fullsquare

joined 1 year ago
[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 7 points 1 year ago

Who does this appeal to? It's nonsense.

the fake nerds of silicon valley of course

[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 4 points 1 year ago

on reddit, the website plays you

[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

have rules never clearly explained, get banned pretty much immediately. a taste of real reddit experience™ even that i've never got banned sitewide (only on r/conservative) i guess you win if you touch grass or quit

[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

death of millions for profit - solid business practice, congratulations and see you again at next shareholder meeting

[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 4 points 1 year ago

that's just internet dementia

[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

has he? where?

[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Derek Lowe casually points to Yarvin and Thiel in his writeup on how trumpists are destroying american science, in part 7 specifically. nrx have fully broke containment

[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 19 points 1 year ago

Derek Lowe has seen it coming years ago https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/lecanemab-and-alzheimer-s-more-data

But let’s stipulate that the result is real, for the sake of argument. That takes us into the very contentious question of real-world utility. As the NEJM paper says, “A definition of clinically meaningful effects in the primary end point of the CDR-SB score has not been established”. Clinicians are already disagreeing over whether the difference between lecanemab and placebo is something that would even be noticeable. That last link features a quote of Madhav Thambisetty, a neurologist at the National Institute on Aging: “From the perspective of a physician caring for Alzheimer’s patients, the difference between lecanemab and placebo is well below what is considered to be a clinically meaningful treatment effect”. This is not an uncommon take.

And that leads to question 3. A constant problem with these anti-amyloid antibody ideas is the complication of brain edema, an inflammation response that can be serious trouble. The term of the art is “amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with edema or effusions”, ARIA-E. This latest trial kept a constant watch for this, as well it should have, and any such trial also has to keep in mind the possibility of “functional unblinding” as any incidents develop. ARIA-E was noted in 0.8% of the treatment group (and in none of the placebo patients, naturally). Overall, adverse events that were enough to lead to patient discontinuation in the trial occurred in 6.9% of the treatment group and 2.9% of the placebo group. Most seriously, two patients in the treatment group have died from what could well be treatment-related vascular issues

There was also earlier anti-amyloid antibody that got approved despite showing no benefit at all https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/they-don-t-know

view more: ‹ prev next ›