I'll have to read it again but I didn't notice where they ruled out environmental factors (read: epigenetics). The thing about families is they share environments, diet, habits, other norms, etc.
They haven't ruled out epigenetics causes, but they are talking about a very specific gene (APOE4) with an extremely strong correlation with Alzheimer's when two copies of the gene are present.
> Not only were people with two copies of the APOE4 gene much more likely to develop the biological changes that lead to Alzheimer’s disease, similar to people with the other genetic forms of the disease, they were almost assured the diagnosis: Nearly 95% of the people in the studies with two copies of the APOE4 gene had the biology of Alzheimer’s disease by the time they were 82 years old.
What percentage of people have microplastics in their body? Or have been previously infected by common childhood illness? I’m not giving these as theories for Alzheimer’s etiology, but to show that some environmental factors are ubiquitous.
Just because an environmental factor is ubiquitous—-or is ubiquitous within the frame of some sampling bias for the study—-doesn’t mean we should conclude the cause does not exist.
> What percentage of people have microplastics in their body? Or have been previously infected by common childhood illness? I’m
Unless 95% of these populations also are assured an Alzheimer's diagnosis by 82, your chosen confounding statistics may have little bearing on how closely double copies of the APOE4 gene is associated with Alzheimer's diagnoses.
Their point is that if 100% (for the sake of argument) of the population contains microplastics, and the combination of that PLUS the two genes, equals Alzheimers, then the microplastics was still a cause, it's just that in reality, given the entire population now has the first factor, the gene is what is appearing as the sole contributing factor. But that doesn't mean we can rule out other (albeit ubiquitous) environmental factors as additional contributing (or perhaps even required) causes.
Put another way - and to your point - it's disingenuous to highlight correlation and completely dismiss possible causation. Simply put, that's not The Scientific Method.
The genes might have a trigger. To ignore that possibility is foolish (to put it kindly).
Science shouldn't do this. And (real) journalism should know better as well.
I read a book called "Brain trust" last year about prion diseases being the cause of massive increases in Alzheimers cases. The idea was intriguing but one fact the author mentioned was about how the US does not test meat in decent intervals for CJD or other prion diseases, while Japan does. The book was written in the early 2000's so alot of the stuff that was posited can be checked today and that was one thing that I did check, comparing Japans rate of Alzheimers to the US and both countries are seeing the same huge uptick in cases. So it seems like its a global issue and not really one that is based in the US due to "potentially" infected meat.
On a side note I know alot of people(not related to me) that are being affected with severe memory issues in their 60's and 70's. A friends Dad is in a memory care facility and he is in his mid 60's and was extremely fit(he was also a avid hunter - unsure if this was a cause). My Wife's aunt's Mom (not related by blood to her) has severe dementia and is in her 70's and needs $7k a month constant memory care. A friends mom has sundowners and every day her memory "erases", my Friend was looking into memory care for her and was quoted $13k a month for this. All these cases seem quite strange as the individuals led normal lives and then just started suffering these extreme memory/brain issues. I do not know what is causing it but I think its alot more widespread than people know.
My dad did a short stint in memory care before he passed (86 years old). He had Alzheimer’s caused dementia. I was surprised by how many younger (60s+) people than him that there were in his facility.
Without having much experience with early onset Alzheimer’s, I had always assumed that healthcare keeping people alive longer allowing people to live long enough to develop it was the reason it seemed to be more and more prevalent.
All I guess I really know for sure is that it’s a horrible fucking disease.
And you raise an important point... We're living longer. Medicine is getting better at that*. But we're not living better. In fact, afaik, a significant percentage of healthcare spending in is the last couple years of life.
* The same can be said of war. Fewer soldiers are dying but the otherside of that coin more survivors are ruined forever. Less death shouldn't make war any more acceptable.
> We're living longer. Medicine is getting better at that. But we're not living better.
I think to a degree we live better to a point*, but at a certain point of no return that longevity benefit of modern healthcare can create a poor quality of life where the peace of death would be preferable.
Agreed. The gist of my point is, we're fooled by the metric (i.e., longevity) because it's easy to measures, strokes the public's ego, etc. We keep obcessing over how long (quantity) to the point of neglecting the quality of life. In a way we're increasing our suffering, not mitigating it.
As someone who’s recently spoken to a genetic counselor about this very issue, this is basically a 180 degree turn.
Now, researchers say APOE4 shouldn’t just be recognized as a risk factor, it should be viewed as an inherited form of the disease, virtually assuring that a person who has two copies will get the biological changes associated with Alzheimer’s disease in their brains.
Just because an environmental factor is ubiquitous—-or is ubiquitous within the frame of some sampling bias for the study—-doesn’t mean we should conclude the cause does not exist.
Unless 95% of these populations also are assured an Alzheimer's diagnosis by 82, your chosen confounding statistics may have little bearing on how closely double copies of the APOE4 gene is associated with Alzheimer's diagnoses.
The genes might have a trigger. To ignore that possibility is foolish (to put it kindly).
Science shouldn't do this. And (real) journalism should know better as well.
On a side note I know alot of people(not related to me) that are being affected with severe memory issues in their 60's and 70's. A friends Dad is in a memory care facility and he is in his mid 60's and was extremely fit(he was also a avid hunter - unsure if this was a cause). My Wife's aunt's Mom (not related by blood to her) has severe dementia and is in her 70's and needs $7k a month constant memory care. A friends mom has sundowners and every day her memory "erases", my Friend was looking into memory care for her and was quoted $13k a month for this. All these cases seem quite strange as the individuals led normal lives and then just started suffering these extreme memory/brain issues. I do not know what is causing it but I think its alot more widespread than people know.
Without having much experience with early onset Alzheimer’s, I had always assumed that healthcare keeping people alive longer allowing people to live long enough to develop it was the reason it seemed to be more and more prevalent.
All I guess I really know for sure is that it’s a horrible fucking disease.
And you raise an important point... We're living longer. Medicine is getting better at that*. But we're not living better. In fact, afaik, a significant percentage of healthcare spending in is the last couple years of life.
* The same can be said of war. Fewer soldiers are dying but the otherside of that coin more survivors are ruined forever. Less death shouldn't make war any more acceptable.
I think to a degree we live better to a point*, but at a certain point of no return that longevity benefit of modern healthcare can create a poor quality of life where the peace of death would be preferable.
Not true.
As someone who’s recently spoken to a genetic counselor about this very issue, this is basically a 180 degree turn.
Now, researchers say APOE4 shouldn’t just be recognized as a risk factor, it should be viewed as an inherited form of the disease, virtually assuring that a person who has two copies will get the biological changes associated with Alzheimer’s disease in their brains.