How extreme is the weather?

We have a hot summer in parts of Australia and you can wait for the climate scientists to start about their beloved topic and their livelyhood. The heatwaves are attributed to climate change and “extreme weather becomes the new norm“. But how extreme was it really? Well, parts of Australia indeed had very hot weather. Other areas had not so hot weather. And some areas were actually very cold. So what weather are we talking about? Maybe the 15 degrees in Melbourne was pretty extreme, or maybe it’s quite common. I don’t live there, so I don’t know the details. But extremely cold in summer doesn’t seem to be the topic of discussion. It’s way too inconvenient to talk about among climate scientists, who habitually ignore everything that doesn’t suit them.

5068010-3x2-340x227“some of the best brains in the country are fed up.” Best brains? Let’s say that the person who wrote this exaggerated. If you believe every piece of nonsense you are told you don’t have a good brain, for it doesn’t get enough exercise. “And global warming was never far from the guests’ lips.” Really? A conference for climate scientist has not much else to talk about than climate change. It’s the only thing they do. It might be more useful if they would talk about tennis or dogs, but that’s not likely. It does show immediately that such conferences are useless. These people just tell each other how fantastic they are, how much they know and how stupid people are who don’t believe them.

“while we continue to do the science as best we can,” I fear that indeed you are doing science as best as you can. But the problem is that your best is not very good. “There are people who don’t think in scientific terms”. Well, maybe they use common sense. And if science contradicts common sense and basic observations, guess which one is right. Climate science habitually contradicts common sense and basic observations. But that is something that doesn’t bother the scientists. They are just bothered that people don’t listen to them anymore. “don’t want to accept the basic laws of nature”. Grin, dr. Glikson, you are funny. You suggest that you have any idea what causes weather? Then I suggest you start teaching meteorologists how to forecast tomorrow’s weather. As long as that’s very difficult you better don’t start about the weathter forecast for 2030. Nobody knows what causes certain types of weather. “have some vested interest” I’m not sure if this comment is hilarious or pathetic. My vested interest is obviously to get five more people to read my blog. On the other hand, your vested interest is your prestigious and no doubt well paid job. Guess who is biased?

“All-time records were set over the weekend in several locations” Everyone who has studied the topic a bit knows that such records have no scientific meaning whatsoever. Even the statistical value is low, as the location of measuring now is not the same as the location 100, 50, 30 or even ten years ago. A large number of factors increase the measured temperatures and it’s not remotely possible to reliably correct for those influences.

“searing temperatures were the new norm”. Mr. Braganza, which searing temperatures are you talking about? The icy cold in Melbourne, or the cold December in Perth? Or are you just talking about the few places that suffered a 1:25 years heatwave? Also were I live we actually had a pretty cool November and December. Sorry, inconvenient fact, I suppose. “it’s a record-breaking heatwave” I have lived in Australia for 12 years now and this was the first summer that it was this hot. Before that I experienced a lot of pretty cold summers in Europe. So where are all those record-breaking heatwaves?

“wettest February since 1955, and the second wettest from records back to 1900.” So what? What does it mean that one area of this huge land mass is very wet? In my area it wasn’t very wet or very dry. How is average rainfall explained by climate change?8264298-3x2-700x467

“the concept of a new geological era dominated by the influence of humans” I’m getting a headache now. Geology? What on earth (pun intended) has geology to do with climate? “We are moving into this era when humans are the major force on the planet” Well, we are with more than 7 billion of humans, so that’s to be expected. But again, what does this have to do with climate? The leaps these people make are so big that a kangaroo can learn from it.

If you need a geologist to make your case for climate change, then you are in a very sad state. Obviously climate scientists are so tired of their useless job that they couldn’t find anyone to say something intelligent at this conference. Well, that’s to be expected. These people know the hoax is pretty much over, but they fear for their jobs. So they huddle together telling each other how fantastic they are. Let them enjoy it. I would rather deal with 45 degrees in our tiny cottage than spending a few hours at such a conference. The first I survive, the second I probably wouldn’t. (Don’t worry, I wasn’t invited anyway.)

Teenagers and lap band surgery

Most scientific research only happens to keep the researchers in a job. A lot of medical research is meant to keep the system going, so that all doctors can stay in a job. And then there are studies that are just meant to create more profitable jobs for surgeons. Like the study that shows how good it is for obese teenagers to get lap band surgery.

