Wow! What a great and genuine answer, NF52.
As for the methylcobalamin, it looks like it is a vitamin. I quickly tried to find some papers on it but it looks like that will be a longer effort. I am writing a sort of book to hold all my findings, partly because otherwise I will forget I ever looked it up.
Regarding trials, I think they are good ideas too. But they take a long time, and I do not have that much time. Good for you for volunteering though.
Most e4/e4 homozygotes get beta-amyloid, well before they get any obvious dementia (Prevalence of cerebral amyloid pathology in persons without dementia: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2015). I don’t think we can stop it, in fact. But there is at least one more step before neurons die. And beta amyloid may have nothing to do with any of it. I don’t know, because nobody knows.
As for jobs info, that sounds like a sample-bias thing to me: the ones that can keep their hard jobs are the ones that are not declining a lot. Anyway, I had a very tough job, and even had papers published and patents; but I knew I was slipping. I do keep working, as best I can though, so if there is any truth to that, I hope to benefit.
Regarding the tramiprosate, that definitely caught my eye. Tramiprosate is called homotaurine in Europe and Canada. The tramiprosate adds a buffer, to make it go down easier in the tummy, which I think confers patent rights. Anyway, I order the homotaurine from Europe and take 300 mg a day. It gives me a little heartburn, nothing much. I am super impressed you found the same study. By the way, this is presumed to work by stopping beta-amyloid, which runs against my opinion that beta-amyloid does not kill neurons. They might be wrong; anyway, I am not a purist. If any one asks about it, I will name the website I order from and give some more details.
Since you seem to be after the same thing I am, living longer, keeping my mind longer, let me describe at least two other theories where the evidence has gotten my attention. One regards avoiding herpes, all forms, but the most common is oral. This just requires taking suppression dosage, which is not dangerous. I can site papers of course, but won’t bore you unless someone asks. The second is a little more dangerous (but not typically very dangerous), and illegal in the U.S. I don’t know what the norms are on the site, but I don’t want to violate them.
By the way, I think it would be pretty simple to do our own study of the statins’ effectiveness. Plenty of people take statins anyway, and joined with genetic info which everyone on this website has, we could probably settle once and for all if it works - in a year or two. I don’t think that statistics really needs to be studied. It’s mostly common sense. You want two or more groups that are pretty much the same, except for one variable. And then you hope that variable really changes their outcomes of this or that a lot. Thus, you want, for instance, to see that a hundred or more e4/e4 homozygotes taking sizable doses of atorvastatin keep their cognition a lot longer than a hundred or so that do not take statins. Not that I do not want well for everybody, but science must be cruel to be kind. The biggest problem I find is that the group studied, for instance, workers, might already be “biased” toward an outcome (continuing intellect). So maybe the work does not help them: it just selects them. I have a lot of experience sniffing out potential screw-ups. I don’t think taking a class can replace experience and a suspicion. I work with new PhDs who have just been studying this stuff, and they make all sorts of mistakes. I just look for it: it’s a habit now.