![]()
But there’s plenty of reason to believe these studies tests will be inconclusive. The biggest worry is that even if the drugs work, the studies may show that to be effective, the medicines must be used much like anti-cholesterol pills, well before the disease begins to show debilitating symptoms. If that’s true it will mean years of uncertainty about an effective treatment or cure. Alternately, the drugs may turn out to be complete busts, or only improve memory and thinking in a statistically negligible manner that will spark conflicting interpretations. And since there is nothing in drugmakers’ pipeline to replace the drugs being tested, negative results will force Alzheimer’s research back to square one for a disease that is already costing untold suffering and adding hundreds of millions of dollars a year in health costs that will explode as the population ages.
And the main paradigm looks in the following way:
The experimental medicines all focus on attacking beta amyloid, a protein autopsies show masses in the brains of Alzheimer’s victims. According to the amyloid theory, these packets of plaque destroy brain cells over time, though exactly how they do this is still unknown. One school of scientists believes the plaques, which collect in small amounts in nearly all people as they reach old age, arise earlier and in much larger amounts in people with a predisposing genetic makeup. Another group argues that the clumping is merely the residue of some other unknown chain of events, so drugs designed to prevent or destroy amyloid will provide little if any benefit.
Well, again the key-lock strategy – if you remove amyloid, you will cure the patient. Isn't this approach too mechanistic?
