#244

Your call how you want to weigh the mechanistic understanding and logic on top of data that we do know.

For me when the downside of something is small even if the upside is only a small probability but the upside itself could be large is the type of decision that is worth considering adding to my playbook and protocols.

The value of retraining one’s mind and behavior away from any regular, subconscious hand to nose (or to mouth or to eyes) behavior is valuable for many reasons (avoid common colds, flu and covid, and also lower probability nastier things) and perhaps smaller AD, dementia, brain inflammation and brain aging probabilities are nudged a bit too, even if not still worth it. The cost seems almost zero and also just fits with food manners, hygiene and etiquette.

2 Likes
#245

@Neo what do you think about having dashboards tracking different infections and for example doing certain different decisions when flu is near/at its peak, for example? What infections would that be? (It’s hard to know which infectious diseases to track too, a lot is probably under the radar).

1 Like
#246

Yeah, would be great, here in the US one gets a good sense for main things like flu and Covid levels by following people like

  • Eric Topol
  • Helen Branswell
  • Jweiland

on X

They also tend to provide updates around other risks- eg like the ones around birdflu.

Probably are some people like that in other regions.

The US also has wastewater DNA sequencing dashboards for eg covid in different regions and major cities.

For framework on how one may want to weight change in behaviors depending on up and down levels of infection rates/risks I thought Dr Watcher had excellent case scenarios throughout the Covid pandemic, those frameworks can be applied more broadly.

Check some of his 2021/2022 posts and perhaps 2023 around the holiday season:

IMG_8599
IMG_85991179×501 89.3 KB

2 Likes
#247

A mildly contrarian consideration alert! I haven’t looked for any studies, but remember reading articles in some pop sci mags (Scientific American etc.) some years ago discussing the common very behavior of nose-to-mouth action, including not just the unconscious actions, but [TRIGGER WARNING!!!]

Do not read below the line, if eating, or easily disgusted!

also actually digging for boogers and consuming them deliberately. Apparently this is extremely widespread behavior across every culture and part of the world. Furthermore, this does not appear learned behavior, but instinctive insofar as it is almost universal among small children who hit upon this action spontaneously rather than imitating the actions of others (single kids etc.).

Given this universal and apparently instinctive behavior, scientists speculated that it must provide some kind of evolutionary or fitness advantage. They zeroed in on this behavior possibly being immune related in that transferring mucus - i.e. a concentrated bolus of germs - from nose to mouth allows for some kind of immunization to these particular microbes. And so the immunity is enhanced for germs the individual is encountering. This also jibes with this immunization being particularly important to a developing immune system of young children, an extension of the hygiene hypothesis of early exposure, and hormesis, which is why it is universally prevalent in young children.

How this interacts with adults, periodontitis and AD, I don’t know. I’m simply alerting that the subject might be more complex and recommendations to fanatically avoid all exposure might be a double edged sword. Who knows?

#248

I don’t know if eating boogers is that helpful. I can think of many other human ‘habits’ that aren’t in your biological interest yet we instinctively do them - drinking, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, gambling to name a few.

#249

From New Scientist:

Microglia: How the brain’s immune cells may be causing dementia

They fight invaders, clear debris and tend neural connections, but sometimes microglia go rogue. Preventing this malfunction may offer new treatments for brain conditions including Alzheimer’s

As you read this sentence, an army of cells patrols your brain. These soldiers slip around neurons, using their gangly appendages to search for threats. If one of them detects a pathogen or injury, it springs into action. Swelling up and descending in a voracious attack, it releases chemicals that signal for its comrades to join the fight.

Known as microglia, these specialised immune cells are our brains’ premier defenders. They protect us from invaders, clear away debris and maintain connections between neurons to ensure the brain remains in peak condition.

Yet, despite their vigilance, microglia can sometimes engage in friendly fire, with a growing body of evidence suggesting they may be the engineers behind some of the brain’s most intractable conditions, such as Alzheimer’s disease and depression. If that is the case, targeting our wayward defenders – or even replacing them with rejuvenated troops – may lead to exciting new therapies.

