Peter Thiel is utterly wrong about Alzheimer’s

the New York Times He conducted an lengthy interview this morning between the writer of the column Ross Diatat, the founder of the investment capitalist and the founder of Paypal Peter Thiel. There is a reason published in the opinion department.

Thiel, a Trump booster whose allies – including Vice president JD Vance – now in the White House, have a free ruling to discuss a variety of topics within more than an hour of soft ball questions. Is Grega Thonberg Christ the Antichrist? Are the three ideological schools prevailing in the environment of Europe, “Islamic law” and “Chinese Communist Championship”? Is Amnesty International “woke up” and capable of following Elon Musk to Mars? Peter seems to think that! Perhaps the Press College may add “Just asking questions”Hey, what is the curse you are talking about“To its ammunition.

It is recognized that many of these assurances fall directly in the world of things that are in the palace of the mind instead of verified facts, with the exception of at least one. Relatively early in their conversation, Peter Ross tells the following [emphasis ours]:

It is a very bold claim! It is also completely incorrect.

“There was no cure 40 or 50 years ago for Alzheimer’s disease,” Sterling Johnson, Professor of Agency and Ageology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, told Engadget. “What we have been able to do over the past twenty years has been actually unusual. We have developed signs that help us determine when this disease begins, using amyloid signs and biological signs, we know that the disease actually begins 20 years before symptoms, and this is important to know if we will prevent this disease.”

Currently, Alzheimer’s disease is still curable. But the lack of a miracle treatment does not negate the achievements yet in detection and prevention. “The first treatments were these dressing treatments. It is like treating symptoms as if you were treating the cold […] The first generation of amyloid treatment was this type of approach, as it only took symptoms by increasing neurons and increasing neurons available to brain cells. It is Tao – and there are ongoing clinical experiences. “

Thiel, a famous defender of progress in extending radical life (including the interest reported by injecting himself with the blood of youth) that the state of scientific research in this field is slow and risks. But pioneering work happens at this moment. Professor Johnson referred to a single -style antibody called GANTERUMAB. In an early test of 73 participants with inherited mutations that will make them overlook the amyloid production in the brain, it reduces the number of participants who have practically developed symptoms of Alzheimer’s. “Experiences of preventing the third stage [of gantenerumab] It is happening now, “

For someone who displaces himself as an unpleasant thinker, it seems that Thiel may definitely find a significantly similar point of discussion to the current Trump administration president, Robert V Kennedy Junior. “Alzheimer’s is a very good example of how [National Institute of Health] He has left the bars over the past twenty years with research on the Ameloid plaques, “Kennedy said in a hearing at the Ministry of Health in the budget last month. He claimed that the national health institutes were” cutting any other hypothesis “because of” corruption “.

It is not surprising, Al -Zheimer’s Association described this “clearly false”.

“In fact, over the past ten years available (2014-2023), less than 14 % of the National Health Institutes (NIH) projects that focus on the amyloid beta is the therapeutic goal,” the organization wrote, “as of any September 2024, the National Institute of Agency was in 495 experimental drugs of non-central drugs. It is clear that excluding other goals is wrong.”

If you personally, you want more powerful medical research and the opportunity for eternal life (I do not), then the lubrication of the wheels of management on a large scale, the financing of science will be a strange way to achieve this. But this is a kind of inconsistency that we expect from the technical few: they say what benefits them, even if this is nonsense on his face, even if the reflection of the moment that he is clearly false. What is embarrassing is the record sheet that gives them a free judgment to do so.