“has significant benefits for severely obese teenagers.” That is interesting, considering that lap band surgery on adults has rarely a positive outcome. This is immediately a huge red flag that what follows is fantasy. “body mass index (BMI) improved in the months and years after the surgery.” Body mass index is a largely useless way of measuring obesity in adults and for teenagers this is even worse. BMI is calculated using height and weight. So if a teenager grows 10cm the BMI will significantly go down, even if the weight has increased. That will also happen without surgery.4902876-3x2-940x627

“It’s a life-long commitment when you have obesity,”Commitment? Doctors always make lap band surgery sound like you won’t need to do anything anymore. This surgery is nothing else than an invasive way to apply a low calorie diet. The only difference is that you can’t cheat. But you are just as hungry and just as miserable and you will have the same problems getting enough nutrition. Low calorie diets don’t work and that’s why lap band surgery is such a huge disappointment.

“weighing anywhere from 98 to 185 kilograms” That’s pretty heavy. Has anyone first investigated what the cause of the extra weight is? Theoretically it’s possible to eat yourself an extra 10o+ kilograms of fat before you get 18, but it’s not likely. Even with large amounts of sugar and other junk that’s difficult. After all, there are loads of kids that grow up on junk food and they don’t gain that much weight. If diet is not the cause of the problem, then a low calorie diet won’t help solving it.

“results were encouraging, with some teens able to lose up to 20 kilograms.” Huh? You do very invasive surgery on a kid and *some* of them lost *up to 20 kg*. That means that many of them didn’t lose any weight and others only lost a few kg. That’s exactly what lap band surgery does to adults. Even the most successful case only lost 20kg, which is not much when you might need to lose more than 100kg.

And there is another problem. The study stops after a few years, though it’s known that most people who manage to lose weight after lap band surgery gain it again, usually starting after about three years. obesity-fact-check-dataThey keep eating little and still gain weight. The mechanism for this is complicated and many different things play a role. Very few people keep the weight off permanently and that likely won’t be any different for teenagers.

“Seven of the 21 teens in the study had the lap band removed after a year or two, because it did not work.” I suppose that means that these kids didn’t lose any weight at all. And the researchers let them suffer for two years before they realised that? That’s not just unethical, it also shows that the researchers have no idea what they are doing. If it doesn’t work within a few months, it will never work. Everyone who has tried low calorie diets knows that.

“Dr Pena said this shows why lap banding should be considered over permanent surgeries.” Dr. Pena, do you hear yourself? The invasive procedure didn’t work and you say that is the reason why people should consider it? O wait, you say that this useless procedure is better than other useless procedures, because at least this one can be undone with new surgery. That’s also a way of producing a study. “This surgery is better than that one, because this one is less dangerous.” No surgery is a lot safer.

“there is a concern in the long term what will happen because there is no data available,” Liar. There is plenty of data available about the lack of long-term results of lap band surgery in adults. Try to explain to me why it would be any better in teenagers. “But we know that it’s very cost effective, this study shows that the patients involved have lost weight,” Explain “cost effective”. Losing a few kg of weight can be achieved in other ways than invasive surgery. Cutting out junk food can make a person lose 10kg of fat, without being hungry. That’s not only safer, but it doesn’t cost one dollar. That makes a healthy diet for an obese person extremely cost effective. And a healthy diet is also more likely to keep the fat away, which usually doesn’t happen after the surgery. That makes the surgery very cost-ineffective.

“She said obesity in Australian women was increasing faster than anywhere in the world,” obesity-man-340x180-dataMs. Martin, have you funded a study to find out why this is? I will give you a tip: Australian doctors prescribe antibiotics for everything and anything, from a cough to a sore finger. They give these drugs to  young babies, toddlers and little kids. Are you really surprised that the children gain weight? (Another tip: farmers have used antibiotics for a long time on their healthy animals, to make them gain weight quicker. Why do you think this works any different in humans?) This doesn’t just apply to women, but also to men. Women are just more the focus of the weight loss industry.

As long as the focus of obesity prevention and treatment is only on food, nothing will change. There are a gazillion weight loss diets available. Some make some sense, others are completely absurd. And when you try enough of these diets you are likely to lose weight, for a while. But in most cases the weight comes back after a few years, even if you stick with your diet or exercise plan. The reason is that in most cases overweight is not just caused by diet. Environmental pollution is a big reason, as are antibiotics as I described above. Many pharmaceuticals cause weight gain, as does the fluoride in our water supply.