Read the full article: Microglia: How the brain’s immune cells may be causing dementia (New Scientist)

2 Likes
#252

Thank you for that article. The point is, if at least some of the neurodegenerative diseases are due to an overactive or autoimmune attack and inflammation, then perhaps the hormesis/early exposure/hygiene hypothesis obtains to some degree?

A trained immune system, i.e. one exposed to small amounts of infectious agents learns to distinguish better own tissue vs invaders. An immune system that is rarely or never exposed to infectious diseases doesn’t learn and might become overactive and wrongly target own tissue.

There is the idea that as rigorous hygiene cut down on infectious disease we saw a concurrent rise in autoimmune diseases.

Perhaps these behaviors by children and “uncivilized” cultures are methods to train their immune systems, and so those cultures experience fewer autoimmune and neurodegenarative diseases?

I’m not advocating for any particular position, just pointing out that the autoimmune aspect to AD or other neurodegenerative diseases necessitates examining this aspect of “training” the immune system, which like any such process involves hormesis, wherein small amounts of hostile agents rally the system for better overall effect. Why do those “less hygienic” cultures have fewer or no neuro/AD rates, even in advanced ages (Hadza), and despite many risk factors (Nigerians and APOE/4/4). Perhaps those lower hygiene conditions without modern scouring and bacteriocidal agents (btw. antibacterial soaps are a net negative), result in better natural training of the immune system?

It’s just some thoughts, and YMMV.

4 Likes
#254

Not to take this thread off-topic but my point was clear - we should follow the science. When we detour into what’s socially acceptable and try to connect inappropriate social behavior with disease, we do the whole forum a disservice. No one is debating hand washing or “food manners, hygiene and etiquette” but those are separate issues from touching your nose. And I would argue that when the media becomes overly alarmist (which is common) about normal human behaviors, it only distracts us from what is really important. So, I repeat - nose picking is not scientifically connected with Alzheimers - but make sure no one is looking and dip your hand in alcohol first…OK?

#255

Buy those blackout drapes for your bedroom…

3 Likes
#256

Sorry, but once again this looks like “Junk Science”
@RapAdmin Welcome back!
Just by common sense, I don’t believe that Alzheimers, directly and independently, correlates to the amount of outdoor (not indoor) nighttime light. So that would mean that even at a remote country cottage, that if you set up light poles around it and put them on a dimmer switch to control the level of night time illumination, you would see a direct correlation to Alzheimers - so when the dimmers are low, alzheimers is low and as you increased them over time (months/years) you would see a direct corresponding rise in Alheimers - independent of light levels inside the house, so independent of sleep quality (an obvious contributor to Alzheimers). Sorry, I don’t believe it.
Another example - Land of the Midnight Sun - from Wikipedia.

“At Cape Nordkinn, Norway, the northernmost point of Continental Europe, midnight sun lasts approximately from 14 May to 29 July. On the Svalbard archipelago farther north, it lasts from 20 April to 22 August.”

So, would you expect these places to have a higher level of Alzheimers? I don’t think so.
***What makes sense is that areas with higher nighttime artificial light levels are usually more developed urban areas with more noise and pollution, which would have an effect on sleep and Alzheimers. But light independently (outdoor not indoor) is a stretch.

Fourth, this study used state and county average light intensity data from satellites. No indoor light data were available although indoor light exposure (e.g., televisions, computers, phones) is critically important and should be evaluated in future studies.
—From the actual study:
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2024.1378498/full

I’ll repeat what I said in my last post - And I would argue that when the media becomes overly alarmist (which is common) about normal human behaviors, it only distracts us from what is really important.
So focus on sleep, that really is important, and if light bothers your sleep, get blackout curtains - as @RapAdmin said.

Let me stress how important I think this is. When you start telling people that everything causes cancer - people stop listening. Big Media is looking for more clicks, so they try to post things that will alarm people, and that affect lots of people - like nighttime lighting in cities. But when those have relatively minor, if any, effects on public health, it does a great disservice and keeps people confused about what’s important. We shouldn’t do that here (unless you’re a stargazer).

