Re:Reversal of cognitive decline: A novel therapeutic program
by knaik94 on Tuesday October 12, 2021 @11:08PM
(#28847820)
While I appreciate the sci-hub link, the author manuscript can also be found at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7377549/ which I think should be encouraged over sci-hub. I love sci-hub and understands its necessity but my cursory look through saw now difference in text or tables provided.
Re:Reversal of cognitive decline: A novel therapeutic program
by thaumasiotes on Wednesday October 13, 2021 @04:27AM
(#28849670)
> the author manuscript can also be found at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7377549/ which I think should be encouraged over sci-hub.
Why? Which one has better policies?
Re:Reversal of cognitive decline: A novel therapeutic program
by tgb on Wednesday October 13, 2021 @09:24AM
(#28851778)
PMC is where papers go that are required to be open access due to funding or chosen to be open access in the life sciences, generally speaking. It's the official place for these and a legal copy. Sci-hub generally isn't. If you support Sci-hub you might as well save them the bandwidth for serving papers that are genuinely open access. And supporting PMC is good to support the further expansion of actually open access papers and the funding of them.
PMC also makes everything uniformly formatted which is often a benefit, though sometimes equations can be worse.
Re:Reversal of cognitive decline: A novel therapeutic program
by tgtweak on Tuesday October 12, 2021 @10:57PM
(#28847742)
It feels like, in general, 10 data points are not enough to justify efficacy of a protocol.
One would also assume that simply exercising and eating properly on their own would have some measurable improvements. As the paper suggests, a larger case study would be in order, specifically with some combinations of the various measures in the protocol to determine individual and compound efficacy on a statistically relevant scale.
Re:Reversal of cognitive decline: A novel therapeutic program
by rudin on Wednesday October 13, 2021 @06:21AM
(#28850403)
> however, the authors do not disclose any conflicts of interest in their scientific reports
I find it amusing the Lancet complains about this considering Peter Daszak's et al covid origins letter was published without disclosing conflicts of interest.
A few quotes:
> Despite the certainty inferred by the book’s subtitle, there is no published study that tests or proves the hypothesis that the Bredesen protocol can prevent and reverse cognitive decline.
> Readers are informed that participants with subjective cognitive impairment or mild cognitive impairment are included in the studies; however, both conditions can have causes unrelated to neurodegenerative processes. These studies are therefore not targeting a common underlying neuropathological process of Alzheimer’s disease, as the papers suggest.
> Readers might not be aware that the three case series evaluating the Bredesen protocol appear in journals considered by some to be predatory open access journals. [...] The journal Aging, where the first two articles were published, appears on the Beall’s list of potential, possible, or probable predatory open access journals [...]
> it is notable that the Bredesen protocol has been made commercially available; however, the authors do not disclose any conflicts of interest in their scientific reports.