,
5 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
.@newscientist: This headline is irresponsible. The study was performed mostly in mice, and the evidence in humans is indirect and flimsy.
.@newscientist If someone mentions the occurrence of a phenomenon in AD patients and doesn’t also mention what they found in normal controls, they are bullshitting you. newscientist.com/article/219181… 
.@newscientist The team found the dang DNA and protein from gingival bacteria in AD patients AND CONTROLS! Then they set a bunch of arbitrary thresholds to claim that there is a pattern with AD.
God, WTF is this freaking study. newscientist.com/article/219181…
God, WTF is this freaking study. newscientist.com/article/219181…
Study: "In addition, we identified P. gingivalis DNA in AD brains and the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of living subjects diagnosed with probable AD"
How many patients, you might ask?
"7 of the 10 clinically diagnosed AD patients." advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/ea… cc @newscientist
How many patients, you might ask?
"7 of the 10 clinically diagnosed AD patients." advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/ea… cc @newscientist
Moral of the story: You can't go from a handful of cases and zero drug testing in humans to "We may finally know what causes Alzheimer’s – and how to stop it"...especially given the long history of failed AD medications and therapies.
You're brewing false hope, @newscientist.
You're brewing false hope, @newscientist.