#257

For true health and longevity optimizers the data (and lot of the focus and purpose of this forum) we might want to take into account is different than was someone responsible for public health policy and communication (also interesting, but less the focus on the forum itself). Do you agree these are different goals @ng0rge

For me the tidbit @RapAdmin shared becomes one thing I’ll weigh in a small way and take into account in a small way. It won’t crowd our bigger things like optimizing sleep, exercise, diet, stress, metabolic health and lipids and screening for cancer and rich bloodwork and other biomarkers. But it will be a small addition that may have a positive compounding impact over the many decades I have in front of me and likely will have very little downside.

2 Likes
#258
3 Likes
#259

Yes! But then the question I pose back to you is…Do you believe…“that Alzheimers, directly and independently, correlates to the amount of outdoor (not indoor) nighttime light. So that would mean that even at a remote country cottage, that if you set up light poles around it and put them on a dimmer switch to control the level of night time illumination, you would see a direct correlation to Alzheimers - so when the dimmers are low, alzheimers is low and as you increased them over time (months/years) you would see a direct corresponding rise in Alheimers - independent of light levels inside the house, so independent of sleep quality (an obvious contributor to Alzheimers).”???
—And, If you do and you live in a city…What are you going to do about it? Move?
Or be stressed, worrying about Alzheimers? How is this useful? Big media wants to keep the public worried and agitated…Do we?
—Sleep, air pollution, noise, all likely to have some negative health effect…the amount of light in the street when you go out to meet your friends at night…I don’t think so…

#260

Yes - I’m skeptical of this too. I was thinking of this only in terms of impact on sleep and sleep quality, but not as a completely independent variable. So many confounding variables in studies like this…

4 Likes
#261

Does anyone have an idea whether this would be a viable route for treating AD and/or other tau related disease?

#262

IMG_8639
IMG_86391179×450 124 KB

Figure below on why everyone who wants to live past 80-90 should take it seriously.

Piece is generally more positive than the chart below with what might be coming up on the horizon in the second half being a good review.

IMG_8640
IMG_86401179×1701 151 KB

https://www.science.org/content/article/insights-notorious-alzheimer-s-gene-fuel-hope-staving-dementia?

4 Likes
#263

Anyone have any thoughts on this one:

IMG_8641
IMG_86411179×938 135 KB

IMG_8642
IMG_86421179×486 120 KB

2 Likes
#264

On donanemab and other antibodies, a fantastic paper has just been published: Increases in amyloid-β42 slow cognitive and clinical decline in Alzheimer’s disease trials 2024

The authors argue that these drugs might work by unintentionally increasing levels of Aβ42. Turning the amyloid hypothesis on its head. See also:

If they’re right (and I feel like they are…), then we should look at drugs that increase CSF Aβ42 levels.

Coming back to donanemab: it’s data from last year. The drug was approved in July 2024. The drug seems quite unsafe: 24% of the patients displayed cerebral edema.

Hopefully AD will be cured in the next 10y… (meaning: if you diagnose early and treat you don’t decline much)

5 Likes
#265

There seende to a theory that risk correlated with the amount of plack, so if done early/preventatively the risks would be (much) smaller

Seen it multiple times, but not sure if the data actually shows any such correlation as the trials with early stage use have not reported out at all yet?

#266

If that’s the case then I assume drug manufacturers have data on this and will try to convince governments and insurers. So far it hasn’t worked very well:

  • Aducanumab was withdrawn from the market (officially a commercial decision unrelated to safety or efficacy)
  • Lecanemab was approved in the US but I don’t know if insurers reimburse it. Same in the UK: approved but the NHS doesn’t prescribe it due to its cost + safety concerns. The EU didn’t even approve it. Approved in Japan though.
  • Rumors say that donanemab won’t be approved either by the UK and the EU. About to be approved in Japan.
2 Likes