CultCrossPollination t1_jc5ypvm wrote

Thanks for calling the originally described hypothesis/context. The use of microbes is nothing new, see also oncolytic viruses. The main difference is that we currently know a lot more about cancer and the importance of the interplay with the immune system. So I am still curious to see what further research this might bring, and if we can improve current strategies. Although I am also careful for enhancing innate inflammation.


CultCrossPollination t1_iydfst9 wrote

Sure you can ask, it's quite irrelevant to ask though. I'm personally involved in tumor immunology, the field where therapeutic antibodies 'come from'. But since I'm speaking in facts, and not as a matter of 'trust me I'm a professional', it's better to validate the facts I mention if they sound untrustworthy. The reason why I am aware of this scepticism is because there was a nice documentary on DW, if I remember correctly, and one on our national TV in the Netherlands and a long read in the science department of a very high quality news paper with input from experts. But since we're here now, I don't mind to piss on the pharmaceutical industry a bit more. These antibodies were truly a breakthrough in cancer treatment, completely opening up the immune system as a valid strategy to fight cancer. These companies try to sell the same "breakthrough" but for Alzheimer's. But is laughably pathetic the least and evil to patients/family of patients who get their hopes up. Stop trying to sell it as a wonderdrug with such mediocre results, it only hurts the trust scientists.


CultCrossPollination t1_iyc3cb1 wrote

"Researchers have hailed the dawn of a new era of Alzheimer’s therapies" That's really stretching it here, to say the least. Honestly this is an outright oversell, and these "researchers" are probably the minority. Many many Alzheimer's researchers are very sceptical about drugs removing ameloid buidlup because previous studies doing exactly that have resulted in very little improvement of patients. Again, here they also say a modest improvement in people with hereditary Alzheimer's. This study thus showing again that ameloid buildup is likely a symptom, causing mild damage, and not addressing the cause of the pathology. So to sell these antibody therapies in Alzheimer's as a new era is simply bogus.


CultCrossPollination t1_ivxedlg wrote

Because we need to know for sure it works in humans. And how much, and in what conditions. Otherwise our application of medicines becomes totally random and divorced from knowledge and will cause unnecessary suffering. It is essential to have minimally a double blind controlled clinical trial with the new treatment to determine the effectiveness.


CultCrossPollination t1_ivxdtkf wrote

Human interaction causes stress to (non-pet) laboratory mice. Handling should be as fast as possible and as limited as possible, and cages should be enriched as much as possible. Source: I work with mice in tumor immunology. Rats, however, can really be very difficult to work with though. Because they clearly have a much higher social awareness and are much more intelligent then mice. You can kill a mouse next to his buddy, and he couldn't care less. You kill a rat across the room to a random rat, the guy/gall starts screaming the ears of your head. Source: I don't (want to) work with rats.