[jcranmer]

> Tell 50 million people they’re likely to have Alzheimer’s then tell them where to donate towards a cure, or treatments to slow it by a decade.

Pharmaceutical companies have spent something like $50 billion on developing Alzheimer's drugs with, well, the most furtive of straw-grasping to show for it. It's probably the most expensive single disease target (especially as things like cancer are families of diseases)... the failure to have good results isn't for lack of money, and merely throwing more money at it is unlikely to actually make progress towards meaningful treatments.

[hattmall]

It just seems really obvious to me that it's not one disease. One problem with the research is that there is SO much money. It's corrupting. There's a whole thing about the plaque cartel and if you aren't testing around a possibly flawed concept the availability of funds is much lower.

I just feel the thinking is off, it's like we are trying to treat cuts by removing scabs and scar tissue. We really need deep investigation on the sources, which I feel in many cases are industrial chemicals and how some people's body / immune system respond to them.

One of the most compelling studies I saw was how distance from a Golf Course predicted neurodegenerative diseases, based on their use of certain pesticides.

[melling]

So, you’re saying it’s an unsolvable problem?

Someone always says “merely throwing money at the problem…”

What time period was the money spent? The last 25 years?

The United States spends $1 trillion a year in debt interest. $50 billion is nothing