circ, you know, I don't think we pushed the AD research funding message enough.
When the AD community went to the government for funding, legislators probably said:
"Well, with cancer we declared war and funded it a billion a year, and after half a century and perhaps a half trillion dollars we aren't that much closer to the cure. We can't get in another unwinnable battle, so we're not even in for dollar 1 for Alzheimer's."
The problem with this thinking is that Alzheimer's is NOT cancer.
There is no identified resistance in AD.
Without a mechanism of resistance, illnesses should not be expected to be close to invincible.
In an illness such as Alzheimer's, one would expect that once any treatment effect could be shown, then it should be possible to amplify the effect. After an initial response, no resistance would occur, and thus an unopposed victory is not improbable.
If this line of thought proves true, then AD funding would be seen as one of the wisest investments of public dollars ever! At current funding levels there is almost 100 times greater treatment costs than research investment. If the existing research knowledge base were to be sufficient to push us over the top, then the investment returns for the research dollars would be enormous. If politicians begin to realize this is happening they might pile on more dollars because they would then be perceived as having solved the problem through their actions. It is possible that this reasoning is already driving AD budgets. Of course, the great part of all of this is that there would be an end point in which the budgets could be wound down. Greater than 100 to 1 return on investment over the short term! Not bad. Given this logic, the near term funding trend is up. The Yeas have it.
As the figure in the below url shows, we have only moved above $1 billion annual funding for the last 2 years and there are already
near term treatments with substantial potential: taurx, gum bacteria, Plasmapheresis, etc.. https://alz.org/alzheimers-dementia/res ... commitment
If AD can lead the way to demonstrate that illness can be a fiscally attractive government investment, then other non-resistant type illnesses could join the line for a similar funding round.