The problem here is that the scenario you describe isn't the issue here.
ILNS does have proof they have drugs that will prevent plaque deposition... but, there is also proof that doing that has ZERO BENEFICIAL IMPACT on patient outcomes. That is the problem... that the plaque target isn't the problem, as had been expected, rather than an artifact of the bodies natural defenses as they respond to the fact of the problem.
If you have an open cut that has an infection, it is the cut, and the infection, that creates a problem, not the fact that the body might respond to the cut and the infection by forming a scab over the site of the infection. Picking the scab doesn't solve the problem.
That is the issue at ILNS... they have a drug that prevents formation of scabs in the brain... but otherwise doesn't address the source of the problem. Now, there is proof that preventing plaque has ZERO IMPACT on patient outcomes. Eliminating plaque deposition doesn't improve the quality of life. It doesn't appear to have any beneficial impact at all... but, given the new knowledge, if it has an impact, it will be likely to be shown to disrupt the natural body response to the problems, and might make things worse, by making more of the toxic forms of beta amyloid and its intermediaries available... enabling them to do more damage.
Still, the PRIMARY issue here isn't that they've not shown any evidence to contradict the recent scientific awareness that beta amyloid plaque isn't the right target...
Instead, the primary issue HERE is that they've tied themselves in to death spiral type financing...
That they've not been direct, or even forthcoming, in addressing the forward looking issues tied to changed scientific awareness of the FACT that beta amyloid is "the wrong target"... probably tells you the rest of what you need to know.
JMHO
.JPG)
AI
.JPG)
