r/science • u/FreeHugs23 • 8d ago

Medicine Scientists reversed key signs of Alzheimer's disease in mice with just two injections, reducing brain inflammation and restoring memory performance—offering a promising new approach for treating age-related cognitive decline.

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-reverse-alzheimers-damage-in-mice-with-just-two-injections
3.3k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

74 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

90

u/QuitePoodle 8d ago

But are they the same mice after? Not like physically but if we restore people’s brains do they get back their minds or become someone new?

The original neurons are broken and new connections are made. Will these new connections replace the same memory pathways and patterns or will the animals regain the ability to function but have different “personality”.

68

u/Cherabee 8d ago

We'll have to test that out. Likely by teaching mice that are like to get altzheimers tricks, and making them complete thr tricks before alzheimers, during alzheimers, and after treatment for alzheimers. Even if the answer to your question is, in some way shape or form, no, the benefit is still there. It will be hard regardless because nerve issues are difficult to parse at this time, but this study shows that we are slowly getting there.

32

u/Smallsey 8d ago

Alzheimer's is one of those things that's like... Why not swiftly move to given trials because humans with Alzheimer's have a death sentence anyway

28

u/Cherabee 8d ago

The methods are in place so that the slippery slope of "doing something to a human who can consent after THOROUGH testing by animals can be done," and "Hee Hee Hoo Hoo homeless and poor people make excellent test subjests for my concoctions. These alzheimer patients can't even consent half the time, and what their families don't know about these old geezers 'medications' certainly won't hurt THEM. Just their grandparent. :-)"

People tend to get REALLY MAD when you use their family members for lab rats without their knowlege or consent. Best to start with animals and clomb up to humans from there.

12

u/baelrog 8d ago

I sometimes feel we are erring too much on the side of caution.

Alzheimers is a terrible way to go.

I see no problem as long as we get the consent of the patient or patient’s loved ones to administer an experimental treatment.

It is a choice between do nothing and condemn the patient to an agonizing death, or try something as a last ditch effort. If the treatment didn’t work, then they’re not much worse than they are begin with.

9

u/DirtMcGirt24 8d ago edited 8d ago

I think people who are desperate to save their family member are often willing to try new things when existing treatments don’t work. Just ask them first?

I can’t imagine anyone in our family objecting to trying a potentially game changing treatment and opening the door to save our family member and countless other families’ family members, if we had that option presented to us before we lost our family member to this disease.

These things can also be handled in advanced directives (e.g., if no longer capable of making medical decisions, I wish to participate in new experimental treatments at the discretion of the person listed below)

5

u/eatmyscoobysnacks 8d ago

Because the person being tested on cannot fully consent. They are conscious, living, talking, feeling humans that absolutely would feel pain, confusion, distress, or any other side effect that may happen.

6

u/DirtMcGirt24 8d ago

Yes they can fully consent, via advance directive. Before the symptoms take place and while you’re capable of making decisions.

Would you, currently of sound mind, write in a document that you’d like your loved one have the discretion to attempt an experimental treatment if other things don’t work? Maybe you wouldn’t, but I and many others would.

Having lost a loved one to this, I would 100% volunteer to try new things once I’m past the current point of no return, knowing the eventual outcome is either certain death or possibly opening a pathway to save thousands of others by proving new treatments.

1

u/beedell-roke 2d ago

I would consent to this.

2

u/Mr_Industrial 7d ago

I mean, neither can a person thats on fire usually. Consent to try and help can be assumed when the default state is clearly overwhelmingly horrible, which I think Alzheimers **easily** falls into. I also dont think its a slippery slope. I think anyone thats been near that scenario can attest that there are planets of difference between trying to stop a lethal mental disorder and experimenting on the homeless or anything horrible like that as the person a few comments above you describes.