That failure rate relates to the efficacy of drugs developed for Alzheimers over the past decade (Source). Please go back and read that again.
99.6 percent failure rate (in case you didn't go back). In baseball terms, that's batting .004. Ahem…"you're out".
I've seen this failure up close and personally in my dad dealing with his Parkinson's, which is not the same as Alzheimer's, of course, but has the relation of being understood (?) as a neurological condition. Parkinson's was often referred to as a "wedge disease" back in 2004 because people felt if they could find a cure for it (and many people we spoke to sounded very optimistic back then), then it would serve as a wedge into our understanding of the brain. The accrued knowledge, the argument went, could be used to help understand and cure other neurological ailments.
My dad has been told by his doctors at Kaiser Permanente, undoubtedly skilled, learned and thoughtful as they are, that his only choices for treatment at this point are more medications and surgery (though he was ruled out as a candidate for deep-brain stimulation - not that he would have elected to have it as he abhors the thought of a drill to his skull. Weird dude, eh?). What is the effect of that information on a patient? For my dad, it was depression and a loss of hope. What is one supposed to do if the people they trust the most, who supposedly know the most about their condition, tell them "there's nothing more we can do"?
This brings me back to my question: what do we, as a species, really know in matters of the brain? One of the most frustrating quotes I ever heard in this regard was from my dad's first neurologist, a man named Dr. Kevin Sawchuk. He told my dad, "We may not know everything about Parkinson's, but we know a lot". The logical fallacy there is stifling. To put a fine point on it in case I'm being obtuse, how can one claim to know any quantifiable amount of a thing if he admits he doesn't know it all? You must know the value of X in order to determine a percentage of X. Dr. Sawchuk also told my dad he could be in a wheelchair in six months or thirty years. On a funnier note, my dad has the stated goal of doing an Irish Jig on Dr. Sawchuk's desk to prove him wrong (I'll be sure to roll video on that).
Thankfully, by many accounts I've read recently (a few links here and here), many more humble people seem to agree we're just scratching the surface of the grey area. We don't know what harm or benefit we're doing to this most vital and brilliant organ with our fast-paced modern society, reliance on technology and increasing toxic levels in our environment. All of this fits within the mantra of not treating the symptom, but rather the patient. And when you talk about treating the patient, the environment that patient lives in, the relationships he has and the behavior he engages in all factor in.
All of this is not just to throw a lot material at the wall for the sake of making noise. Rather, it's to engage in and encourage the possibility of looking at and respecting all of the factors that go into our health, particularly when we look for something as complex as a cure for something that effects something as brilliant as our brain. How can we not when top scientists are returning with 99.6 percent failure rates?
My diagnosis? Keep swinging - just allow a few different-minded people to the plate for a few cuts.
The Boys of Summer roll along, but we need your help to complete this year's journey. Please see our site for the latest on how to contribute. Thank you!
No comments:
Post a Comment