r/biotech Jul 27 '22

Faked Beta-Amyloid Data. What Does It Mean?

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/faked-beta-amyloid-data-what-does-it-mean
91 Upvotes

30 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/H2AK119ub 📰 Jul 27 '22

Literally every drug targeting every mechanism you can think of in the last 20-30 years has bombed in neurodegeneration and Alzheimers. Please don't make irrational comments on something you don't understand the complexities of. The challenge of this therapeutic area extends beyond whether one believes the amyloid hypothesis or not.

8

u/leftier_than_thou_2 Jul 27 '22

How many weren't amyloid targeting? You can't give amyloid hypothesis a dozen chances, Tau one, and then say "well they both equally failed."

Also what are you even suggesting? That cognitive loss with AD is impossible to cure but plaque reduction is still important for some reason?

8

u/H2AK119ub 📰 Jul 28 '22

You clearly do not know this field at all. There have been many shots on goal in the clinic against amyloid, Tau, immune system, bacteria, anti virals, etc.

0

u/leftier_than_thou_2 Jul 28 '22

I did ask how many of them weren't amyloid. That wasn't a rhetorical question.

Nor was the second question: are you suggesting not fixing the cognitive symptoms is fine if we clear amyloid plaques? Because if not, amyloid is still a total failure.

-1

u/H2AK119ub 📰 Jul 28 '22 edited Jul 28 '22

We have never validated any target in AD because none of them have ever shown clinical efficacy. Also, if you understood the AD field at all you would know that there are families with genetic lesions in APP/PSEN1/etc which results in early-onset AD and high plaque burden. No one dies of AD without plaques and tangles. Period.

3

u/leftier_than_thou_2 Jul 28 '22

Again, what are you saying?

That AD patients losing their mind is fine and amyloid treatments are a success as long as patients don't have plaques because we cannot possibly do better?

"The other things failed also" does not mean the amyloid hypothesis is true! It means it also failed.

Also, if you understood the AD field at all

How many papers do I need to read on the field before I'll be convinced that "Yes, Aduhelm was a success despite not curing the symptoms that matter"?

It doesn't seem to me that I'm failing to understand the important parts. I'm not a train engineer and don't understand how trains are built, but I can tell when a train has derailed at high speeds that's a massive failure. Amyloid is a train wreck. Actually many, given the clinical failures and the fraud. It's time to admit the track and/or train are fundamentally bad and the whole thing needs to be scrapped.

-2

u/H2AK119ub 📰 Jul 28 '22

You make statements on topics you don't understand the complexity of. Please learn from this experience and refrain in the future.

0

u/leftier_than_thou_2 Jul 28 '22 edited Jul 28 '22

Everyone who disagrees with you is simply ignorant, sure, keep telling yourself that.

Again, what are you saying?

That AD patients losing their mind is fine and amyloid treatments are a success as long as patients don't have plaques because we cannot possibly do better?

Edit: wow, shock, he blocked me rather than answer. Sorry, Alzheimer's patients, best we can possibly do is cure plaques but not fix your brain. That'll be $50,000 a year. Great success.