New molecule cures Alzheimer's in Fruit flies

Originally Posted by oddball

no one should ever be using the word 'cure' when associating with alzheimer's research. there is no cure and currently no promising human trials on the horizon.

all the headline does is draw the reader to check out the article. yet in the first paragraph, effectively 'cures' the insects, is certain embellishment. opens a window? only millions of windows to go

Are you even aware what the headline is? Let's quote it (and yes, the purpose of a headline is to draw a reader in, yet it's not embellishment or deceptive in any way).

"Fruit Flies and Test Tubes Open New Window on Alzheimer's Disease"

That's what it is. The word "cure", in quotes, is at the end of a rather decent length paragraph that summarizes the process and explains exactly where it effectively cures it. You two can keep pretending there's an embellishment, but your point only works when you ignore everything else written prior to it.

If your argument is based completely on selectively choosing what words you read and what words you don't, I don't know what to tell you beyond you needing to improve your reading comprehension.

I realize it's a touchy subject for you in particular, but ignoring all scientific progress and misinterpreting articles on purpose isn't going to improve the understanding of the disease any, because as shown in this thread, people just blow you off.

[oddball]

Originally Posted by dr_teng

Are you even aware what the headline is? Let's quote it (and yes, the purpose of a headline is to draw a reader in, yet it's not embellishment or deceptive in any way).

"Fruit Flies and Test Tubes Open New Window on Alzheimer's Disease"

That's what it is. The word "cure", in quotes, is at the end of a rather decent length paragraph that summarizes the process and explains exactly where it effectively cures it. You two can keep pretending there's an embellishment, but your point only works when you ignore everything else written prior to it.

If your argument is based completely on selectively choosing what words you read and what words you don't, I don't know what to tell you beyond you needing to improve your reading comprehension.

I realize it's a touchy subject for you in particular, but ignoring all scientific progress and misinterpreting articles on purpose isn't going to improve the understanding of the disease any, because as shown in this thread, people just blow you off.

the word 'cure' shouldn't be anywhere in the article. fact of the matter is, there is no cure for AD. not too hard to follow that logic doc.

[rilynil]

Good grief. All research ever done is done in hopes of a cure.

I really don't understand the argument here.

[Bullseye]

[lord odin]

Originally Posted by rilynil

Good grief. All research ever done is done in hopes of a cure.

I really don't understand the argument here.

Something we can agree on.
There's a full moon somewhere.

[oddball]

Originally Posted by rilynil

Good grief. All research ever done is done in hopes of a cure.

I really don't understand the argument here.

i'll try once more to explain. people that are dealing with AD may be interested in new research, but it doesn't help them one bit if the research doesn't turn into a viable treatment or cure. up until this point, there has been ZERO AD research that has turned into a viable treatment or cure.

the current meds on the market for AD may...or may not temporarily slow the progression of the disease depending on the person. they don't reverse it, they don't cure it, they just put off the inevitable progression for a short period. the meds will eventually (1-3 years if the person has positive response) lose effectiveness.

if people pinned their hopes on every case study on mice, fruit flies or jackasses, then they would be disappointed time and time and time again. the ONLY way to avoid this cycle is to have positive results documented on actual humans that have AD.

a good analogy is....researchers always talk the talk. now they need to walk the walk.

[nbr3bagshotrow]

Originally Posted by oddball

i'll try once more to explain. people that are dealing with AD may be interested in new research, but it doesn't help them one bit if the research doesn't turn into a viable treatment or cure. up until this point, there has been ZERO AD research that has turned into a viable treatment or cure.

the current meds on the market for AD may...or may not temporarily slow the progression of the disease depending on the person. they don't reverse it, they don't cure it, they just put off the inevitable progression for a short period. the meds will eventually (1-3 years if the person has positive response) lose effectiveness.

if people pinned their hopes on every case study on mice, fruit flies or jackasses, then they would be disappointed time and time and time again. the ONLY way to avoid this cycle is to have positive results documented on actual humans that have AD.

a good analogy is....researchers always talk the talk. now they need to walk the walk.

