Actual article [it's open access]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-020-0172-y

Pleasantly surprised to see that it's not yet another amyloid-targeting approach that works great in mice but will inevitably bomb in humans (just like the last dozen Aß trials).

It seems amply demonstrated that the mouse model of the disease is different enough from the actual disease that any given mouse result tells us nothing about the disease, or what may cause or cure it.

But there are very many researchers who know a great deal about the mouse model. It is not clear whether. any know about the human disease; or, if any do, whether the mouse modelers pay them any attention.

The interesting part to me is that its nasally administered. Weren't we just reading in another article about Alzheimer's patients having some vulnerability in the upper nose. As well as also usually having some infection like herpes, where here a vaccine seems to provoke a good response to a condition like infection?

> Weren't we just reading in another article about Alzheimer's patients having some vulnerability in the upper nose.

https://www.leucadiatx.com/science

At least half of Americans have some form of herpes infection.

10% of those over 65 have Alzheimer's in the US, and growing. It's not unreasonable to investigate a link, and indeed researchers (finally, depending on your bias) are.

Worldwide, around 90% of people have one or both of HSV-1 and HSV-2 [1]. Crazy.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK47447/

I remember when google went on an AI buying spree with DeepMind, and other professors, etc being hired. Why isn't sergeibrin buying up these professors? His fam hx and interest in this field are at odds with the lack of headlines of google pursuing this area of interest.

Relevant: https://podcastnotes.org/portal-with-eric-weinstein/bret-eri...

Link to full podcast (highly recommended listening): https://open.spotify.com/episode/0pSAI6UqXc2yLTdk2x4mZE

Was going to link to The Portal podcast as well, then saw your comment.

Related reading for anyone wanting a quick introduction to Bret's theory re: the efficacy of generational laboratory mice as test subjects:

- https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_1352201 - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11909679/

It should be noted that the standard mouse Alzheimer’s models have proven pretty useless over the last 25 years. So far, I'm pretty sure 100% of Alzheimer’s treatment has failed in trials.

Bears repeating. Just because it works in a mouse doesn't meant it will work in humans.

If you did have a pet mouse, i think we cured every alignment it could ever get.

Most of the diseases we treat in mouse are "mouse-models" i.e. genetically engineered in the first place for the purpose of experiments, which may be completely different from the actual disease in humans.

Nitpick: it's ailment, not alignment :)

Chaotic evil?

These optimistic studies is used to get investor money. While it is good, they are not headed in the right direction with the beta-amyloid theories.

The beta amyloid fan boys are out to down vote