The question is not why so many Australians are overweight. The question is why some Australians have a healthy weight. But there is no money in finding the real cause of the problem. On the contrary, that would cost a lot of money. And that’s why nobody is interested in that. You don’t get funding for undesired research.

The flu, the virus and the shot

This the theory of the flu virus, on which the flu shot is based every year.

There are gazillions of flu virus particles in the world. Every year one of those (and only one) mutates, somewhere in Asia (why in Asia?). Viruses are so small that they can’t be seen under a microscope, but still scientists are able to identify this one mutated virus.

Once this virus has mutated it starts to multiply. For that it needs hosts, but nobody gets sick. Then it starts to travel. It jumps from healthy host to healthy host and travels by foot, bus, car, train, plane or ship to all areas of the world. It does this remarkably fast, so it arrives everywhere in time for the “flu season”. And the virus also knows where to travel to, for it first goes to the Northern Hemisphere and then six months later to the Southern Hemisphere.

evil-virus-2400px

And when the virus has arrived… it waits. Where does it wait? Considering that viruses can’t exist outside a host and nobody has the flu, the virus has nowhere safe to wait. But nevertheless, when winter arrives at once everywhere the “dormant virus” comes to life and starts infecting people everywhere at the same time. And then when winter is over it disappears. It doesn’t stay dormant till next year. For next year the whole cycle start over again with a different “mutation”.

It’s no surprise that the flu shot is 0% effective.

Science: 0

Common sense: 0

Fantasy: 10

The risk for bipolar disorder

Psychiatric illnesses are very hard to diagnose, as there are no tests available. And doctors completely rely on tests to diagnose any kind of disease nowadays. Psychiatrists only have lists of symptoms and their own interpretation of those symptoms, resulting in huge differences between psychiatrists. And because psychiatrists love to prescribe drugs the number of diagnoses has exploded since the number of drugs has increased so much. So what is bipolar disorder? That’s hard to say, but the disease was known as manic depression, which is much clearer. (Is the name change only meant to get more people diagnosed and on drugs? It definitely looks like it.) Bipolar disorder would mean that you go from extreme mania to deep depression and back in a neverending cycle. But nowadays just having mood fluctutions can already get you this diagnosis. Even teenagers are diagnosed with bipolar disorder, but have you ever met a teenager who didn’t have mood fluctuations?

bipolar-disorder-moodSo now researchers have developed a test which determines whether you are at risk for a disease that is particularly unclear and severely overdiagnosed. Let’s see how much science is present in this research. “Australian scientists have identified weaker connections in the brains of young people with bipolar disorder and those at risk.” How big was the control group? How many people have these weak connections, without ever getting a psychiatric illness? Could it be that these weak connections are just a common thing in young people? Young brains are not fully developed, so it makes sense that some links are still weak. And by the way, how do you determine a risk? You would need to have pictures of the young brains of older people with bipolar disorder, but it sounds like these don’t exist. The lack of a control group makes this kind of research immediately meaningless.

“bipolar disorder having the highest suicide rate of any mental illness.” Does it? This illness is very often diagnosed in young people and they are immediately filled up with psychiatric drugs, which are known to cause suicidal tendencies. So does the disorder cause the suicides, or the drugs? If it’s the drugs, then making a risk diagnosis will only make things worse. If it’s the disease, then drugs will make it worse and a risk diagnosis won’t help much. So in absence of a safe and effective treatment a risk diagnosis is completely useless  and will only make things worse. Oops!

“the insular is the part of the brain where you feel your body physiology,” Doctors have developed the habit to split the body up in umpteen different parts, like those parts don’t work together as part of one body. And now they have also started to split up the brain in many different parts and then they say that this part does this and that part does that. It suggests that they know a lot about the brain, but in reality they know close to nothing. It’s all assumptions, fantasies, wishful thinking and a lot of arrogance. Who says that psychiatric illnesses are in the brain anyway? That’s an assumption and once researchers have such a mindset they won’t look at any other options anymore. They will just look for proof that their theories are correct. But that way you can prove almost everything.

