I am new to this forum, and recently finished reading the book "The End of Alzheimers....". I find this work very interesting, and applaud the researchers for their new, multi-component approach to the prevention and treatment of Alzheimer's. Personally, I am a 62 year old male with a 4/4 APOE. I have no apparent cognitive decline up to this point (knock on wood!). I do have some thoughts on this research and the RECODE protocol, however, and wonder if anyone else in this group may also want weigh in.
What caught my attention more than anything else in the book was the fact that persons who were benefiting from RECODE and subsequently interrupted the protocol, even briefly, very abruptly began a regression to their previously impaired state. I find this worrisome with regard to the overall cellular models for improvement that the author proposes (I note that this issue is briefly addressed later in the book). It seems implausible to me that if the neuronal death/life cycle is being reversed by RECODE, including the reduction of AB and the formation of "new connections" within the brain, such a rapid regression back to cognitive impairment when the protocol is interrupted simply should not happen so quickly. Even if the protocol interruption does indeed result in a subsequent return to the formation of the negative neuronal death cycle, why should this occur so quickly?
If the cognitive regression after RECODE interruption is due to a sudden increase in AB, shouldn't this be easily detected by retinal/PET scans? Has anyone actually tested this?
Is it possible that RECODE does not actually result in the formation of new neuron growth or connections, but instead simply slows/halts the disease progression and possibly helps enhance the functioning of existing neurons without actually expanding their population or functionality? This may help explain why regression upon protocol interruption occurs so rapidly.
Some published research indicates that APOE 4/4 results in slower, possibly much slower, nerve and nerve related growth throughout the body. Might it be that very long, multi-year (or decade), RECODE protocols are needed to truly see permanent, positive changes in neuron growth or connectivity?
Overall, the research in the book seems logical and sensible to me even though some questions remain. I will be one of those persons slowly working my way into the protocol over the next few months. The RECODE protocol seems to have an increasingly impressive catalog of anecdotal evidence supporting it. If RECODE can survive an actual double blind clinical trial, it may ultimately become the basis, or starting point for research into means for further improvement, including permanently halting or reversing the disease. I look forward to the upcoming clinical trails.