Charles Piller

Thinking in the field is beginning to expand. More and more you're seeing people push back against the singularity of the amyloid hypothesis and to look at the aspects of it that might be extremely valuable to keep exploring, but also to expand out to other ways of thinking of the disease that might in themselves be equally valuable or might, in combination with research on amyloid and tau proteins, lead to better outcomes for patients.

Thanks, John. I believe you're referring to two anti-amyloid antibody drugs. Their names that they're sold under are Kisunla and Lakembi, and they've only been on the market a couple of years. And these drugs were developed to strip amyloid proteins out of the brain with the idea that, again, if you do that, you are going to be preventing this cascade of biochemical effects that

lead to terrible dementia of Alzheimer's patients. Large trials were done with these drugs. These are human trials where people with mild symptoms of Alzheimer's or what they call pre-Alzheimer's symptoms, very mild dementia or memory loss symptoms,

Ne sopivat näihin kokemuksiin, ottaa taitoja pitkällä aikavälillä, ja sitten niitä verrataan ryhmään, joka antaa placeboa, joka on sellainen klassinen sydänpili, vaikka tässä tapauksessa se ei ole sydänpili, koska nämä on infuusioituneet sydänpiliin. Ne saavat sydänpiliin infuusioita, jotka eivät tarvitse mitään taitoja.

And then they compared the results of these two groups. And what they found is to a statistically measurable degree, statistically significant degree, the people who took these drugs, just like the placebo group, their cognition declined. But it declined to a very slightly less rapid rate than the people on the placebo. And so you say,

Is this a really beneficial effect of the drugs? Yes, they did not reverse the cognitive decline of Alzheimer's. They did not arrest the symptoms, but what they did is they made it possible for people to decline very slightly less rapidly. Now, so if these drugs were completely safe to take,

If they were completely affordable, if they were drugs that did not require potentially harmful infusion process in doctor's offices or in clinics, and they only had a slightly beneficial effect, then why would anyone refuse them who was beginning to experience the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease? But unfortunately, the story told, I think, is not quite correct. So in the community of

Neurologista ja toisista lääkäristä, jotka tarjoavat nämä lääkärit, tai eivät tarjoa niitä joissain tapauksissa, on se, että nämä lääkärit, niiden hyödyntäminen on niin pieni, että moni lääkäri, henkilö ja perhe ei voisi huomioida niitä hyödyntämiä. Toisin sanoen, niiden hyödyntäminen ei ole tarkoitettavaa. Se on, kuinka huonosti ne ovat. Mutta samalla tavalla ne ovat mahdollisesti vaarallisia ympäristöjä, joita on yleensä

ja yleensä syrjinnän atrofi, joka on syrjintä syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrjintää syrj

for the benefits of the drug that are so subtle that in many cases people say it's imperceptible. So I'm not saying that no one should take these drugs. That's a decision that people should make with their physicians and with their family members. But what I'm saying is that people should not exaggerate the benefits. They should see that these potential benefits are very slight and the dangers are ever present.

for dementia or Alzheimer's. What have you learned through your research? That might be appropriate steps for them to take. When you say an early diagnosis, you mean someone who's beginning to see the very early signs of dementia, who at any age or at a normal, what they call the sporadic Alzheimer's age of maybe in 70s, usually from 65 to 85.

Niin. No, sanotaanko, että mielestäni Alzheimerin on seurannut samat asiat, joita näemme kaikenlaisiin eläimiin. Kaksi tärkeintä asiaa ovat se, että huolto ja huolto on joskus hyödyntäneet rauhassa. Joten suurin osa tutkimuksen ja kehityksen rahoituksista

drug discovery et cetera has outweighed the emphasis being placed on prevention and care and these are things that can make a big difference in a person's life and experience of the disease and also in trying to forestall the possible terrible effects of alzheimer's so let me put it this way living our best lives

good nutrition, exercise, controlling high blood pressure, controlling cholesterol levels, using your mind, reading, having good social relationships. These are all things that can forestall the worst effects of Alzheimer's if you're unfortunate to be someone who ends up getting the disease. There, in my view, is no

brain game or supplement or exercise regimen that will definitively stop a person from getting Alzheimer's. But we know that this combination of effects, things that pay dividends in our lives generally, can be extremely important in forestalling or preventing the worst effects of the disease. And so I would just say people should remember that they have some agency in their lives, and that's one factor.

Tiedot, jotka ovat sopimukset amyloidin hypoteesiin, jotka ovat mielestäni tärkeät asiat tekemään, mutta heidän ideoihinsa ei pitäisi vahvistaa ihmisiä tutkimaan muista tavoitteista ja löytämään yhdistelmiä, jotka voivat liittyä Alzheimerin ongelmalle.

Mutta mielestäni niitä, joita he käsittelevät, pitäisi käsitellä aikaisemmin ja aikaisemmin näiden anti-amyloidin drogien kanssa, jotka, kuten mainitsin, ovat mahdollisesti hyödyllisiä vaikutuksia, jos ne ovat erittäin suuret vaikutukset kognitiivisuuteen. Esimerkiksi vähentämään kognitiivisen vähentämisen ratkaisua, jota ihmiset voivat kokeilla. Mutta kun he käsittelevät ideaa,

giving these drugs to younger and younger people. I think people should be cautious in adopting that advice, particularly people who have no symptoms of cognitive decline, but may have evidence of amyloid and tau proteins in their brain.

Young people who have those symptoms, have those evidence of those proteins, might at some point be encouraged to take these drugs. And I think you need to proceed down that path with great caution because of the potential hazards associated with them.

Johanna, haluaisin kuitenkin kertoa, että uskon, että useimmat tietoiset eivät koskaan manipuloida kuvia, mutta vaikkapa pieniä tietoja, jotka tekevät sitä, voivat saada suuri vaikutus ajatteluun, mikä on se, mitä löysin työssäni. Ja sanoisin, että kyllä, kuvan manipulaatio on todennäköisesti melko yleistä.