“could then be offered assistance such as lithium to prevent mania.” So professor Breakspear, you want to give healthy young people very heavy drugs to prevent a disease that can’t even be properly diagnosed? That sounds like a particularly bad idea. But I see what you are doing here. indexSince decades other doctors have been able to prescribe drugs to prevent diseases, but psychiatrists are still left out of this. They can first prescribe drugs when the patients show up with complaints. As psychiatrists have always had a low status among doctors they are desperate to keep up. So they start research to prove that people are at risk for a disease, so that they can also start with preventative drugs. (The idea that toxic pharmaceuticals can prevent disease is completely absurd, but I won’t go on about that now.)

“hope such tests could diagnose the disorder itself” Then you will first need to get a clear description of what bipolar disorder is. And that’s not so easy. That’s such a problem for psychiatrists. They don’t have tests. So a test would also be extremely welcome for doctors who aren’t taken completely seriously by their peers. It doesn’t matter that the test is useless. Many medical tests are useless, but that doesn’t bother anyone.

The article ends with an illustration of a boy who was diagnosed with mental illness. “There [were] years of misdiagnoses. I was told I [was] schizophrenic, I had OCD, I had anxiety,” This clearly shows the complete lack of science behind psychiatric diagnoses. Psychiatrists just come with all kinds of names, prescribe drugs and wait till one of those drugs seem to have some positive effect. And then they stick with the diagnosis that comes with the drug. That’s not science, it’s quackery. And in general, should you trust a doctor who is so clueless that he needs four years and multipe misdiagnoses before coming up with the correct one? That shows complete incompetence at best. But that’s a very common situation. And it shows that you should never trust psychiatrists. They just want to push pills, as that’s all they can do. That those pills have a high fatality rate is ignored and the deaths are ascribed to the mental illness. And that’s where the circle closes, for “you see how important it is that we diagnose the patients early”.

Lyme disease in Australia

Researchers have a problem. They insist that Lyme disease doesn’t exist in Australia, but at the same time it does exist. How can you possible explain away such a descrepancy?

“bacteria responsible for Lyme disease was found in local animals or ticks” I don’t have any problems believing that. On the other hand, if you don’t find it that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. But the researchers have searched really well, so they are likely correct. So the bacteria that are held responsible for Lyme disease are not found in Australia and still people have Lyme disease.

6710934-3x2-340x227“said positive test results in people who had not been overseas were likely to be false positives.” So you are saying that the test is useless? Interesting attempt to explain why your own research is crappy. “You have all the symptoms of Lyme disease and you have a positive test for Lyme disease, but you don’t have Lyme disease, because you can’t have Lyme disease”. That’s the level of science nowadays.

“definition of Lyme disease should be expanded to include more than one strain of Borrlia bacteria.” Why? Is there any proof that other strains cause this disease? You cannot expand a definition of disease just because it suits you. That’s politics, not science.

“It’s non-scientific to deny evidence of these pathogens with very little contemporary research.” This really requires an explanation. There is little evidence that these pathogens cause Lyme and if you say so that’s non-scientific? That’s basically what Ms. Whiteman says. It’s reverse logic. Science should be about proving things. It’s not “this is true unless you can prove it’s not”.

“Lyme disease-like illness”. Don’t you love medico-scientific language? If it looks like Lyme disease, it feels like Lyme disease and you have a positive test for Lyme disease, but you live in Australia, then you have a Lyme disease-like illness. You cannot make this up.

“with antibiotic resistance from prolonged and unnecessary use a major problem.” Resistance is just one problem of the overuse of antibiotics. There are many, much worse, problems with this. And though antibiotics are not the best way to treat Lyme disease, it’s absurd to deny people this treatment just because they live in Australia and “cannot have Lyme disease”.

“bacteria present in Australia cause a chronic debilitating illness” Wait a moment here. You only want proof that the Australian bacteria cause Lyme disease? I would really like to see some proof that Lyme disease is caused by any kind of bacteria. For this whole story doesn’t add up. Why didn’t Lyme disease exist till some 100 years ago? If ticks and bacteria cause it then it should have been around for thousands of years. And there are loads of people with Lyme disease who never got bitten by a tick. But if they live in the right area they will get this diagnosis. If they happen to live in Australie they don’t. The story of Lyme disease is full of holes. tick-data

“The problem isn’t lack of evidence, it’s lack of prioritised research,” So you do have evidence, but you do need more research at the same time? Australians can’t have Lyme disease, but their Lyme-diease like illness must be caused by bacteria in Australian ticks. Those ticks have been around forever and the bacteria probably too. But nobody got a Lyme-disease like illness 50 years ago. I’m getting completely confused with all the contradictory statements.

