” to a system that has already failed to gain a foothold on this disease. To fully understand how “evidence-based” medicine is rigged to disregard alternative theories (even those that are successful) read Jason Fung, MD’s blog:
The Corruption of Evidence-Based Medicine: Killing for Profit. The Aduhelm debacle is a recent shining example of this dysfunctional system. It not only failed to benefit cognition, but it was also extraordinarily pricey, with potentially dangerous (even fatal in several cases) side-effects in up to 40% of users.
Dr. Bredesen appears to have a promising treatment, with no side-effects. Should it be morally withhold it from a population whose certain outcome is decline and death? The critics would have us wait. We need to ask why.
