

I’m a big fan and longtime reader of Derek Lowe. He called attention to suppression of grant funding for hypotheses that challenged the amyloid hypothesis, and the shockingly partisan and dogmatic behavior of journal referees and NIH advisors in the field. I’ve been following his coverage ever since he started reporting disappointing readouts from clinical trials on the anti-amyloid mABs.
His concern that this class of therapy is “pathological science” (think cold fusion, or EmDrive, or string theory - not outright quackery, but hypotheses that are endlessly tweaked to justify the latest failures) are valid.
However, the newest mABs really do seem to have a small but statistically significant effect on slowing disease progression. Enough to justify the risks of brain swelling? Or the cost? Probably not. But I think Derek has perhaps swung too far in the opposite direction. It’s too early to call time on this therapeutic target. If it’s marginally but truly effective, we should try to figure out why, and keep tweaking the drugs to see if they can be improved.
Donepezil was a dead end, but it’s too early to say if Aduhelm is too.
the 8bit FOX interview with Tucker Carlson felt incredibly on theme. you could seriously remake Papers, Please with these aesthetics.