It sounds very much like there is no evidence whatsoever that bacteria have anything to do with Lyme disease. Germs are blamed for all kinds of diseases, even when there is no proof and the story doesn’t remotely add up. Considering that Lyme disease exploded quickly this sounds very much like a man-made disease. Something with environmental poisoning or bad medical treatments. But of course that’s not something that gets a lot of research money, so the poor bacteria probably will be blamed forever, even when they are clearly innocent. “Innocent until proven guilty” is not something that applies to medical research.

The HIV vaccine

The efficacy of vaccines is measured by counting antibodies. If you have a high enough load of those things, you are assumed to be protected against a certain disease. But that’s a bit of a problem with the HIV vaccine: a HIV infection is measured by antibodies, but then at once you are assumed to be NOT protected. The logic of course is completely missing, but that doesn’t stop researchers from trying to develop a HIV vaccine. How on earth they want to test how effective the vaccine is, is unclear so far. (By the way, it has already been known for decades that antibodies have nothing to do with immunity, but the people are not allowed to know, as then they would realise that there is no proof that vaccines work.)

A team from the University of Adelaide is working on this. “the most common sites of HIV infection, the gut and body cavities.” Dr. Grubor-Bauk, I’m confused here. A virus is supposed to go through your whole body, but HIV has a preference for a few sites? And how then does it affect your immune system? If HIV is found in the gut, then wouldn’t a stool test be more effective for an AIDS test than a blood sample? hiv-cells(Don’t worry, we both know that the HIV test is less reliable than flipping a coin. And you might even know that the inserts with these tests say that they should not be used to diagnose HIV.)

“You need to get protection where your body encounters the virus first” Which is where? If you say that the gut is the most common site, you suggest that HIV is mainly a disease from gay men. And you know that that is as politically incorrect as you can ever be. “Body cavities” is a little more general, but I still fail to see the connection. “you need to stop it from replicating and stop it from spreading” And how is that done? Considering that nobody can see a live virus I really wonder how these scientists know how a virus replicates and how it spreads. (Hint: they cannot possibly know. They just assume and produce fantasies, which they present as facts.)

“Testing on laboratory mice achieved a “considerable reduction” in infection” Please, tell me how you know. As I said above, the HIV tests state clearly that they should not be used to diagnose HIV. So how do you test these mice? Oops. “After a long four years of study” Four years of study with a whole team of researchers and they have achieved that “We’re hoping our discovery is definitely pointing us in the right direction”. That’s hardly something to be proud of.

“were successful in creating immunity” How do you know? How do you measure immunity? With measles the debunked antibody count is still in use, but a HIV infection is already measured with antibodies. I don’t know about any other viral immunity test. So this sounds very dodgy.

“She said it was now vital more research was done.” Why? You have worked with a whole team for four years and all you have are some dodgy, made up results, about a virus that you have never seen. Why do you want more money? I think you should all abandon this research, which clearly doesn’t lead to anything. Maybe you should get yourselves jobs, so that you can do something useful. Just a suggestion.hivaids-by-aji-sutopo-via-wikimedia-commons

“We also have a DNA vaccin” Wait. If I recall correctly the problem with HIV was always that it changes all the time. But now it does have the same DNA? Where do you get that DNA? You don’t have a live or even complete virus to work with. No virologist has any of those, for electron microscopes shoot those very fragile things into a million pieces. So how did you get this DNA? How do you know it’s not something else? It’s hard to keep your stories straight when nothing adds up.

“we were able to get a systemic immunity” Systemic immunity? Is there another kind? And again, how did you measure this? What test did you use to find this immunity? If it’s that simple, then why don’t you use this for a vaccine against the flu or measles? That would be a great change from the current 0% effective vaccines. Admit it, Dr Grubor-Bauk, you are lying. You have no results and you know that you never will have results, because there is no HIV and there is no AIDS. AIDS is anything and everything, depending on time and geographic location. All you need is a positive HIV test, though in many cases even that is not necessary. So until you can explain to me how one virus can cause completely different diseases in different social or geographic groups I can only assume you are making things up. And until you can show me how you prove immunity I can only assume you are lying to get more money. Don’t worry, you aren’t the first one to make up research results and you won’t be the last one eit her. We both know that that is very common, don’t we, doctor Grubor-Bauk?

