I was thrilled to hear all of this and mentioned Dr. Bredesen, his work, my dedication, my happiness, my improvements related to the Bredesen Protocol. Dr. Lin acknowledged Dr. Bredesen, mentioned how Dr. Bredesen is a respected research doctor. Dr. Lin then printed a paper for me on the topic of pseudoscience in the field of medical research.
First, congratulations on all of your improvements, PRESCOTT. FWIW, the Alzheimer's Prevention Clinic at Weil Cornell is well aware of Dr. Bredesen's work and actually has testing to prove it's efficacy. I know a patient
who sought services there and was turned down because her cognition (per their own neuropsych testing) was so bad that she didn't qualify for prevention. Out of desperation, she applied Dr. Bredesen's protocol on her own and ultimately experienced a complete reversal of symptoms. She went back to be re-tested. Sure enough, the cognitive decline was gone. The physician that she saw (not Isaacson) then wanted to remove each of the strategies she had applied one by one to pinpoint the "monotherapy" that helped her. Instinctively, she knew that wasn't a good idea. She refused and hasn't returned. I suspect that mainstream clinicians are threatened by Dr. Bredesen's success; hence the JAMA pseudoscience opinion piece. It's very sad to me that clinicians and researchers are squabbling amongst themselves to maintain control (whether their motive is tenure, grants, profit, ego etc) when it's abundantly clear than mainstream medicine currently has nothing
to offer. True scientists would at least be curious about Dr. Bredesen's approach rather than simply labelling him a charlatan. Thank you for sharing your story PRESCOTT. I remain hopeful that those in the Alzheimer's community will begin working together for the greater good of the patient, but I suspect that we, as activists, need to demand it, much like the AIDS activists in the 80s.