Sounds promising, but there are a ton of caveats in here: first of all, it’s a very small trial, which means a lot more work is going to be done. Also, the results for only some of the patients were made public, which is odd and suggests the others didn’t do as well. And there was this:
A minor point, maybe, but you can mislead people with editing. I hope there’s something to this, but time will tell.
I don’t buy it. How can a mere injection reverse this?
Seems fishy to me, too. OTOH, how much harm can they really do, considering how inadequate our current treatments are?
I don’t think it is a minor point. Remember the videotape that the Schiavo family released in an attempt to prove that she was aware and responding to people around her? While the fact that the tape was edited doesn’t prove intent to deceive, it does mean that as proof the tape can’t be weighed very heavily.
For a sales pitch, it’s effective and I really wouldn’t have an objection to it. For an purported proof of efficacy, it leaves something lacking.
I’m also highly skeptical of a shot being able to correct the problems that cause Alzheimer’s. Let alone one that works so quickly. I hope I’m being overly skeptical, but…
The drug named is already being used for psoriasis and other autoimmune disorders, and has proven to be relatively safe, so I don’t see much harm in trying it, anyway.
My reservations have little to do with the safety of the treatment, and all on the idea of hyping results to desperate family members. Back when my grandfather’s body was waiting to die, I think that my grandmother would have latched onto a study like this and tried to move heaven and earth to get my grandfather onto it - no matter what later evidence might suggest.
And with all the costs that dashed hopes can bring, if the treatment didn’t work for him.
I thought of them, too. It’s minor in that the data either stands up to statistical examination or it doesn’t, regardless of the video, but credibility-wise I don’t like it at all. Knowing the Schiavo family and their advocates used videotape in such a misleading way makes me wonder about these people releasing a videotape to back up their claims.
The method of administration (cervical spinal injection) is NOT without serious risk.
I’m not convinced. The fact that they’ve only released findings on 15 patients tells me there have been significant problems with others.
Remember the movie Awakenings?
I don’t know how common this procedure is, but your link says there are only 2 known cases of a reaction like this, which would suggest that the risk is extremely low. But that is a guess on my part, of course, in my ignorance of the number of times the procedure has been performed.
Never saw it. But I did think of Flowers For Algernon and Charly.
Has this been reported in the mainstream US media yet? Such as Washington Post or NY Times? I’m a bit skeptical, because if this really was credible, why aren’t we hearing about it in more reputable or mainstream sources yet (especially since this is taking place in the US).
Worth seeing, though it gets little overly sappy toward the end. It’s basically a true story of people who were essentially paralysed for decades, then returned to awarness and functionality with the use of a drug called el dopa (sp?), but the reults were only temporary and they relapsed.
Same kind of idea as Charly.
Per the Wikipedia article, it’s based on actual cases.
With multiple patients, seeing the first of them going hopelessly back into catatonia…
The drug was L-dopa, it’s a synthetic form of the neurochemical dopamine.
Mainstream US media is more interested in reporting on celebrity doings, candidate catfights and disasters. Health, science and the environment have always been low priority. Maybe if TMZ decides to report on it the other news organizations will notice?
Nobody’s paying any attention at the moment, maybe for the reasons we’ve mentioned here. It’s one study, and a small one, without a placebo and with partial results released. Does it really treat Alzheimer’s? Does it only treat AD patients with certain specific problems? We don’t know. I sure would have preferred ‘treat’ to ‘cure’ in that newspaper headline, though.
Incidentally, the drug in question is already on the market as Enbrel. Here is the study that the article discusses. Whether the drug works or not, Alzheimer’s is a scary thing to read about.
This sounds too good to be true, but I really hope there is something to it. Alzheimer’s runs in my family. My grandfather had it, my aunt was just diagnosed with it, and my father is convinced he is going to get it. It is really a terrible disease and I try not to dwell on the idea of my father getting it too much. I have already told my husband he needs to be prepared for me to get it - I just hope there is better treatment or cure found before I have to watch anyone else in my family die with it.
I read recently there is a test you can take to find out if you have a gene for it. I don’t know if I would have the guts to take that test or not. As long as there is no good treatment for it, I probably won’t.
I don’t buy that. Just last night on 60 Minutes, there was a segment about a possible cure for cancer that is under development, and there haven’t even been any formal studies/trials yet. So if that’s getting attention from one of the most prominent and respected news programs, why not this Alzheimer’s cure?
That story has a novelty element that probably attracted 60 Minutes. Meanwhile, the study backing up this research was published at the beginning of January. There may be less here than meets the eye.