So if I understand your point correctly, the press should not report of any research being done (be it on mice, fruit-flies, or jackasses) until they have a proven cure or treatment so as to not get anyone's hopes up. Even research trials on humans shouldn't be reported as they, more often than not, fail also.

I'll tell you what the results of that approach will be is there will be so many complaints about "no one iss doing any research on AD so the gov't and drug companies dont care about AD sufferers"

I for one would rather hear reports there are attempts in research to find cures or treatments than no news at all.

[rilynil]

I think someone is just worried about HIS hopes, not anyone else's. To say that nothing should be reported about research is ludicrous.

Should people with HIV be denied news on HIV research? How about cancer victims? How about people who suffer from MS? Diabetes? Parkinson's? Is there to be no news reported at all until a newspaper prints "CURE!" in 190-point type across six columns?

Sorry, there is absolutely no point to be made with this kind of thinking.

Originally Posted by oddball

the word 'cure' shouldn't be anywhere in the article. fact of the matter is, there is no cure for AD. not too hard to follow that logic doc.

But there is a cure for what they're specifically talking about. That's the point. They do not say anywhere in the article that they have a cure for AD. It's not the logic that's the issue, it's your interpretation of things that do not exist in the article.

I have no clue with how familiar you are with the scientific method, but just because they haven't found a cure for humans, doesn't mean they're not making progress. So yes, you report things that show promise, because other researchers find out about it, and they have their own thoughts. They then review the research and try their own experiments. That's how almost all medical advancements go forward.

You mention early in the thread that you believe this sort of thing is done for grant money. There's two problems with that.

One, grant money is used on the research, not on their own personal ambitions. Why would you do worthless research when you can't profit from it?

Two, the majority of scientists that work in the public field don't make very much money. Comfortable money, but not that great. If they want to make serious money, they go work for Wall street (which yes, hires a huge amount of scientists and mathematicians) or private companies to whip up bogus studies non-stop (Exxon, tobacco companies, think tanks, whatever). If you're working in a public field, it's because you have a passion for what you're doing, not because you're being compensated well.

I'm sure lots of these published studies will lead to nothing. But eventually, the right studies will lead to a cure, or treatment. You should be encouraging this stuff, not deriding it because it hasn't led to results yet. Results take time, effort, and experimentation.

[Mandragora]

Originally Posted by dr_teng

The false conclusion, as I already wrote in my previous reply to you, is your belief that the writer wasn't precise, when he was.

ok. So here's the first paragraph of the article:

A team of scientists from Cambridge and Sweden have discovered a molecule that can prevent a toxic protein involved Alzheimer's disease from building up in the brain. They found that in test tube studies the molecule not only prevents the protein from forming clumps but can also reverse this process. Then, using fruit flies with Alzheimer's disease, they showed that the same molecule effectively "cures" the insects of the disease.

The problem here is, the fruit flies don't actually have AD. The fruit flies have been genetically engineered to produce a protein that has been linked to AD. Linked. It has yet to be proven that the clumping of this specific protein is the sole cause of AD. The author even states in the second paragraph that scientists have not been able to recreate AD in animals using this protein alone. Yes, they have come close, but the point still remains that there is more to AD then what these fruit flies have been engineered to produce.

I understand the writing convention of stating a generalization in the lead paragraph, then clarifying and adding more detail later on. As in: "This just in, the sky is blue." . . . . later on in article . . . . "The sky is blue because different particles that make up the earth's atmosphere refract blue light." . . and so on. That's not what the author did here. He misspoke, then contradicted himself.

Look, I'm all about research and gathering as much information that we possibly can to eradicate this, and other terrible diseases. And honestly, I think the science this article points to is pretty f&cking cool. I mean, now we're fighting disease on the molecular level?! That's unbelievably awesome. All I'm saying is that those that are reporting on these findings need to be dead on in their accuracy considering how many hopes and prayers are pinned on them.