Am I the only one who thinks that 99% chance of cerebral vascular edema is STILL preferable to 100% chance of late stage Alzheimer's?
This is absolutely how I feel. I may not take this kind of treatment in the early stages of the disease, but as soon as feel that I might be losing myself, I'd roll the dice without blinking.
After losing a family member to Alzheimer's (a process which lasted almost a decade), most of my family appears to have independently decided that they would rather quietly off themselves (pills, etc.) than slowly have their brain melt away - myself included.
It's hard to describe unless you've watched a loved one go through it.
Agreed. I have tried to express this to others after my father started to really change. Most people were shocked and assured me that I wouldn't think that way if I actually had the disease. My only response to that was to say that I hope this is cured by that point.
Nobody says substitution is a cure, rather a lesser evil out of 2 choices.
Different diseases / treatments cause different pain levels and suffering in those that have them and the ones close to them. Spending 3 months next to your loved ones or 6 months in a hospital bed is a heart-breaking decision to make. The ability to manipulate the probabilities regarding how one's diseases progresses is the most basic human right that an ill person can have. I really hope you're not advocating taking that liberty away from them.
The News Is Not Getting Better ... There have been reports of an unexpected side effect (vasogenic edema) in several trials, for drugs that work through completely different mechanisms.
It sounds like we could be on the verge of understanding something fundamental about alzheimers. I'd say that's fantastic news in the long-term.
That's what it sounds like… Unfortunately, we've been on the verge of understanding it for decades now and we're still spinning in place. Long-term good news is no help to those of us who are watching our loved ones die before our very eyes today. It is a grim subject to research… so much work has gone into it and yet we still cannot even reliably diagnose it.
Not trying to be hopeless here: just remember to thank your local Alzheimer's researcher, the job has not been that rewarding to date.
Alzheimer's is such a horrible disease. The prognosis for cancer has improved incredibly over the last few decades; it would be nice to see some funding re-prioritised for Alzheimer's.
Tin foil hat time, but: The W. Bush administration basically made it illegal for cattle producers to test for mad cow desease (small organic beef producers wanted to be able to test, and the Big Food Corps had their lacky, also known as the President, have his administration ban reliable and cheap tests).
Anyway, is it a stretch to think that some mad cow cases are being mis-diagnosed as Alzheimer's desease? It seems like it is at least a possibility.
BTW, I don't think that the Obama administration has lifted the ban on testing. One lacky president is as good as another.
As far as I know the progression of Alzheimer's is far slower than v/CJD. It would become fairly obvious fairly rapidly that you were dealing with something else.
A friend of my parents in California died several years ago from mad cow desease (v/CJD) and it took many years.
Anyway, this is outside my area of expertise - my wife however spent a lot of time looking into this and she very much believes that mis-diagnosis is common.
Well, the USDA disallowing a cheap and effective test for infected cattle is true. I was conjecturing on the misdiagnoses - I was being up front about that.
This is absolutely how I feel. I may not take this kind of treatment in the early stages of the disease, but as soon as feel that I might be losing myself, I'd roll the dice without blinking.