The other day I mentioned the now-infamous magic Alzheimer's helmet, a device being hyped to the press by a group of scientists on the basis of very little data. Believe it or not, of all organizations, ABC News has published an article citing the skeptics' side. It starts:
What if the secret to stopping the progression of Alzheimer's disease -- and perhaps even reversing its ravages -- lay in the use of a special hat?
Too crazy, too goofy, too good to be true, warn experts on the debilitating disease.
But Alzheimer's researchers not affiliated with the work say the chances that the hat would actually work for human patients is remote at best.
"I have not heard of anything along these lines before. Who knows what it is? But it sounds more hocus-pocus than anything," says Dr. Ronald Peterson, director of the Alzheimer's research center at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. He adds that he has not seen any legitimate reason why exposure to infrared rays would lead to a halt or reversal of mental decline -- through the regeneration of cells in the brain or otherwise.
"A strong bit of skepticism is warranted on this kind of thing."
"I cannot conceive of any underlying biological mechanism by which that could work," says Zaven Khachaturian, editor-in-chief of Alzheimer's & Dementia: Journal of the Alzheimer's Association.
"This sounds like a very gimmicky kind of thing to me. I would not waste time on it."
No doubt Peterson and Khachaturian are on the payroll of Elsai and Pfizer, makers of Aricept. At least, that's what I'm expecting to hear from defenders of this device.
Peterson then adds:
"You can imagine how excited people would get if they thought a hat or hairnet that shot rays into the head would make a difference in Alzheimer's disease," he says. "I think we can approach these kinds of things with cautious optimism at best."
Yes, it would be nice if magic rays could somehow bring back the personality and memory of loved ones in the grip of Alzheimer's disease. Certainly, as someone who's no longer as young as I once was, I'd be very reassured that, if I ever developed Alzheimer's disease, that this helmet represented hope. Unfortunately, the hype began way too prematurely, given the highly speculative nature of this helmet and its proposed mechanism of action.
To Dr. Dougal and his associates, all I can say is: Data first, hype later--but only if the data are worthy of hype.
"We age because our cells lose the desire to regenerate and repair themselves."
The Pathetic fallacy.
No, really, I'm not being insulting: that's just what this sort of fallacy is called. :)
"No doubt Peterson and Khachaturian are on the payroll of Elsai and Pfizer, makers of Aricept. At least, that's what I'm expecting to hear from defenders of this device."
Well, a quick Google search turns up connections between both researchers and Pfizer. Petersen's Mayo group seems to have gotten a lot of support from Pfizer according to the disclaimer accompanying this study:
And Khachaturian is quoted here as supporting Alzheimer's research involving Pfizer's drug Lipitor:
So it IS a BIG PHARMA plot to discredit the brain helmet and sell us lots of toxic pharma drugs.
Though I'm sure my tinfoil hat would work just as well as the helmet.
Here's what looks to be a much more interesting window on memory and the brain, though the crazy helmet they design from THIS stuff is going to have to jam needles through your skull when you put it on:
Perhaps the magic Alzheimer's helmet nitwits decided to collaborate with the University of Sunderland because of the reputation of the institution's (bizarre) Autism Research Unit, and head of same (Paul Shattock), who promotes nonsensical urine testing for autistic children.
I have blogged about what I think is the actual physiology behind the Magic Light Helmet (if it actually works that is).
Even if it works in the short term it is extremely likely to have adverse effects in the longer term.