There is a long discussion about the metabolic underpinnings of neurological diseases but the paper's reasoning about the underlying mechanism of disease is weak.
For example, the paper stresses that there is a dysfunctional signaling in AD and comes to a conclusion that it is inducted by a metabolic dysfunction. While this is a true statement, the amount of overall cellular damage happening under the conditions of insufficient metabolism goes way beyond that. The patients have not only "bad signalling", but also autoimmune-like response to damaged tissues. The paper fails to discuss that but suggests as a treatment target in "Therapeutic System 1.0".
The suggested treatment, however, contains the crucial elements that should bring the improvement to patients.
This is not a bad paper by all means. It is useful and even enlightening to some degree, but the theoretical part is tiny and not sound.
Regarding the critical article from The Lancet [1], it's full of emotions and nihilism. I.e. it is bad. I mean, really bad.
For example, here are some excerpts from critical article. "high out-of-pocket cost to implement" - bullshit. While the whole protocol may be costly depending on country, the mitochondrial (the most essential part of it) is dirt cheap, like tens-of-dollars per month cheap. Anti-inflammatory part of protocol can be implemented even with Aspirin.
"Readers might not be aware that the three case series
evaluating the Bredesen protocol appear in journals
considered by some to be predatory open access journals.
Predatory open access journals are scientific-sounding
publications that hijack the open access model for profit" - come on. The predatory closed-access model, on the other hand, has its own downsides, e.g. slow progress, walled gardens of authority, review rings.
"There are elements of the Bredesen protocol that
could be beneficial and are largely free to patients. It is
standard of care in dementia clinics to educate patients,
without cost, on the lifestyle interventions" - and that's it. No mentions to metabolic corrections other that "lifestyle change". Which is not sufficient by itself. It only works in conjunction with mitochondrial + anti-inflammatory parts.
"When presented with this information, there are people
who continue to hold a strong belief in the protocol’s
efficacy." - because it is. Rather than loudly criticizing other's work, it is way better to join the ranks and improve the research by covering the missing parts.
"When carefully examined, multiple red flags appear in
the scientific studies supporting the Bredesen protocol." - that's true.
"To date, the evidence does not support its claim to prevent
and reverse cognitive decline" - oh well, don't get me started. To date, the neurologists try to treat such patients with... antidepressants. And that's it. Most of them do not even know about neuro-metabolical cause and effect connections.
For example, the paper stresses that there is a dysfunctional signaling in AD and comes to a conclusion that it is inducted by a metabolic dysfunction. While this is a true statement, the amount of overall cellular damage happening under the conditions of insufficient metabolism goes way beyond that. The patients have not only "bad signalling", but also autoimmune-like response to damaged tissues. The paper fails to discuss that but suggests as a treatment target in "Therapeutic System 1.0".
The suggested treatment, however, contains the crucial elements that should bring the improvement to patients.
This is not a bad paper by all means. It is useful and even enlightening to some degree, but the theoretical part is tiny and not sound.
Regarding the critical article from The Lancet [1], it's full of emotions and nihilism. I.e. it is bad. I mean, really bad.
For example, here are some excerpts from critical article. "high out-of-pocket cost to implement" - bullshit. While the whole protocol may be costly depending on country, the mitochondrial (the most essential part of it) is dirt cheap, like tens-of-dollars per month cheap. Anti-inflammatory part of protocol can be implemented even with Aspirin.
"Readers might not be aware that the three case series evaluating the Bredesen protocol appear in journals considered by some to be predatory open access journals. Predatory open access journals are scientific-sounding publications that hijack the open access model for profit" - come on. The predatory closed-access model, on the other hand, has its own downsides, e.g. slow progress, walled gardens of authority, review rings.
"There are elements of the Bredesen protocol that could be beneficial and are largely free to patients. It is standard of care in dementia clinics to educate patients, without cost, on the lifestyle interventions" - and that's it. No mentions to metabolic corrections other that "lifestyle change". Which is not sufficient by itself. It only works in conjunction with mitochondrial + anti-inflammatory parts.
"When presented with this information, there are people who continue to hold a strong belief in the protocol’s efficacy." - because it is. Rather than loudly criticizing other's work, it is way better to join the ranks and improve the research by covering the missing parts.
"When carefully examined, multiple red flags appear in the scientific studies supporting the Bredesen protocol." - that's true.
"To date, the evidence does not support its claim to prevent and reverse cognitive decline" - oh well, don't get me started. To date, the neurologists try to treat such patients with... antidepressants. And that's it. Most of them do not even know about neuro-metabolical cause and effect connections.
[1] https://sci-hub.se/downloads/2020-04-23/63/10.1016@S1474-442...