$26,500/yr for a drug that doesnāt 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? isnāt lowering beta amyoid and not affecting disease just proof, in humans, that the beta amyloid hypothesis is wrong?
a drug that doesnāt actually help a person with dementia.
It slows cognitive decline, so it might help depending on how far the Alzheimer has progressed. It doesnāt restore function however, so thatās why itās not enough. On the other hand, about a year ago British researchers found that men who take viagra regularly have less chance of developing Alzheimerā¦ (it still needs to be determined if thereās 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 isnāt known is if there is anyone who shouldnāt 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 donāt care about the side effects.
I probably wouldnāt 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, Iād 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 donāt know your exact situation (and Iām not a doctor), I know just enough that I would not be surprised if viaga would be helpful
Drugs like Lecanemab donāt help in that they donāt reverse the progression of symptoms, but they do help in that they slow down the progression of symptoms. Youād expect someone who was given the drug for a few months to have more of their cognative ability left than someone who hadnāt had it, but theyād both be much worse than they were at the start.
Yeah, and Iām not sure that a drug that reverses the symptoms is a realistic target anyway. As far as Iām aware, Alzheimerās ultimately kills neurons. They aināt coming back without a time machine. A treatment that stops degeneration is as good a goal as weāre 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 didnāt work, since it couldnāt grow my limb back?
Not to mention that the original research on amyloid beta has now been proven to have been ādoctoredā 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 werenāt.
A money grab for sure. Not exactly shocking, like removing the burned wood after a house fire doesnāt 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.
Iām just spitballing, but maybe it could work as a preventative? If itās started early enough.
It could be that Alzheimerās just isnāt 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 wouldnāt get Alzheimerās, 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.