Gene injection for Alzheimer’s disease

Alzheimer’s disease was first described in 1901, which means that before that the disease was extremely rare or non-existing. Just like most chronic and degenerative diseases. Nevertheless genes are blamed for this one as well. But now scientists have found an injection that stops the build-up of plaques in the brain. Well, they have worked with mice and it’s known that the results in mice are usually totally different in humans. That is the reason why you rarely hear anything anymore after the “promising results” in animals. It makes you wonder why so many lab animals need to be tortured, but that’s a different topic.

“researchers discovered that a protein called PGC1 -alpha was vital for preventing the build-up of amyloid beta plaques” Did they discover this, or did they find something that they interpreted as such? You can never know nowadays. “people with Alzheimer’s disease do not produce sufficient amounts.” 108319293_alzheimer-brain-news-large_transq4zjciq5lwabxahqkajfwztvzhcmpv9jvvnmcf-8meySo the obvious research would be focused on finding out why so many people would not produce this protein, when there wasn’t a problem 100 years ago. But that would be boring and besides it would probably lead to environmental factors and they can never be blamed for diseases.

“gene which produces the plaque-busting protein directly into the brain.” And what are the chances that this protein will bust a bit more than just the plaque? I would say this is a bit risky for someone with a brain disease.

“performed as well in memory tasks as healthy mice after four months” Four months? That sounds a very short period of time. And how many mice died from the treatment? It’s so funny that such articles never mention that. The things that went wrong are kept silent, so that the researchers can keep going till the problems become so big that they abandon the research. You can only hope that they haven’t reached the stage yet where they experiment on humans.

“Although these findings are very early they suggest this gene therapy may have potential therapeutic use for patients” Dr. Sastre, this is just another way of saying that you have no idea what the results mean and that they are likely useless. Can you come back when you have something useful to show? This kind of useless publishing is the result of a system where the reputation of a researcher depends on the amount of publications, not the quality of the research. Everything gets published and nobody cares that the information is completely useless. When a year later it appears that the findings were incorrect nothing happens with the original publications. They count towards the total number anyway.

“The team used a type of modified virus to deliver a gene to brain cells.” An injection with a modified virus into the brain. I can imagine that most people would not like this idea. The list of things that can go wrong is endless. “It is being used in experiments to treat a range of conditions from arthritis to cancer.” And professor Mazarakis, what were the results of the experiments? As you don’t say that you have successfully used this technique I can only assume that it was a failure. Oops. “successfully used the lentivirus vector in clinical trials to deliver genes into the brains of Parkinson’s disease patients.” No professor, I didn’t mean that. What was the result of the treatment? Did these people recover from the disease? As you don’t mention that, the results must have been bad. Else you would be very proud of the results.

“There are currently no treatments able to halt the progression of damage in Alzheimer’s,” Well, there are treatments available and some have had remarkable results, but you won’t find those in a conventional medical practice. That’s not the same as that there are none. Scientists have a habit of mixing these two up.

injection_2937456b-large_transpjliwavx4cowfcaekesb3kvxit-lggwcwqwla_rxju8“This research takes a new approach to tackling the underlying causes of Alzheimer’s disease” Wait a moment, dr. Brown. You say that you know what causes the disease? Then why not removing the cause? That sounds like a much better idea than injections into the brain. The problem is that you have no idea about the cause, isn’t it? You just focus on the plaques and anything that can remove the plaques must be effective. As long you keep focusing on that you will never find a good treatment.

The biggest problem in any kind of Alzheimer’s research is that everyone focuses on the plaques. But it is known that many older people have these plaques, without the cognitive problems. Which means that most probably the two are unrelated. Do I have plaques in my brain? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe these things come and go and the older you get, the more they come and the less they go. It might be something similar as that old age usually comes with less supple muscles and the need for reading glasses. Doctors and scientists very consistently ignore everything that goes against their theories. If someone with a sharp mind gets a brain scan and shows plaques, this will be ignored. But most healthy people don’t get these scans, so nobody knows what their brains look like. And brain autopsies are hardly a standard procedure after someone died from old age. So maybe 90% of the old people have these plaques. Maybe 100%. We just don’t know. And without this vital information any theory is useless. But useless theories have never stopped scientists from doing more research. Especially medical scientists keep going on forever, even when they never get any results. So why these people have a reputation for doing important work is way beyond my understanding. I think they should better get a job and contribute something to society.