Today's Awesome Science News.
Apr. 14th, 2008 10:44 amAlzheimer's cured.
(Needs a wider test, of course. However, it's a 90% success rate in the 50 patients so far.)
(Needs a wider test, of course. However, it's a 90% success rate in the 50 patients so far.)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-14 02:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-14 07:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-14 02:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-14 03:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-14 06:39 pm (UTC)I am of course as hopeful as anyone else, and if it pans out that'd be very very cool, but it may be just a publicity stunt, hence the paper's caution.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-14 06:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-14 02:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-14 04:41 pm (UTC)I had been about to say the same thing.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-14 09:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-14 03:28 pm (UTC)http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision
Brain Scanners Can See Your Decisions Before You Make Them
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-14 08:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-14 03:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-14 03:38 pm (UTC)Tasteless observation:
The patient they describe makes sense 90% of the time after treatment?
Most people WITHOUT Alzheimer's don't make sense more than 75% of the time.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-14 03:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-14 05:14 pm (UTC)I saw that news being reported a few months ago in some of the bigger name papers. It sounds very promising, but at the moment it's just a press release. Hopefully this will prompt someone into doing proper clinical trials...
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-14 05:54 pm (UTC)Please please please please.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-14 07:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-14 08:45 pm (UTC)My god, man, have you not seen enough "MIRACLE CANCER CURE!" and "MIRACLE AIDS CURE!" headlines that it's not blindingly obvious? I mean, shit, I'd love it to be real, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-14 11:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-15 05:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-17 06:42 am (UTC)It wouldn't be the first time a major discovery didn't get immediately recongized; one recent example was the story of the two Australian physicians at a small Australian university who for years had amassed data that many stomach ulcers were actually not the result primarily of acid overproduction but were in fact the result of infection with H. Pylori; and further, that many ulcers could be treated with antibiotics instead of anti-acid medications. It was a simple, dramatic cure for ulcers -- which cause millions of people severe pain and actually kill thousands a year from gastic bleeds -- and nobody noticed or believed it at first.
At first. The nice thing, tho, is that, this being science, if you have the data you have the data, the double-blinded clinical trials and all the other hallmarks of careful proof, that's all that matters. In retrospect, their work probably should have been published in the top journals when it first appeared, but for various reasons, it didn't. There are a lot of reasons why their work didn't get the initial recognition it deserved. But the discoverers had carefully put together an ironclad story; the results were easily testable and repeatable; and so what they had so much trouble convincing folks of in the beginning is now the standard therapy we learn about in medical school.
And the guys who discovered it did end up eventually winning the Lasker (http://www.laskerfoundation.org/awards/1995clinical.htm), the Nobel (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/illpres/), and bloody near every other prize medicine awards for landmark discovery. It took medicine a while to get around to realizing what they'd found; but in the end, they had the rigorous proof to back them up. And if you have that, if you have the truth, the truth does win out in science and medicine, eventually. :-)