This treatment is an antibody, not a drug. I don't know why they keep calling it a drug. It is a monoclonal antibody directed against one of the mis-folded proteins found in Alzheimer brains. Limited trials showed a very small positive effect, an effect that will almost certainly disappear when much larger numbers of people taking it are monitored over time. This is about making money more than anything else. It will unfortunately get people's hopes up, without providing any actual benefit.

When the eastern Ukraine is fully integrated as part of Russia, and western Ukraine is begging for peace so they can get Russian help in rebuilding their electric grid, I wonder what you will be saying to yourself? The EU is getting fed up with being the US lapdog and self immolating, and is already hinting that NATO must offer Russia more security guarantees, including banning Ukraine from joining NATO. You are in for a big surprise when all of a sudden the western propaganda campaign falls apart in the face of reality. But that's OK, you are allowed to believe whatever you want. Just get ready for another shock (like no WMD in Iraq, no US victory in Afghanistan, no Russian hacking of the 2016 election, and many, many other falsehoods pumped out by the corporate owned "news").

https://consortiumnews.com/202...

The US alone has pumped something like 100 billion into the fight, and is assisting with logistics and intelligence, not to mention weapons and ammunition. NATO countries have contributed billions more and many countries have sent "volunteers" to fight Russia. If this was a fight between Russia and Ukraine it would have been over in a few weeks. Now as the electric grid is ground to dust, it is going to get harder for the US and NATO to stay out of the fight if they want to "weaken Russia". Obviously you know this, so you are the one trolling.

For someone who has been at /. for a long time, you really don't have much of a grasp on reality, do you? It is Russia against all of NATO, and the US/NATO who built up the Ukraine military for 8 years after the US/NATO-backed coup in Kiev in 2014. On top of that, Russia holds most of the 4 eastern Ukraine provinces and is steadily degrading Ukraine/NATOs ability to function by targeting the power grid. But I understand that the Russiophobia propaganda being focused on you is working perfectly. You are doing your duty to regurgitate it here.

I have a very strong feeling that to get to a very long lifespan, we would have to drastically alter large swaths of the human genome, since they all have to be integrated into a functioning whole. You would need a lot more cellular protection-related genes, and have to beef up the lysosomal/proteosomal system and really improve quality checkpoints on protein translation and folding. You would have to figure out ways to prevent ER stress and other things to minimize protein misfolding and unwanted chemical modifications. That would just be scratching the surface of what you had to do, and considering that even editing a single gene in humans now is problematic, I just don't see it happening for a hundred years or more. Then of course you would be changing the basic nature of humans, and you might not like what you get.

Actually, aging is an ontological process, just like growing up. Each species has a genetically defined lifespan, which is why mice only live 3 years at most, and some parrots can live to 100. To extend the human lifespan you would have to mess with a lot of genes and that would have a lot of unintended consequences. As it is now, people have god-like lifespans compared with dogs, cats, squirrels and sparrows. A shame people can't be happy with their already very lengthy lifespans as compared with other mammals.

This is what happens when capitalism meets biology. Everything is a disease that can be cured with a pill. Since aging is part of ontology, just like growing up, then we must conclude that growing up is also a disease that needs to be treated with an expensive drug. This is what happens when stupid greedy people think about something that is beyond their control. .

"It would not surprise me if 50% of papers have fabricated results."
Are you a biologist? Only someone who regularly reads the primary literature and understands the details could make the claim you did. Otherwise, you would at least have to be quoting someone who does follow scientific research closely. If you wanted to be accurate, you could have said that a significant portion of the drug and medical device research may have problems because those researchers have non-scientific motivations (e.g., intellectual property and profits - think Theranos). That will always lead some people to cheat, because that is what money does to people.

I will admit that plenty of research turns out to be wrong after additional work is done, but that has always been true of science. That happens because when you don't know what you don't know, there is a big learning curve.

Most scientific research does not produce marketable products or services. It advances knowledge incrementally. That does not fit a corporate profit motive. The NIH has been trying to turn research into a drug discovery program for some time now, and that is why scientific discoveries are not coming as fast as they could. The NIH needs to start refunding smaller independent labs rather than dumping all their money on a few big labs that do drug discovery. Doing that will increase the pace of new discoveries. Most small labs can't get funding anymore, no matter how good their research projects are.

Agreed, the mods here seem very disingenuous. What the world needs now is to stop thinking of human beings as "human resources" like they were pork bellies. You want work done? Make your workers happy, don't hook them up to machines to try and squeeze more out of them.

I rely on NIH and other government grants for research support too. Only a very desperate scientist would turn to a crypto king for research funding. I get it, grants are very hard to come by these days, but when you go that route, don't expect the funding to be reliable. You are basing you funding on speculative investments, and in this case, crooked speculative investments. If their projects are solid, they may be able to get funding elsewhere, so its back to grant writing again.

You think you were trying to have a discussion about whether neural networks can be compared to brain function? Yeah, like I said, talking to assholes is a waste of time. I also looked up your comment history, and you clearly have anger management issues. You don't have discussions, and aren't worth anyone's time.

You have no idea about anything in neuroscience do you? What is your degree it? You get more and more nasty with each snide reply because you don't know what you are talking about. You would never be this way if you were in the same room with me. Your arrogance is truly obnoxious. Fucking ancient? Wow, you really are an asshole aren't you? Good luck in the world dude. You have no published papers, but you know everything, don't you? Trying to have a discussion with an asshole is just a waste of time.

Just in case you thought I made up my original claim, see here;

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...

That's true, you have been maintaining all along that the MIT researchers are mistaken, and that I am mistaken. But you haven't presented any argument as to why we are mistaken. So you have not come across as knowledgeable about neuroscience. Can you tell us anything about glutamatergic neurotransimission, how it works, how glutamate is accumulated in synaptic vesicles, is released, taken back up, recycled through glutamine in astrocytes? Can you tell us anything about brain structure? I can fill you in if you like. Have you looked at the connectome map that has recently been generated? Do you actually know anything about the differences between how the brain functions in a living organism, vs. how a computer models such things, which is what the MIT researchers were cautioning about? They made the point that modeling the brain does not reproduce what the brain is actually doing, or did you miss that point?